Connect with us

Uncategorized

ITV’s ‘Breaking Ranks’: The IDF Soldier Documentary That Broke From the Truth

Then-IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi, center, speaking to commanders and soldiers in the Golan Heights on Dec. 13, 2024. Photo: IDF.

A new documentary airing on ITV, Breaking Ranks: Inside Israel’s War, claims to be “the story of the war in Gaza told by the soldiers who fought it.”

An insider account of war sounds promising, especially amid the flood of misinformation online from people who were never on the ground as IDF soldiers and have no experience of the reality of fighting a terrorist organization.

Yet, of all the thousands of soldiers, both in mandatory service and reserve duty, the documentary presents a carefully selected handful of soldiers to tell the story of what they believe really happened in Gaza.

But the story they tell distorts — if not entirely omits — key facts. The film overlooks the reality of what it means to fight a terrorist organization driven by an ideology of extermination, one that deliberately embeds itself among civilians to wage war from within their communities.

That didn’t stop other media outlets from jumping on allegations of war crimes, with outlets such as The Guardian and Independent publishing pieces based on the documentary’s conclusions. That the Tehran Times gleefully pounced on it as well tells a story in itself.

The War Against Hamas

While the film does spend a few minutes showcasing the horrific tragedies of the October 7, 2023, massacre led by Hamas, it quickly shifts its focus to alleged atrocities committed by the IDF in the aftermath.

From the very beginning, the IDF made it explicitly clear that the war was against terrorist organizations only – there was no deliberate targeting of innocent civilians in Gaza. The IDF has maintained this throughout the war, taking every measure possible to warn the civilian population of any potential danger, including sending leaflets before a targeted strike and creating civilian zones to ensure the safety of non-combatants.

The complexity of fighting a terrorist organization is largely overlooked throughout the film. At one point, the use of force in Gaza is called “unprecedented in combat in terms of the number of explosives dropped per square mile,” making it out to be worse than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What it fails to acknowledge is that Israel precisely targets terrorists and terrorist infrastructure.

Of course, for the documentary to accurately acknowledge the terrorist infrastructure in Gaza, it would have to spend a considerable amount of time discussing the vast tunnel network Hamas has built beneath the entirety of the Gaza Strip. However, this undeniable fact gets quickly glossed over. The filmmakers suggest the tunnels are merely used for “smuggling, warfare, and to avoid Israeli airstrikes.”

This framing subtly shifts blame onto Israel, as if Hamas’s need to “avoid” the Israeli air force is a defensive response rather than a deliberate strategy to wage war from beneath civilian areas. Terrorism? The inhumane holding and torture of hostages in clear violation of every facet of humanitarian law? Entirely unmentioned.

Breaking the Silence

The omission of the true purpose of the tunnels instead becomes spun into a claim based on hearsay that the IDF uses human shields in Gaza. Despite the IDF’s unequivocal denial of such allegations, this assertion is amplified by the interviewees.

However, this should come as no surprise, as one of the interviewees, under the name “Yaakov,” has previously espoused this claim to the New York Times via Breaking the Silence. This highly politicized Israeli organization spends less of its time trying to convince the Israeli public of its case and more on providing the foreign media with fodder to attack Israel.

While the organization seeks to “expose the public to the reality of everyday life in the Occupied Territories,” in reality, it relies on unverified and exaggerated claims provided by IDF soldiers, some of whom receive a paycheck from the organization and therefore may very well have ulterior motives.

“Yaakov” shared photos he took during his time in reserve duty in Gaza, including one now infamous photo that was previously shared in his New York Times article. The photo is said to display civilians who are used as human shields by the IDF when exploring the tunnel network. But the blurry and contextless image offers no evidence whatsoever to support such a serious accusation.

The credits of the documentary give special “thanks” to “Yaakov” from Breaking the Silence, revealing a clear bias in its sources in order to frame a specific narrative about the IDF as a whole. Instead of drawing on a range of credible voices – including a wide array of active-duty soldiers, independent analysts, and military experts – they elevate a figure tied to a controversial advocacy group with a record of misrepresentation.

Amplifying Non-Neutral Voices

“Yaakov” from Breaking the Silence is not the only biased source. Dr. Itamar Mann, a professor of international law at Haifa University, for instance, gives highly critical commentary on the IDF’s actions.

Dr. Mann is listed as an author and legal consultant on a report by Physicians for Human Rights (Israel), claiming there is genocide in Gaza. The organization has been known to spread false, distorted narratives as a way of delegitimizing Israel. In fact, in the immediate aftermath of October 7, the organization stated that it is our “human obligation to contextualize yesterday’s violence.

The documentary also brings in Amjad al-Shara, the director of the Palestinian NGO Network (PNGO), who refers to the IDF as the “occupation forces,” and is himself described as a “pro-Hamas” figure. PNGO has in the past supported terrorism and hosted conferences or speakers connected to the PFLP.

False Casualty Statistics and Disproved Claims

With the poor sourcing and reliance on problematic organizations, it is no surprise that the documentary also fell into the trap of repeating already thoroughly debunked claims about casualty statistics, genocide, and famine in Gaza.

At one point, the film refers to a previously debunked statistic from a so-called study by The Guardian and +972 Magazine, which claims that 83% of all casualties in Gaza are women and children. This figure is based on data from the Hamas-run Ministry of Health, creating a misleading comparison to the IDF’s confirmed count of 8,900 identified terrorists. By subtracting that number from Hamas’ unverifiable total of 53,000 casualties at the time, these outlets and the documentary falsely present the remaining 83% of casualties as civilians, echoing Hamas propaganda.

Naturally, given the bias of the documentary, the claims of genocide and famine are also leveled against Israel. Even though the definitions of both terms have been distorted in order to accuse Israel of such atrocities, the film presents these allegations as fact, rather than propaganda.

For a documentary to do its job and remain neutral on such serious allegations, the contrary evidence must be presented, but throughout the documentary, this was deliberately avoided.

War, especially against a terrorist organization that operates using guerrilla tactics, presents immensely challenging scenarios. In the fog of war, mistakes and errors of judgment can and do happen. But it is also true that the IDF has consistently held its soldiers to the highest of standards, investigating any wrongdoing as it occurs.

It would be naive to suggest that every soldier in the IDF or any other comparable army behaves in an exemplary fashion. In September 2024, The New Yorker published a database of what it said is the “largest known collection of investigations of possible war crimes committed [by the US military] in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11—nearly eight hundred incidents in all.”

Some of the alleged crimes include “the case of soldiers raping a fourteen-year-old girl and subsequently murdering her and her family; the alleged killing of a man by a Green Beret who cut off his victim’s ear and kept it; and cruelty toward detainees at Abu Ghraib prison and at the Bagram Air Base detention facility.”

All of this is not to claim that the IDF is necessarily more moral than the American military, although there is certainly a good case to be made. The point is that nobody would condemn the entirety of the U.S. Army as an immoral entity that brings shame to its country despite the behavior of a minority of its troops.

And ultimately, ITV’s documentary relies on a tiny number of Israeli soldiers as “eyewitnesses,” most of whom appear to have a political agenda backed by Breaking the Silence.

Rather than offering an honest insight into the complexities of modern warfare against a terrorist organization, the filmmakers chose a simplified, one-sided narrative of Israel’s supposed aggression. In doing so, ITV’s Breaking Ranks fails the very test it set for itself: to tell the story of the war “through the soldiers who fought it.” Instead, it tells a story already written — one shaped by bias, omission, and a refusal to confront the full truth.

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.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

With anti-Arab campaign ad, Netanyahu stoops to new moral and political lows

Israeli election campaigns have often been ugly. They have featured exaggeration, fearmongering and outright deception. But even by those standards, the first major campaign advertisement by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party, posted on Netanyahu’s X account on Tuesday, managed to shock much of the country.

The AI-generated video depicts former military chief Gadi Eisenkot, who has become the standard-bearer for the opposition, walking through a sunlit field toward a young Jewish man before passing him by to embrace Mansour Abbas of Ra’am, the United Arab List, instead.

The young man looks strikingly like Eisenkot’s son, Gal, who was killed fighting in Gaza in late 2023 — although Likud insists he isn’t meant to. Strictly speaking, there is enough difference to sustain the protestations. The young man has longer, wavier hair than Gal Eisenkot did — just enough, perhaps, to preserve plausible deniability. Yet almost everyone I know believed they were watching a father joyfully approaching his slain son, seemingly restored to life, only to ignore him in favor of an Arab political leader at a time when Arab political participation in Israel is particularly contentious.

The only possible explanation: Likud wants their campaign to be as mean as possible. Or perhaps that they believe that anything that creates a buzz — and therefore distracts from the governing coalition’s disastrous and controversial policies, including a wildly unpopular recent legislative blitz — is a good thing.

And buzz there is. The perception that a father’s personal loss had been weaponized for electoral gain struck many as a line that simply should not be crossed. “This is Netanyahu, and this is his machine of incitement”, wrote Einav Zangauker, whose son was held hostage in Gaza by Hamas, on social media. “This isn’t politics,” Zangauker added, but rather “an attack on a bereaved father and an assault on his dignity. It is the lowest of the low.”

“I turn to elected representatives, activists, and all candidates from all parties, and demand that you do not cross red lines. Do not turn rivals into enemies,” Israeli President Isaac Herzog said. “I call on the people of Israel, in a clear voice: Remember that elections are not a civil war.”

But even if one puts aside the controversy surrounding the young man altogether, the advertisement remains deeply troubling. It is, at its core, an exercise in incitement against Ra’am — and, by extension, against the very idea that Arab citizens may legitimately participate in governing Israel.

Abbas himself accused Netanyahu of “trying to incite between different parts of society”; about a fifth of Israelis are Arab, and the ad was obviously trying to delegitimize collaboration with the parties who generally represent them.

From Likud’s perspective, that too is logical — so long as they ignore the goal of Israel remaining a democratic country in which component ethnic groups live in harmony. It’s logical because Arab parties have always been part of the opposition to Likud and the chances are high that Eisenkot might need them, even passively, to successfully craft a coalition after the Oct. 27 election.

This isn’t just dangerous. It ignores the essential role that Arab parties have played in building toward a strong Israeli future.

Ra’am, under Abbas, has been the most integrationist Arab party Israel has ever seen. Abbas broke with decades of Arab political orthodoxy by arguing that Arab citizens should seek influence through practical cooperation with whichever Zionist government Israelis elected. He has repeatedly recognized Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people while demanding full equality for its Arab citizens.

Whatever one thinks of his politics, these choices have represented one of the boldest experiments in Jewish-Arab partnership since the state’s founding.

That experiment briefly succeeded. Ra’am joined Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid’s coalition in 2021 and demonstrated that Arab participation in government could become something ordinary rather than revolutionary.

More awkward still for Likud, Netanyahu himself spent some weeks after the 2021 election attempting to persuade Abbas to support — or even participate in — his own coalition. Those negotiations failed for one principal reason: Far-right firebrand Bezalel Smotrich — now Netanyahu’s finance minister — refused to countenance a government dependent on an Arab party. Without Ra’am, Netanyahu lacked a majority.

It is therefore surreal to portray Eisenkot’s willingness to work with Ra’am as somehow beyond the democratic pale, when not so long ago, Netanyahu himself tried to do precisely the same thing.

Nor should anyone pretend that Arab parties suddenly became relevant because of Eisenkot. Since the emergence of today’s political blocs, Arab parties have almost invariably belonged to the anti-Likud camp. Any center-left coalition aspiring to govern has depended, directly or indirectly, on their parliamentary support. That is not a distortion of Israeli democracy. It is one of its enduring structural realities.

Which brings us to the larger significance of this episode.

Many Israelis have long predicted that this Likud campaign would barely concern policy at all. They expected, instead, an effort to delegitimize any prospective change government by portraying it as illegitimate because it relied on Arab parties. They expected renewed attempts to cast Arab political participation as inherently suspect. They expected emotional manipulation to substitute for argument and personal attacks to eclipse serious debate. Some feared renewed efforts to discourage Arab turnout and disqualify Arab parties from the ballot.

That appears to be exactly what they’re getting.

The remarkable thing is not merely that Likud produced this advertisement, but that doing so was effectively its first act of the campaign, which kicked off after the Knesset recently went into recess.

Before voters had heard competing visions for Israel’s economy, security or diplomacy, the country’s governing party chose to launch its campaign by inflaming fears about Arab political participation while employing imagery that countless Israelis immediately interpreted as mocking one father’s unbearable personal loss.

By the next day, competing ads using a similar aesthetic were put out by opponents of Netanyahu. One depicted Netanyahu on a similar field running past a soldier to hug a Haredi politician holding a sign that says — as many Haredi anti-draft protesters chant — “we’d rather die than serve.”

One reason AI is so attractive to political strategists is because it blurs responsibility. Images can be carefully engineered to evoke a conclusion while remaining just different enough to deny that such a conclusion was ever the intention. The technology offers something every spin doctor craves: emotional impact coupled with plausible deniability.

“I do not think we can allow this to continue,” lamented David Lau, a former chief rabbi of Israel, who has served in the military. “We must stop all these disputes, all this talk, and all these behaviors. This path does not lead to building anything. It does not lead to peace. It is a bad path, and I am even more concerned about the next generation.”

It is entirely possible that this advertisement will prove to have established the moral tone of the campaign. Israel deserves better.

The post With anti-Arab campaign ad, Netanyahu stoops to new moral and political lows appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Reed College agrees to sweeping reforms as part of Title VI antisemitism settlement

(JTA) — Reed College has agreed to a host of far-reaching institutional changes, including asserting that targeting Jewish Zionists will be considered discriminatory, in order to settle multiple federal antisemitism investigations, parties to the complaint announced Wednesday.

The settlement was announced by the Anti-Defamation League and the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, which jointly filed the complaint, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination at any institution receiving federal funds. It comes as campuses across the country, facing threats of losing federal funding under the Trump administration, have demonstrated willingness to negotiate new antisemitism protections.

As part of the agreement, the private Portland, Oregon, liberal arts school says it will insert language into its discrimination policy asserting that “for many Jewish people, Zionism is integral to their religious, ancestral and/or ethnic Jewish identity,” and that “targeting Jews on the basis of their Zionist identity” will be considered discriminatory.

The school will also contract a third-party consultant to monitor and report on its effectiveness in adhering to antisemitism protections, role that is unusual in similar Title VI agreements. The agreement says Reed will “consider” the International Holocaust Remembrance Association’s working definition of antisemitism, which includes some criticisms of Israel, and implement antisemitism training for faculty and staff.

“We take concerns about antisemitism, and all forms of unlawful discrimination, seriously, and we will continue to support the well-being, safety, and success of every member of our community,” a Reed College spokesperson told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in a statement acknowledging the agreement. Reed declined to comment further.

ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt and Brandeis Center officials praised the agreement in a release as a potential model for other colleges.

“We believe it should serve as a model for other schools,” Denise Katz-Prober, director of legal initiatives at the Brandeis Center, told JTA about the agreement. The required language in Reed’s discrimination guidelines, she said, is “very clear about what constitutes anti-Zionist conduct in violation of civil rights and in violation of the policy.”

“This outcome demonstrates how the Title VI process can work to effectively protect Jewish students,” Greenblatt said in his own statement.

Around 100 students at Reed College are Jewish, or about 7% of the total student body, according to estimates from Hillel International. A request for comment to the director of PDX Hillel, which serves Jewish students at Reed and others in the region, was not immediately returned.

The resolution stems from two anonymous Title VI antisemitism complaints from Jewish former Reed students, both filed in 2024 under the Biden administration. One of those cases related to a student whose dorm-room mezuzah was vandalized, and who herself was later pelted with rocks, during a pro-Palestinian demonstration in spring 2024. The student later left the school out of concern for her safety.

Both of the described acts would have already been considered violations of school policy for reasons unrelated to the student’s Jewish or Zionist identity. Brandeis’s Katz-Prober argued both should have also been considered in the context of her targeting by anti-Zionist activists.

“It might be difficult for someone to, at first glance, understand whether it was simply an assault or an assault motivated by bias,” she said. The case, she said, demonstrated how in some cases, “‘Zionist’ is merely a codeword for Jew.”

Katz-Prober also touted the agreement’s mandate that the school bring on a third-party compliance consultant, separate from its Title VI coordinator. While she insisted that such a role would be “independent” and free of bias, she noted that both the ADL and the Brandeis Center would have a role in their selection.

“Both sides get a say,” she said.

 

The post Reed College agrees to sweeping reforms as part of Title VI antisemitism settlement appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs cruises to GOP nomination for governor amid allegations of antisemitism

(JTA) — Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs, who has drawn criticism for ties to white nationalist figures, will officially be the Republican nominee for Arizona governor, after winning the primary on Tuesday night.

Biggs, who is backed by President Donald Trump, has drawn criticism for encouraging Stew Peters, an internet personality, and appearing on his show. Peters has labeled Judaism a “death cult” and has called for a “final solution” that involves the deportation of American Jews, and multiple watchdogs identify him as promoting antisemitism.

“Keep preaching,” Biggs told Peters at the end of his June 2023 appearance on the show, during which they discussed government corruption and Biggs agreed with Peters that the FBI should be abolished.

Biggs, 67, who won handily with 73.4% of votes according to multiple media outlets, will challenge Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs in what is expected to be a competitive race in November. Biggs has represented Arizona’s 5th Congressional District, which is outside of Phoenix, since 2017.

 

 

His opponent in the GOP primary, Rep. David Schweikert, had put out a campaign mailer in March tying Biggs to white supremacy and antisemitism. The mailer featured mentions of Biggs’ interview with Peters as well as Biggs’ endorsement of Texas GOP candidate Brandon Herrera, who owned a copy of “Mein Kampf.”

Biggs’ campaign did not respond to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency’s request for comment, but in a local TV interview last month he called the accusations politically motivated and said, “This notion that I am antisemitic is absolutely one of the most ludicrous, insane arguments ever.”

In 2024, Biggs opposed the bipartisan Antisemitism Awareness Act, which passed in the House of Representatives. Biggs wrote that he opposes antisemitism and that the “pro-Hamas, pro-genocide, anti-Israel events happening across the nation are sickening.” He rejected the legislation, he said, because it was “so poorly drafted that it violates the Constitution and could have serious ramifications for the Christian community.” Right wing Republicans objected especially to the bill citing a definition of antisemitism that included as an example the claim that the Jews killed Jesus.

That same year, Biggs attended a rally co-sponsored by the Proud Boys, an extremist militia style group. In 2019, he spoke at a “Patriotism over Socialism” rally in Arizona, which watchdogs warned would draw extremist groups.

Media Matters, a group that mostly monitors right-wing groups, in 2023 wrote that “the links between Biggs and far-right extremists have been well-documented,” citing among other things his ties to another far-right group, the Oath Keepers.

The Republican Jewish Coalition did not respond to a question over whether it would support Biggs’ run for governor.

At a campaign event on Tuesday, Hobbs skewered Biggs for his denial of Trump’s 2020 election loss, and for not acknowledging Hobbs’ narrow 2022 gubernatorial victory over Republican Kari Lake.

This article originally appeared on JTA.org.

The post Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs cruises to GOP nomination for governor amid allegations of antisemitism appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News