Uncategorized
Grotesque Gaza Libel Reprinted by New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, and More
As predictable as it is frustrating, the letter penned by Rasha Khatib, Martin McKee, and Salim Yusuf and published in a supposedly respectable medical journal, The Lancet, has found its way into international media outlets that really should know better.
We recently noted that a piece published in the “correspondence” section of the journal — so, not a peer-reviewed study or anything remotely rigorous — contained numerous grossly misleading and outright false statements.
Among the more outrageous claims in this letter was the assertion that it is not “implausible” that the overall number of deaths in Gaza could be higher than 186,000 — a figure the authors concocted by comparing Gaza to other conflicts with no substantial basis.
Meanwhile, even Hamas estimates casualties at four times lower.
Besides presenting wildly inaccurate numbers pulled out of thin air, the letter also featured several incorrect citations, questionable sources, and one footnote even linked to the wrong UN study. Not exactly thorough research.
Seen the wild claim “186,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza”?
Here’s the scoop: they multiplied current, inaccurate death tolls by 4 to get this number. Even worse, the media ran with it, spreading false info far and wide. pic.twitter.com/dPfRM9mVlN
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) July 9, 2024
It is, of course, embarrassing for a well-respected journal like The Lancet to publish such inaccuracies. However, it’s important to note that this piece is not a peer-reviewed study, paper, or article. Any attempt to present it as such is flat-out dishonest.
However, a number of anti-Israel media outlets, such as Al Jazeera, The National, and The New Arab, pounced on the Lancet letter, obscuring its nature to present it as a study, suggesting that either The Lancet itself or its “experts” are behind the 186,000 casualty figure.
And, as sure as night follows day, several supposedly trustworthy news outlets followed the Arab media’s lead, reprinting this grotesque libel without the slightest bit of scrutiny.
The Washington Post, for example, reported that “The Lancet, a respected British medical journal, calculated that the real death toll, including those missing in Gaza’s ruins and ‘indirect’ deaths from malnutrition, disease and other conditions brought on by the conflict, could be around 186,000 people — that is, roughly 8 percent of Gaza’s population.”
While noting the piece was not peer-reviewed, MSNBC still described it as an “analysis” of the death toll, and covered its findings in detail. However, MSNBC reporter Clarissa-Jan Lim did not perform even the basic due diligence of verifying the sources cited in the letter.
Several other news outlets also reported the journal’s “findings.” The UK’s Mirror stated that the “reputable medical journal” claimed deaths could exceed 186,000. The Independent, The Irish Times, and New York Magazine similarly reported that a “recent calculation by The Lancet puts the civilian death toll in Gaza at around 186,000 people, roughly 8 percent of the territory’s population.”
The Metro alluded to the “ever-present fear of death” among Gaza’s civilians, and suggested that the “true death toll could be more than 186,000 people, according to correspondence recently published in the journal The Lancet.”
The @Independent and @Beltrew are spreading misinformation. The “186,000 deaths” in Gaza claim is from an opinion piece in @TheLancet, based on speculative sources and faulty data: https://t.co/JFAlBSU7LM pic.twitter.com/lV9G6cVEre
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) July 11, 2024
The New York Times’ Opinion Editor, Meher Ahmad, was one of the few journalists to correctly describe the piece as a “letter.” However, she still attempted to contextualize the authors’ “staggering” number, describing the contents of the missive as “more a call for open documentation of casualties than anything else.”
And here we thought a medical journal should be dealing in facts, not using exaggerated and fake statistics as a “call” for better documentation of casualties.
The only correction made to the piece so far is an update to an erroneous footnote. The Lancet seems utterly unashamed to be associated with an allegation that is both demonstrably false and dangerously misleading.
Worse still is witnessing a media that is far too uncritical, happy to print the most incendiary of claims if they come in the guise of a researched analysis from a medical journal.
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.
The post Grotesque Gaza Libel Reprinted by New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, and More first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
Uncategorized
Gaza ‘Board of Peace’ to Convene at WH on Feb. 19, One Day After Trump’s Meeting with Netanyahu
US President Donald Trump speaks to the media during the 56th annual World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in Davos, Switzerland, January 22, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Denis Balibouse/File Photo
i24 News – A senior official from one of the member states confirms to i24NEWS that an invitation has been received for a gathering of President Trump’s Board of Peace at the White House on February 19, just one day after the president’s planned meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The meeting comes amid efforts to advance the implementation of the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire, following the limited reopening of the Rafah crossing, the expected announcement on the composition and mandate of the International Stabilization Force, and anticipation of a Trump declaration setting a deadline for Hamas to disarm.
In Israel officials assess that the announcement is expected very soon but has been delayed in part due to ongoing talks with the Americans over Israel’s demands for the demilitarization of the Gaza Strip. Trump reiterated on Thursday his promise that Hamas will indeed be disarmed.
Uncategorized
If US Attacks, Iran Says It Will Strike US Bases in the Region
FILE PHOTO: Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi meets with Omani Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr Albusaidi in Muscat, Oman, February 6, 2026. Photo: Omani Ministry of Foreign Affairs/ Handout via REUTERS/File Photo
Iran will strike US bases in the Middle East if it is attacked by US forces that have massed in the region, its foreign minister said on Saturday, insisting that this should not be seen as an attack on the countries hosting them.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi spoke to Qatari Al Jazeera TV a day after Tehran and Washington pledged to continue indirect nuclear talks following what both sides described as positive discussions on Friday in Oman.
While Araqchi said no date had yet been set for the next round of negotiations, US President Donald Trump said they could take place early next week. “We and Washington believe it should be held soon,” Araqchi said.
Trump has threatened to strike Iran after a US naval buildup in the region, demanding that it renounce uranium enrichment, a possible pathway to nuclear bombs, as well as stopping ballistic missile development and support for armed groups around the region. Tehran has long denied any intent to weaponize nuclear fuel production.
While both sides have indicated readiness to revive diplomacy over Tehran’s long-running nuclear dispute with the West, Araqchi balked at widening the talks out.
“Any dialogue requires refraining from threats and pressure. (Tehran) only discusses its nuclear issue … We do not discuss any other issue with the US,” he said.
Last June, the US bombed Iranian nuclear facilities, joining in the final stages of a 12-day Israeli bombing campaign. Tehran has since said it has halted uranium enrichment activity.
Its response at the time included a missile attack on a US base in Qatar, which maintains good relations with both Tehran and Washington.
In the event of a new US attack, Araqchi said the consequences could be similar.
“It would not be possible to attack American soil, but we will target their bases in the region,” he said.
“We will not attack neighboring countries; rather, we will target US bases stationed in them. There is a big difference between the two.”
Iran says it wants recognition of its right to enrich uranium, and that putting its missile program on the negotiating table would leave it vulnerable to Israeli attacks.
Uncategorized
My university wants me to sign a loyalty oath — am I in America or Vichy France?
As a historian of modern France, I have rarely seen a connection between my everyday life in my adopted state of Texas and my work on my adopted specialization: the period we call Vichy France. Apart from the Texan boast that the Lone Star Republic is bigger than the French Republic, and the small town of Paris, Texas, which boasts its own Eiffel Tower, I had no reason to compare the two places where I have spent more than half of my life.
Until now.
Last week, professors and instructors at the University of Houston received an unsettling memo from the administration, which asked us to sign a statement that we teach rather than “indoctrinate” our students.
Though the administration did not define “indoctrinate,” it hardly takes a PhD in English to read between the lines. Indoctrination is precisely what our state government has already forbidden us from doing in our classes. There must not be the slightest sign in our courses and curricula of references to diversity, identity and inclusion. The catch-all word used is “ideology,” a term Governor Greg Abbott recently invoked when he warned that “Texas is targeting professors who are more focused on pushing leftist ideologies rather than preparing students to lead our nation. We must end indoctrination.”
This is not the first time in the past several months that I have been reminded of what occurred in France during the four years that it was ruled by its German occupiers and Vichy collaborators.
Very briefly, with Germany’s rapid and complete defeat of France in 1940, an authoritarian, antisemitic and collaborationist regime assumed power. Among its first acts was to purge French Jews from all the professions, including high school and university faculties, and to impose an “oath of loyalty” to the person of Marshal Philippe Pétain, the elderly but ramrod straight and clear-headed hero of World War I.
The purpose of the oath was simple and straightforward: By demanding the fealty of all state employees to the person of Pétain, it also demanded their hostility to the secular and democratic values of the French republican tradition. Nevertheless, an overwhelming majority of teachers signed the oath —even the novelist and feminist Simone de Beauvoir, who needed her salary as a lycée teacher, as did the writer Jean Guéhenno, a visceral anti-Pétainist who continued to teach at the prestigious Paris lycée Henri IV until he was fired in 1943.
Vichy’s ministers of education understood the vital importance that schools and universities played in shaping citizens. Determined to replace the revolutionary values of liberty, equality and fraternity with the reactionary goals of family, work and homeland, they sought to eliminate “godless schools” and instill a “moral order” based on submission to state and church authorities. This radical experiment, powered by a reactionary ideology, to return France to the golden age of kings, cardinals and social castes came to an inglorious end with the Allied liberation of the country and collapse of Vichy scarcely four years after it had begun.
The French Jewish historian Marc Bloch — who joined the Resistance and sacrificed his life on behalf of a very different ideology we can call humanism — always insisted on the importance of comparative history. But comparison was important not because it identified similarities but because it illuminated differences. Clearly, the situation of professors at UH is very different from that of their French peers in Vichy France. We are not risking our jobs, much less our lives, by resisting this ham-handed effort to demand our loyalty to an anti-indoctrination memo.
But the two situations are not entirely dissimilar, either. Historians of fascism like Robert Paxton remind us that such movements begin slowly, then suddenly assume terrifying proportions. This was certainly the case in interwar France, where highly polarized politics, frequent political violence and a long history of antisemitism and anti-republicanism prepared the ground for Vichy. In France, Paxton writes, this slow, then sudden transformation “changed the practice of citizenship from the enjoyment of constitutional rights and duties to participation in mass ceremonies of affirmation and conformity.”
As an historian of France, I always thought its lurch into authoritarianism was shocking, but not surprising. After all, many of the elements for this change had existed well before 1940. But as a citizen of America, I am not just shocked, but also surprised by official demands for affirmation and conformity. One day I will find the time to think hard about my naiveté. But the time is now to think about how we should respond to these demands.
The post My university wants me to sign a loyalty oath — am I in America or Vichy France? appeared first on The Forward.