Topics

How is it possible for the UN and mainstream news outlets to be wrong about Israel?

For the media, the full answer is coming soon. In the meantime:

  • A 2014 Atlantic Magazine article from a former Associated Press journalist. The short version is straightforward: Just like people are affected by a news bubble- getting their information from one or a few similar outlets- so, too, there is a shared perspective amongst the journalists, their chosen sources and others behind a bubble.

    The article was a rare occasion for a news organization to be impartial and actually investigate a matter related to Israel. Usually they just report the superficial account, which can easily look bad, or they report with some degree of bias and misinformation.

  • The co-founder of Wikipedia wants to reform it because of bias and unprofessionalism.

For the UN, the short answer for now is that it’s a democracy. Things changed in the late 1960s when a majority of members were anti-West or at least anti-Israel: the dozens of Arab and Muslim nations, the fifteen from the Soviet Union, Soviet satellite states, China and her dependents, and other communist and autocratic regimes. They fabricated General Assembly Resolutions that contradicted Security Council Resolutions and poisoned other UN agencies and offices.

Two of the previews have points that highlight the problem of the UN (and media):

  • Israel is not obligated to relinquish all the territory captured in 1967.
  • The Arab League hijacked UNRWA that was supposed to last 5-10 years and help the refugees become self-sufficient.

More: A BBC documentary from 2022 about corruption (and other transgressions) at the UN. Clips on YouTube.

Is criticism of Israel antisemitic?

As above, the well-intentioned side, such as mainstream news organizations, has a basic flaw in thinking that Muslim violence is a response to Israeli actions. The full equation is: Muslim radicals have been seeking to destroy Zionism since long before 1948 and the Jews/Israel have reacted to that aggression; the reactions have become pretexts for further violence by the radicals.

While some people in this group, like journalists and diplomats, are antisemitic or biased, most are simply wrong because they view everything from this false perspective. Their articles and reports then naturally contain misinformation, lack of context or details, etc.

Much of this Western, warped view is based on a few unprofessional Israeli historians from the 1980s and ’90s who distorted primary sources and fabricated quotes. Even though there is a greater number of researchers and professors who refuted those historians, respected scholars and journalists didn’t verify the information and instead built narratives and studies on top of it. Along with the UN (above), it didn’t take long for an alternate reality to form where Israel the democracy was an evil regime like Russia.

On the hateful side that bleeds into the mainstream, there is the promulgation of the above distortions, along with disinformation, propaganda and lies- and much of it in the 21st century has been financed by the likes of Qatar and Iran. Many Arabs and Muslims say so: article 1, article 2, book 1, book 2.

Supporters of Israel need to focus on correcting false statements instead of criticizing the people who say them, especially when many have been fooled by the alternate narrative.

Likewise, more care is needed because misinformation naturally occurs everywhere. For example, many pro-Israel sites quote a statistic that says 68% of the 1948 refugees fled without seeing Israelis. What the source material actually says is 68% of a sample of 100 people out of 70,000 in a camp of refugees. It’s still a powerful stat that supports the reality that the Arab-Muslim war against the Two-State Solution created the refugees, a majority fled, and a minority were justifiably expelled. Less-than-truthful allows the foes to dismiss the whole argument.

Yes, like every democracy, Israel has engaged in propaganda. She should be better than that, but that does not compare to messaging that incites violence and aims to bring about Israel’s demise.

The site does not shy away from Israeli misdeeds and it does provide the context that others omit or obscure.

The Two-State Solution seems to be the problem. Is there another idea?

1) One-State Solution (1SS). This would see the Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank become Israeli citizens, and Israel annex the territories. The problems: A) It wouldn’t change enough on the ground because Israel would still need to secure the Arab areas, which would continue to cause resentment. B) The Arab population would immediately equal the Jewish population in Israel- 7 million in 2026- and they could soon outnumber the Jews and change the nature of the state- or worse- regardless of any agreement beforehand. It’s a polite way of bringing about Israel’s demise, and even the liberal American President Joe Biden did not consider this in 2021.

2) Modified 1SS. This is more fair, but also more difficult to enact: the vast majority of Arabs in the territories would first have to move- and polls say half would do so. This would hurt some who have been open to peace with Israel, but it wouldn’t be tragic considering they would relocate a short distance to other Arab domains, be compensated and assisted, and finally have a normal life. Isn’t that better than remaining trapped between their extremists and Israel’s necessary counter-measures? Call it a consequence of 100+ years of terror and war, which is actually a factor in international law (and should be common sense). The radicals amongst the exiled would become the problem of the Arab states, who would be strict against them so as to avoid Israeli retaliations. (More…)

3) The Eight-State Solution, aka Palestinian Emirates Plan. This is based on the clan structure of Arab society that is still prevalent in much of the Middle East and North Africa. On the positive side, it’s an alternative to one Arab state being run by the corrupt and terror-supporting Palestinian Authority that is basically a few allied clans. On the negative, Israeli intelligence did not approve it because they feared it would lead to an increase in violence, as the clans would fight over various matters and old grievances. Plus, it doesn’t address the issue that Israel would either have to maintain border controls or risk the extremists smuggling in weapons.

Never mind the past, what about the future?

Not caring about the events that created the present is shortsighted. It may seem diplomatic to say both sides are guilty and need to compromise, but that’s unhelpful because the Arab-Muslim radicals have never budged from their position and have hurt their own people to maintain control. That’s the core problem. Since shortly after World War I, they’ve existed to see a state of Palestine based on its pre-1948 borders. (Even though it had never been a state or independent to Muslims…and the many other points on our first three pages). On the other side, the Jews have compromised multiple times: accepting the 1937 and 1947 Partition Plans; after 1967, favouring autonomy for the Arabs in the territories, but not independence, due to security concerns; and agreeing to independence with the Oslo Accords in the mid-1990s and negotiating the major issues as obligated, only to face zero movement on the Arab demands.

Assuming the Two-State Solution remains the goal…

For all the criticisms against Israel, even the Arab League in 2025 acknowledged that Hamas cannot be part of Gaza’s future. The only hope for an Arab Gaza is with the current plan where Israel and international partners are cleaning and rebuilding one area under Israeli control, and then will screen those who can move into it from the Hamas-controlled part. Then they’ll work on another area and continue- this will take many years- until Hamas and their supporters will be left to a tiny zone where they will either accept exile or die fighting for their cause. Anything that leaves Hamas (or a similar group) standing in Gaza will inevitably lead to more wars and civilian casualties.

Some people are not hopeful with this approach because it will be risky for Israel to eventually end border supervision and the latest and legal blockade, as that would give the dormant extremists in New Gaza the opportunity to import weapons. (The previous blockade ended in 2005 and then Hamas staged a bloody coup to take Gaza from the PA.) If Israel retains authority over the borders, then the extremists elsewhere will use that as a pretext for fresh violence.

The same concern applies to the West Bank. It’s easy to imagine a future Israeli government being fed up with the status quo and accepting a State of Palestine, though not on “June 4, 1967 borders” because they never existed and would be dangerous to Israel. Even if new Arab leaders emerge who will accept that, the freedom of statehood will allow the radicals to smuggle in weapons. As for that hopeful Arab leadership that would be different than today’s Palestinian Authority that is corrupt and supports terrorism, the past 100+ years say that the extremists will wrest control from them.

If future Arab leadership remains insistent on things like “June 1967 borders” and the immigration into Israel of millions of descendants of the 1948 refugees, then the conflict will continue as now. Same if Israeli leadership remains on the path of preventing an Arab state due to the legitimate security concerns. Each way would reach a do-or-die moment where either Israel falls or most Arabs are moved outside of Israel’s expanded borders. That would give Israel internal security, but the external will likely worsen, unless much of the world wakes up from its stupor and stops trying to appease the jihadists.

Even in the best scenario where future Arab moderates finally contain the extremists, that still won’t resolve the matter of radical groups in the region who seek Israel’s destruction and would not care about any agreement. The same applies to countries like Iran, Turkey, and Qatar that support the groups and work overtly or covertly to hurt Israel, as with their propaganda. They’ll use anything as a pretext to continue the fight. Even if Israel were to fall, groups like Hamas wouldn’t stop there and the region would not know peace.

Ultimately, the world will have to face the reality that jihadists and Islamic fundamentalists are seeking to defeat the West and subjugate the globe to their brand of Islam. They already have Iran, Afghanistan, much of Lebanon, half of Yemen, parts of Iraq, parts of Nigeria, etc. For many, Israel is only their first or juiciest target. That’s why it wasn’t a mistake for America and Israel to attack Iran in 2026, but it was a monumental act of foolishness to end the war prematurely. There was an objective to deliver weapons to groups throughout the country, who would’ve had a chance to topple the regime. Similarly, it was misguided for other nations to not join. A future war will be more deadly and costly, as would be a nuclear Iran.

Despite all this gloominess, there is another way out of the mess and that’s with God…

What does the Torah say about antisemitism? When will the Jews know peace?

For now, here are two articles: Rabbi Raphael Shore and Chabad.