The Israeli military said on Monday night that it killed Islamic Jihad’s commander in Lebanon, describing the operation as a major blow to the Iran-backed terrorist group’s capabilities. Israel struck multiple targets in Lebanon after Hezbollah launched rockets into Israel in support of Iran.
Uncategorized
Iran Exposed the Myth of Independent Journalistic Access
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks during a meeting in Tehran, Iran, Jan. 17, 2026. Photo: Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
In October 2025, an opinion piece published in Iran International cited a telling remark by British broadcaster Jon Snow about his reporting from Tehran. When asked how his network, Channel 4, managed to secure access to Iranian officials, he said simply, “They whistle, and we go.”
That seemingly innocuous line was jumped on by journalists and critics because it revealed something about the way Western media covers authoritarian states like Iran. It was a rare moment of honesty but also representative of a deeper issue in Western journalism and a reminder that when dealing with tyrants, access is not the same thing as truth.
Access as Control: How Authoritarian Power Shapes Reporting
Snow’s comment should make anyone who cares about reporting from conflict zones or closed societies sit up and take note. The problem is not just that some correspondents end up parroting the messaging of the regimes they cover. The bigger problem is that the structure of modern foreign reporting rewards access above all else. If you have a visa, if you have a fixer approved by the intelligence services, if the state can decide where you go and who you interview, then you are in. If you challenge the narrative you are shown, you risk losing that access. The idea is simple: stay onside with power and you stay in the country; challenge power and you are out. This is a kind of press freedom in name only.
This dynamic is not unique to Iran, though the Iranian case makes the point with shocking clarity. To report from Iran, Western journalists must operate under state supervision. Their fixers are often regime-approved minders who decide which families they can meet, which streets they can visit, and what stories they can tell. The price of defiance is expulsion. Most choose to stay, and so they comply. The result is journalism that reports through the regime’s lens. In this case, the coverage mirrors Tehran’s narrative while ignoring its contradictions or its crimes.
The Iran International article highlighted how this kind of reporting perpetuates the illusion that “moderates” or “reformists” within the clerical regime are always on the brink of pursuing a more friendly policy toward the West, if only Washington and its partners would be more conciliatory.
But they are the only ones able to meet with foreign press, for a reason.
It must be acknowledged how easy it is, due to simple language barriers, for a regime like Iran to tell the West one thing, through these hyper-managed interviews, and to tell their allies or their own people something entirely different. In Iran, a younger, connected, defiant secular generation is fighting for their lives against a religious dictatorship.
Stories about women walking unveiled in defiance of the compulsory hijab law are rarely told with the depth and persistence they deserve, even though they represent one of the most sustained grassroots challenges to the Islamic Republic.
When Gatekeepers Become Storytellers
This tension between access and truth is not a quirk of reporting on Iran. It applies across many of the most important conflict zones of our time.
Look at how journalists cover the Palestinian territories. To report from the West Bank or Gaza, you need permission from the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, or the relevant security forces. If you want to talk to armed groups such as Hamas or Islamic Jihad, you must do so through intermediaries, and translators, and with the blessing of those groups.
The consequence is that journalists become dependent on these authorities to open doors for them. That dependency shapes the story. The authorities are the gatekeepers and the journalists end up telling the story they want told rather than the story that needs to be heard.
The same dynamic is evident in southern Lebanon.
In 2006, Nic Robertson of CNN spoke about his experience covering the conflict in Lebanon and how Hezbollah “had control of the situation.” That level of control creates an environment where reporters must negotiate and constantly accommodate the group’s conditions for reporting, if they want to stay in the country and file their stories. That negotiation inevitably affects the substance of the reporting. Some stories that might make those groups uncomfortable never get told. The result is a version of events curated by those terrorists themselves.
When a regime-backed organization can quietly move money, people, and logistics through cartel routes, the southern border stops being a political debate and becomes a national security vulnerability.
The Iranian regime’s threat to the U.S. doesn’t just rely on missiles. It… pic.twitter.com/kHU8OwX76Q
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) January 16, 2026
The Cost of Choosing Access Over Truth
And that brings us to the central problem. Journalists who operate under these conditions face a stark choice: they can stay close to power and preserve access, or they can push harder for truth and risk being shut out. Many choose to stay. That choice is understandable on a personal level. Journalists want to be where the action is. They want to file video and cables from the front lines. They want their editors to see them as intrepid and essential. But when access is the primary measure of success, it distorts what journalism is supposed to do. Journalism is supposed to challenge power, not accommodate it. It is supposed to expose abuses and amplify voices that might otherwise go unheard. But when access is controlled by those in power, journalism can become an unintentional arm of propaganda.
This dynamic matters beyond public opinion, but also politically, as leaders in Western capitals still rely on the press to gauge what is happening inside these societies. When the media misreads a country, so do the governments that read the media. Western policy on Iran for decades has been shaped by reporting that overemphasized factionalism and the potential for internal reform, even as the reality on the ground showed a population oppressed by the clerical establishment. That disconnect between media portrayal and lived reality has consequences for diplomacy and strategy.
Some journalists have tried to break free from this dynamic. But journalists who take that approach often find it difficult to return. They may be denied visas or locked out of future assignments. That is part of the price of choosing truth over access.
This issue does not mean that journalists should never go to places like Iran, Gaza, the West Bank, or southern Lebanon. On the contrary, those places deserve reporting. But it does mean rethinking how that reporting is done and how it is viewed and understood. Journalists must be willing to acknowledge the limitations of access, to report on what they are not shown, and to seek out voices beyond those sanctioned by power. We need journalism that recognizes the structural pressures that shape reporting and ultimately pushes back against them.
If and when journalists do eventually get deeper access to places like Gaza, they will face the same issues. Access will be contingent. Permission will be dependent on staying within certain lines. Journalists will need to think clearly about the ethical and professional implications of those conditions. Should they accept them in order to be able to say that they were there? Or should they insist on the freedom to report what they see and hear without being steered by those who have an interest in shaping the narrative? That is a question every correspondent must answer for themselves.
Ultimately, the lesson of Jon Snow’s offhand comment about reporting in Iran should not be boiled down to a joke or a sound bite. It should be a warning. Journalism that prioritizes access over truth fails its audience. It confuses permission for credibility. It allows power to define the terms of reporting instead of letting reality speak for itself. If we want journalism that truly informs and challenges the powerful, then we need to demand more of the reporters in the field and more of the editors who send them there. We need journalism that listens to the streets and not just to those pulling the strings.
Founder of the modern Jewish Pride movement, Ben M. Freeman is the author of Jewish Pride: Rebuilding a People (2021), Reclaiming our Story: The Pursuit of Jewish Pride (2022), and The Jews: An Indigenous People (2025). Educating, inspiring and empowering, his work focuses on Jewish identity and historical and contemporary Jew-hatred. A Holocaust scholar for over 15 years, Ben came to prominence during the Corbyn Labour Jew-hate crisis in the UK and quickly became one of his generation’s leading Jewish thinkers and voices against Jew-hate.
This article was originally published by HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
Continue Reading
Uncategorized
The cafe as a refuge of Jewish culture
די ייִדישע ליטעראַטור האָט אַ היפּשע צאָל בולטע אימאַזשן פֿון קאַפֿע־הײַזער: מנחם–מענדלס שילדערונג פֿון „קאַפֿע פֿאַנקאָני‟ אין אָדעס; די ניו־יאָרקער „קיביזאַרנע‟ און „קאַפֿע–ראָיאַל‟ אױפֿן איסט–סײַד.
אָפֿט לײענט מען די דאָזיקע באַשרײַבונגען װי טשיקאַװע עפּיזאָדן, אָבער אין דער אמתן איז דאָס קאַװע־הױז געװען אַ װיכטיקע קולטורעלע אינסטיטוציע, בפֿרט ערבֿ דער צװײטער װעלט־מלחמה. דאָס בוך פֿון פּראָפֿעסאָר שחר פּינסקער, ”A Rich Brew“ [אַ גוט געקאָכטע קאַווע] האָט אַן אַמביציעזן אונטערקעפּל: „װי אַזױ די קאַפֿע־הײַזער האָבן געשאַפֿן די מאָדערנע ייִדישע קולטור‟. װען מען לײענט איבער דעם װאָגיקן באַנד זעט מען בפֿירוש, אַז די קאַפֿע־הײַזער אין אײראָפּע, אַמעריקע און ארץ־ישׂראל זײַנען געװען זײער אַ פּראָדוקטיװ אָרט, װוּ מען האָט געשריבן, געלײענט, געשמועסט און אַ סך זיך געאַמפּערט װעגן דער מאָדערנער ייִדישער קולטור.
די ליבע־געשיכטע צװישן ייִדן און קאַפֿע־הײַזער הײבט זיך אָן אין בערלין אינעם אַכצנטן יאָרהונדערט. „דאָס געלערנטע קאַפֿע־הױז‟ איז געװען אַ נײַער לאָקאַל, װוּ די בערלינער אינטעליגענץ האָט זיך געקאָנט טרעפֿן, לײענען צײַטונגען, שפּילן שאַך און שמועסן. צװישן די אַרײַנגײער אין דעם קאַפֿע־הױז איז געװען משה מענדלסאָן, דער „פֿאָטער‟ פֿון דער בערלינער השׂכּלה. קאַװע איז געװען כּשר און דאָס קאַפֿע־הױז האָט ניט געהאַט קײן קריסטלעכן טעם. דװקא דאָ האָט מענדלסאָן פֿאַרטראַכט זײַנע פּובליקאַציעס, װאָס זײַנען געװאָרן די בימה פֿאַר זײַנע משׂכּילישע אידעען.
די בלי־תּקופֿה פֿון ייִדישע קאַפֿעען האָט געדױערט פֿון סוף-19טן יאָרהונדערט ביזן חורבן. פּינסקער פֿירט דעם לײענער אױף אַ רײַזע איבער די װיכטיקסטע צענטערס פֿון דער מאָדערנער ייִדישער קולטור: אָדעס, װאַרשע, װין, בערלין, ניו–יאָרק און תּל־אָבֿיבֿ. ער האָט באַאַרבעט אַ ריזיקן מאַטעריאַל פֿון פֿאַרשידנאַרטיקע מקורים און אים מגולגל געװען אין אַ פֿאַרכאַפּנדיקער לעקטור. דאָס דאָזיקע בוך װעט זײַן סײַ ניצלעך פֿאַר די פּראָפֿעסיאָנעלע פֿאָרשער פֿון ייִדישער און העברעיִשער קולטור און ליטעראַטור, סײַ אינטערעסאַנט פֿאַרן ברײטן עולם.
דער װאַרשעװער „פֿאַראײן פֿון ייִדישע ליטעראַטן און זשורנאַליסטן‟ אױף טלאָמאַצקע 13 איז געװען דער סאַמע באַרימטסטער ייִדישער ליטעראַרישער קלוב, באַשריבן אין צענדליקער זכרונות און בעלעטריסטישע װערק. אָבער דאָס איז ניט געװען דאָס ערשטע ייִדישע קאַפֿע־הױז אין װאַרשע. קאַפֿעען זײַנען געװאָרן פּאָפּולער אינעם אָנהײב צװאַנציקסטן יאָרהונדערט, װען װאַרשע איז געװאָרן אַ מאַגנעט פֿאַר אָרעמע יונגע אינטעליגענטן, און בפֿרט ליטװאַקעס. אײניקע פֿון זײ האָבן געחלומט װעגן אַ ליטעראַרישער קאַריערע אױף ייִדיש אָדער העברעיִש. זײ האָבן זיך געפֿילט הײמיש בײַ יחזקאל קאָטיקן, דעם מחבר פֿון באַרימטע זכרונות װעגן דעם ייִדישן לעבן אין רוסלאַנד אינעם נײַצנטן יאָרהונדערט. מען פֿלעגט דאָ זיצן שעהען לאַנג און לײענען צײַטונגען, שמועסן װעגן ליטעראַטור און פּאָליטיק און אַפֿילו פֿירן געשעפֿטן. דערצו נאָך זײַנען די קאַפֿע–הײַזער װינטערצײַט געװען װאַרעם, װאָס איז אױך געװען װיכטיק פֿאַר די אָרעמע באַזוכער.
אָן װאַרשעװער קאַפֿעען, און על–אחת–כּמה–וכמה אָן דעם שרײַבערקלוב אױף טלאָמאַצקע 13, װאָלט די ייִדישע ליטעראַטור אַװדאי געװען אָרעמער און שיטערער. פּינסקערס בוך איז װי אַ מין ייִדישע ליטעראַטור־געשיכטע, װאָס באַטראַכט די טעמע פֿונעם שטאַנדפּונקט פֿון קאַפֿע־טישן. די װאַרשעװער קאַפֿעען זײַנען געװען װיכטיק ניט נאָר פֿאַר „ייִדישע‟ ייִדן, נאָר אױך פֿאַר אַזעלכע, װאָס האָבן געשריבן אױף פּױליש, װי יוליאַן טובֿים אָדער אַנטאָני סלאָנימסקי.
דער עפּילאָג פֿון דער װאַרשעװער ייִדישער קאַפֿע־קולטור האָט זיך אױסגעשפּילט אינעם געטאָ, װוּ עס זײַנען אױך געװען עטלעכע קאַפֿעען: „דער געטאָ־קאַפֿע איז אַ קאָמפּליצירטער אָרט פֿון קאָלאַבאָראַציע, קולטורעלן לעבן, קאָמערץ און עליטיזם,‟ שליסט פּינסקער זײַן קאַפּיטל װעגן װאַרשע.
אין װין און בערלין זײַנען געצײלטע קאַפֿעען געװאָרן אַ מקום־מקלט פֿאַר ייִדישע אימיגראַנטן און פּליטים, װאָס זײַנען לרובֿ געקומען נאָך דער ערשטער װעלט־מלחמה. די דאָזיקע דײַטשיש–רעדנדיקע הױפּטשטעט האָבן צו יענער צײַט שױן געהאַט פֿאַרמאָגט אַ רײַכע קולטור פֿון ליטעראַרישע און קינסטלערישע קאַפֿעען. בײַ אַ סך ייִדישע ליטעראַטן זײַנען די קאַפֿעען געװאָרן „סטאַנציעס אױף דעם טראַנס־נאַציאָנאַלן זײַדן־װעג‟ פֿון עמיגראַציע, װאָס האָט זײ סוף־כּל–סוף געבראַכט קײן אַמעריקע אָדער ישׂראל. דערבײַ האָבן זײ מיטגעבראַכט שטיקלעך פֿון דער דאָזיקער קולטור מעבֿר־לים, קײן ניו־יאָרק און תּל־אָבֿיבֿ. די ניו־יאָרקער קאַפֿעען װערן געשילדערט אין דער אַמעריקאַנער ייִדישער ליטעראַטור, װי למשל „שלומס קאַפֿע‟ אין דוד איגנאַטאָװס ראָמאַן „אין קעסלגרוב‟. איגנאַטאָװ שילדערט דעם דאָזיקן לאָקאַל װי אַן „אָרט פֿון קאָנפֿראָנטאַציע צװישן פֿאַרשידענע השׂגות װעגן דער ייִדישער ליטעראַטור‟. ניט װײניק הײסע סיכסוכים האָט מען דאָ געפֿירט אױך װעגן דער ראַדיקאַלער פּאָליטיק.
צום שלוס שרײַבט פּינסקער: „די שטאָטישע קאַפֿעען האָבן געדינט ניט נאָר װי צענטערס פֿון מיגראַנטישע קולטורעלע נעצװערק, אָבער אױך װי אַ מקום–מקלט פֿאַר הײמלאָזע מענטשן, פֿאַר קאָסמאָפּאָליטישער פֿילשפּראַכיקײט, װאָס איז געװען אין געפֿאַר פֿון צעשטערונג מצד די נאַציאָנאַליסטישע אידעאָלאָגיעס.‟ אָבער הײַנט, איז פּינסקער משער, שפּילן די קאַפֿען מער נישט אַזאַ חשובֿע קולטורעלע ראָלע. „פֿײסבוק‟ און אַנדערע װירטועלע לאָקאַלן האָבן איצט פֿאַרנומען זײער אָרט.
The post The cafe as a refuge of Jewish culture appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Iran Loses Contact With Palestinian Terror Proxies Amid US-Israel Strikes: Report
Smoke rises following an explosion, after Israel and the US launched strikes on Iran, in Tehran, Iran, March 3, 2026. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
The Israeli-American offensive targeting Iran’s military and security apparatus has led to a loss of communications between the Iranian regime and its Palestinian terrorist proxies, according to a new report.
Palestinian factions both in and outside of Gaza, especially Hamas and Islamic Jihad, have lost contact with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) since the US and Israel began launching large-scale strikes against Iran this past weekend, the Arabic newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat reported on Tuesday.
It remains unclear whether the IRGC officials responsible for dealing with the Palestinian terrorist groups were killed in the strikes or are operating with special safety measures. However, sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that the Iranian commanders conveyed messages in different ways during last June’s 12-day war with Israel, indicating a disruption in reliable communication channels during the current conflict.
The US and Israel have killed dozens of top Iranian officials over the past few days of military action.
“Normally, messages are transmitted in encrypted ways, either electronically or in other ways. Since the beginning of this war, no messages have been received,” the Palestinian sources said.
Iran has long supported and expanded its regional network by providing financial and military assistance to its terrorist proxy groups, including the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, and Hezbollah in Lebanon, among others.
Palestinian factions — particularly Palestinian Islamic Jihad and smaller groups — have been facing a severe financial crisis for months amid a sharp decline in Iranian support, as Tehran grapples with mounting international sanctions and domestic crises that have constrained its ability to sustain funding, arming, and training for its terrorist networks.
Even prior to the Israeli-American strikes, Palestinian sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that they feared “the collapse of the Iranian regime, which would mean the end of support without return.”
The consequences are expected to be significant but less severe for Hamas, which has been ramping up efforts to rebuild its military capabilities and maintain tight control inside the Gaza Strip through a brutal crackdown on internal opposition, reflecting its broader network of support compared with Islamic Jihad and other smaller factions that remain heavily dependent on Iranian backing.
Uncategorized
Support for Israel, Trump Gaza Peace Plan Remains High Among US Voters, New Poll Finds
Pro-Israel rally in Times Square, New York City, US, Oct. 8, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Jeenah Moon
A new national survey suggests that American support for Israel remains resilient overall but with notable generational divides that could shape the future political landscape.
According to the February 2026 Harvard CAPS / Harris Poll, strong majorities of US registered voters back policies aligned with Israel’s security posture and express approval of President Donald Trump’s handling of the conflict in Gaza. At the same time, the data shows that support for Israel fluctuates significantly depending on age.
Notably, the survey was conducted last week on Wednesday and Thursday, just before the US and Israel launched their military campaign against Iran over the weekend.
Among respondents, 73 percent of voters say they support Trump’s Gaza deal framework. The proposal, aimed at restructuring governance and stabilizing post-war conditions in Gaza, commands bipartisan backing in the poll’s toplines.
The plan calls for the dismantling of Hamas’s military and political control, the establishment of an interim administrative authority backed by regional Arab partners, and a major internationally funded reconstruction effort. Trump has also emphasized expanding normalization between Israel and Arab states, building on the Abraham Accords, as a cornerstone of long-term stability, while maintaining Israel’s security oversight during a transitional period.
Voters appear to prioritize stability and deterrence, responding favorably to an approach framed around preventing Hamas from reasserting control and reinforcing Israel’s long-term security.
The poll shows that a clear majority of Americans continue to side with Israel over Hamas and support Israel’s right to defend itself. However, support levels vary considerably by age group.
Older voters, particularly those over 55, show the strongest pro-Israel sentiment, with large majorities backing Israel’s military actions and expressing sympathy with Israel over the Palestinians. Voters between 35 and 54 also lean pro-Israel, though by narrower margins.
The sharpest contrast appears among younger voters. Americans under 35 remain more divided, with significantly lower levels of sympathy toward Israel and greater skepticism about its military campaign in Gaza. While even in this group Israel retains meaningful support, the margins are slimmer and opposition more vocal.
The generational gap reflects broader cultural and media consumption differences, as well as the impact of campus activism and social media narratives. Yet the topline remains clear: despite softness among younger voters, Israel continues to command majority support nationwide.
Further, strong and stable majorities support Israel over the Hamas terrorist group. According to the survey, 71 percent of Americans support Israel over Hamas. However, support for Israel heavily fractures along age lines. Per the poll, 82 percent of those over 55 years old support Israel, compared to only 62 percent between the ages 35-44. However, a striking 58 percent of those between the ages 18-24 support Hamas over Israel, indicating a groundswell of backing for a foreign terrorist organization among American youth.
In the nearly two-and-a-half years following the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, support for the Jewish state has seen significant declines across political and age lines in the US. Younger Americans, particularly, have largely turned against Israel. The increasingly tense relationship between Israel and US voters has become a flashpoint in Democratic primaries, with liberal political hopefuls increasingly vowing not to accept support from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the preeminent pro-Israel lobbying group in the US.
The February poll was conducted among 1,999 registered voters, with a margin of error of ±2 percentage points.