Uncategorized
For Many Palestinians, the ‘Day After’ Should Look Just Like the ‘Day Before’
JNS.org – More than nine months after the Israel-Hamas war began, many Palestinians are convinced that the “day after” in the Gaza Strip will be a return to the pre-Oct. 7 era, in which the Iran-backed terrorist group still has control of the coastal enclave. For them, the “day after” means going back to the day before the Hamas-led attack on Israel.
Today, Palestinians fall into two groups: those who hate Hamas but think that under the current circumstances it is impossible to remove it from power, and those who want Hamas to stay in power because they embrace it and its extremist ideology.
Opponents of Hamas contend that until the terrorist organization is totally destroyed, neither the Palestinian Authority nor any Arab state will be prepared to rule the Gaza Strip. And they do not see that objective being met more than nine months after the start of the war.
Recently, Abu Obaida, the spokesperson for Hamas’s military wing, claimed that his group has been successful in bringing thousands of new “fighters” into its ranks to replace those killed since the start of the war.
Even if Abu Obaida’s claim is exaggerated, its purpose is to demonstrate to Palestinians, Arabs and the international community that Hamas is not going anywhere. This is a form of warning to any party that would consider playing a role in the Gaza Strip the “day after.”
Over the past few months, Hamas has killed clan leaders and kidnapped and tortured political opponents to thwart the establishment of a new government.
In response to Hamas’s campaign of terror and intimidation, several clans in the Gaza Strip have released statements declaring their support for the terrorist group and denouncing any “conspiracy” to foster the rise of new leaders there.
That, however, does not mean that Hamas will prevent the Palestinian Authority or any other party from providing financial and humanitarian assistance to the residents of the Gaza Strip.
Furthermore, it does not imply that Hamas will impede any initiative to reconstruct Gaza. As long as these actions do not compromise Hamas’s authority, the organization will permit them to take place.
Where does the Palestinian Authority stand?
Not hiding their dissatisfaction in private, some P.A. officials are disappointed that Hamas still controls the Gaza Strip more than nine months after the war began.
“We thought it would only take a few weeks to remove Hamas from power,” stated one official. “However, several months later, Hamas remains in place and continues to have complete authority over civilian affairs. In addition, Hamas still has many fighters.”
Another P.A. official said that he had anticipated a fall in Hamas’s popularity among Palestinians as the war drags on and more Palestinians lose their lives.
“We see that the opposite has happened,” the official stated. “According to polls conducted after Oct. 7, Hamas’s popularity is rising. This is due to the widespread belief that Hamas is winning the battle. If you watched [the Qatari-owned network] Al-Jazeera, you would also come to the same conclusion—that Israel has been defeated,” he said.
The most recent public opinion poll, conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, showed that many Palestinians support Hamas and believe that the terrorist group will continue to rule the Gaza Strip after the war.
When asked who the public would prefer to control the Gaza Strip after the war, 61% (71% in the West Bank and 46% in the Gaza Strip) answered Hamas. Only 16% chose a new P.A. with an elected president, parliament and government, while another 6% chose the current P.A. but without its president, Mahmoud Abbas.
When asked to speculate about the party that will control the Gaza Strip after the war, a majority of respondents (56%) answered that it would be Hamas.
It is also interesting to see that an overwhelming majority of Palestinians (75%) oppose the deployment of an Arab security force in the Gaza Strip. In this regard, these Palestinians have actually endorsed Hamas’s stance, which opposes the deployment of non-Palestinian security forces in the Gaza Strip.
Hamas officials have gone as far as warning that such a force would be dealt with as an “occupying” party—implying that terrorists would target the troops. Egypt, Jordan and other Arab countries do not seem to be enthusiastic about dispatching troops to the Gaza Strip.
Similarly, the P.A., too, does not appear to be excited about returning to the Gaza Strip. That’s because it does not want to be accused of entering the Gaza Strip “atop an Israeli tank.” The P.A., in addition, is also afraid that it will be left alone to bear the burden of rebuilding Gaza because most Arab countries have consistently failed to fulfill their promises to help the Palestinians.
Despite the devastation, most Palestinians support Oct. 7
According to the latest poll, a vast majority of Palestinians (68%) said the terrorist group’s decision to launch the war on Israel was “correct.” Previous polls conducted by the same center have shown that more than 70% of Palestinians support the Hamas-led Oct. 7 attack.
There is virtually no debate among the Palestinians about the “day after” in the Gaza Strip, even though some in Israel and the United States appear to be obsessed with the idea. This is due to the widespread Palestinian belief that Hamas will somehow maintain its hold on power in the Gaza Strip after the war.
The Palestinians are probably the only ones who could force Hamas to relinquish control of the Gaza Strip. It remains to be seen whether or not the Palestinians who lost their homes and loved ones will rise against Hamas after the war or if a large number of them will take to the streets to express their support for the terrorist groups, either out of fear or genuine sympathy.
Originally published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
The post For Many Palestinians, the ‘Day After’ Should Look Just Like the ‘Day Before’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
Uncategorized
US Aircraft Carrier Enters Middle East Region, Officials Say
The USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72), a Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, at Naval Air Station North Island in San Diego, California, US, Aug. 11, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Mike Blake
A US aircraft carrier and supporting warships have arrived in the Middle East, two US officials told Reuters on Monday, expanding President Donald Trump’s capabilities to defend US forces, or potentially take military action against Iran.
The aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and several guided-missile destroyers have crossed into the Middle East region, which comes under the US military’s Central Command, the officials told Reuters.
Trump said on Thursday that the United States had an “armada” heading toward Iran, but hoped he would not have to use it.
The warships began deploying from the Asia-Pacific region earlier this month, as tensions between Iran and the United States escalated following a crackdown on protests across Iran.
Trump had repeatedly threatened to intervene if Iran continued to kill protesters, but the countrywide demonstrations have since abated. The president said he had been told that killings were subsiding and that he believes there is currently no plan for the executions of prisoners.
The US military has in the past surged forces into the Middle East at times of heightened tensions, moves that were often defensive.
However, the US military staged a major buildup last year ahead of its June strikes against Iran’s nuclear program.
In addition to the carrier and warships, the Pentagon is also moving fighter jets and air-defense systems to the Middle East.
Over the weekend, the US military announced that it would carry out an exercise in the region “to demonstrate the ability to deploy, disperse, and sustain combat airpower.”
A senior Iranian official said last week that Tehran would consider any attack as an “all-out-war against us.”
The United Arab Emirates said on Monday that it will not let its airspace, territory or territorial waters be used for any hostile military actions against Iran.
The US military’s Al Dhafra Air Base is located south of the UAE capital Abu Dhabi and has been a critical US Air Force hub in support of key missions against the Islamic State, as well as reconnaissance deployments across the region.
Uncategorized
Wikipedia, Qatar, and the Future of Knowledge
Qatar’s Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al-Thani speaks on the first day of the 23rd edition of the annual Doha Forum, in Doha, Qatar, Dec. 6, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa
Imagine a world in which facts can be erased from one of society’s key sources of information.
A world where foreign governments and terror-supporters have a say in whether you should know something or not.
A world where truth is malleable and facts are twisted to fit pre-determined narratives.
No, this isn’t an Orwellian dystopia. It’s Wikipedia as it currently operates: one of the world’s most influential websites and a primary source of information for millions.
Because of how it crowd-sources information, Wikipedia is one of the most extensive sources of knowledge on the Internet (and possibly in the entire world). However, this same strength is also Wikipedia’s biggest weakness, leaving it vulnerable to manipulation by autocracies, terror supporters, and other bad actors.
From recently-uncovered Qatari influence to a secret network of anti-Israel activists, we’ll take a look at how the truth is being manipulated on Wikipedia, and what this means for our understanding of the world.
Wikipedia was meant to democratize knowledge, but today it’s a hub for deliberate fake info and erasing documented history by rogue editors – what I call Knowledge Poisoning.
The list of victims is endless:
Iranian protestors in Iran, Iryna Zarutska, Women, Jews and more.The… pic.twitter.com/Ir7WzKfHGD
— Ella Kenan (@EllaTravelsLove) January 17, 2026
In Qatar’s case, the PR firm Portland Communications was hired after Qatar was selected to host the 2022 World Cup. Its job was to edit Wikipedia articles related to human rights, and to suppress other unflattering facts that threatened the state’s international image.
According to the report, between 2013 and 2024 Portland Communications directed a network of subcontractors to edit Wikipedia articles on human rights in Qatar, as well as entries on Qatari politicians and businessmen accused of corrupt or unethical conduct.
The edits were deliberately small and incremental, designed to evade detection and slip past the scrutiny of other Wikipedia editors.
In short, anyone researching Qatar on Wikipedia has not been presented with a full or nuanced picture of the Gulf state.
Instead, they encountered paid-for reputation management designed to polish its image and suppress unflattering facts. In the process, Wikipedia shifted from an information resource to a vehicle for indoctrination.
The @TBIJ just revealed a UK PR firm allegedly paid intermediaries to rewrite Wikipedia pages — burying criticism of Qatar and reshaping public perception.
Hidden edits like these launder reputations, making biased content appear neutral to millions. The Portland case is the… pic.twitter.com/EwZpwS2ODx
— Ashley Rindsberg (@AshleyRindsberg) January 17, 2026
Nor is Qatari influence confined to Wikipedia. Analyst Eitan Fischberger has noted that the Qatar Investment Authority has invested billions of dollars in Elon Musk’s xAI. This is a development that has potential implications for how Qatar is portrayed on Grokipedia, xAI’s alternative to Wikipedia.
If this pattern continues, the result is straightforward: future audiences may encounter a curated version of Qatar that downplays human rights abuses and other reputational liabilities. By strategically funding the platforms people rely on for information, a state need not censor facts outright, as it can simply ensure they are never meaningfully encountered.
I was about to tweet about how Grokipedia is already far better than Wikipedia.
And I was going to illustrate this by comparing their pages on Qatari foreign influence in American universities.
But it looks like Qatar noticed too. Hence the billions now being thrown at xAI, as… pic.twitter.com/0VcCrJlUpx
— Eitan Fischberger (@EFischberger) January 8, 2026
Wikipedia’s Untrustworthiness on Israel
For those who have followed developments around Wikipedia, the revelation that Qatar actively sought to edit articles in its favor came as little surprise. Abuse of the crowdsourced encyclopedia by bad-faith actors has been documented for years.
In 2024, investigative journalist Ashley Rindsberg published an in-depth exposé about a group of 40 activists who had engaged in a coordinated campaign of anti-Israel disinformation since 2020.
According to Rindsberg, this group accounted for 90 percent of the content on dozens of Israel-related articles and made a combined total of more than two million edits on over 10,000 articles.
This coordinated effort has transformed Wikipedia’s Middle East narrative: Zionism is increasingly framed as inherently evil, Hamas’ violent Islamist ideology is softened or obscured, Iranian human rights abuses are minimized, and the Jewish historical connection to the Land of Israel is routinely challenged or erased.
Rindsberg has also identified another coordinated effort: a group known as Tech for Palestine (TFP), which formed during the recent Israel–Hamas war and edited thousands of Wikipedia articles related to Israel.
In its own welcome message on the platform Discord, the group explained its focus on Wikipedia by noting that the encyclopedia’s “content influences public perception.”
Most recently, independent investigative journalist David Collier conducted a deep dive into a Wikipedia claim that the Israeli town of Ofakim was built on a depopulated Bedouin village. He found that the cited books and maps did not support the claim at all, and that the evidence had been effectively fabricated through misrepresentation.
Yet the claim remains on Wikipedia, upheld by a decision from an anti-Israel activist editor, and it continues to feed into AI systems that treat Wikipedia as authoritative, compounding the misinformation.
Wikipedia’s Israel problem is no longer in dispute. As long as activist editors retain outsized control over key articles, the Internet’s largest encyclopedia remains an unreliable source for understanding Israel, the Palestinians, and the Middle East.
Exclusive: A detailed investigation exposes how false claims on @Wikipedia fabricate history – then get laundered into activist and media campaigns used to smear elected officials and demand resignations
Thread— David Collier (@mishtal) January 5, 2026
How Wikipedia Influences Your Life — Even Without Your Knowledge
According to Wikipedia’s own data, the site is viewed nearly 10,000 times per second, totaling close to 300 billion page views annually. In practice, this means a significant portion of the world’s population relies on Wikipedia for basic knowledge, often without realizing how susceptible it is to manipulation by bad-faith actors.
And opting out is not an escape. Even users who never consult Wikipedia themselves are still influenced by it, as many AI systems draw on Wikipedia as an authoritative source, recycling its distortions at scale. And to mark its 25th anniversary, Wikipedia has signed content partnerships with major AI companies, including Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, Perplexity, and Mistral AI.
This influence is already embedded in everyday technology. Google’s search results routinely draw on Wikipedia as a trusted reference, while voice assistants such as Alexa and Siri rely on it to answer basic factual queries.
In practice, Wikipedia now functions as a foundational layer of the modern information ecosystem.
At the center of everything is Wikipedia.
Wikipedia articles appear in 67%-84% of all search engine results & most info boxes
— Ethan Mollick (@emollick) May 30, 2023
Whether you consult Wikipedia directly, ask an AI system for information, or turn to Siri with a question, you are being shaped by the thousands of editors whose collective work forms Wikipedia.
Most of those editors are diligent volunteers committed to accuracy and the pursuit of knowledge. Some, however, are not. They omit facts, introduce disinformation, and quietly reshape narratives to fit an ideological agenda.
The real danger is not Wikipedia’s scale, but the trust it enjoys. Too often, it is treated as neutral while users have no reliable way to distinguish between an article written to inform and one designed to manipulate.
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
Italy Pushes for EU Clampdown on Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Over ‘Heinous Acts’
Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani speaks during an interview with Reuters in Rome, Italy, April 15, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Guglielmo Mangiapane
Italy will ask European Union partners this week to place Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) on the EU‘s terrorist register, Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said on Monday, signaling a shift in Rome’s position.
Until now, Rome had been among the governments resisting efforts to brand the IRGC as a terrorist group, but Tajani said a bloody Iranian crackdown on street protests this month that reportedly killed thousands of people could not be ignored.
“The losses suffered by the civilian population during the protests require a clear response,” Tajani wrote on X, adding he would raise the issue on Thursday at a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels.
“I will propose, coordinating with other partners, the inclusion of the Revolutionary Guards on the list of terrorist organizations, as well as individual sanctions against those responsible for these heinous acts.”
Being branded a terrorist group would trigger a set of legal, financial, and diplomatic measures that would significantly constrain the IRGC’s ability to operate in Europe.
Set up after Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, the IRGC holds great sway in the country, controlling swathes of the economy and armed forces, and is also in charge of Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs.
While some EU member states have previously pushed for the IRGC to be listed, others have been more cautious, fearing that it could lead to a complete break in ties with Iran, harming any chance of reviving nuclear talks and jeopardizing any hope of getting EU nationals released from Iranian jails.
However, Iran’s violent crackdown on protests has revived the debate and added momentum to discussions about adding the IRGC, which is already included in the bloc’s human rights sanctions regime, to the EU terrorist list.
Italian, French, and Spanish diplomats raised qualms during a meeting in Brussels earlier this month about adding the IRGC to the list, EU diplomats told Reuters at the time.
If France continues to object, then the move to sanction the IRGC will fail, diplomats have said.