The Big Story
The past several days have seen an intensification of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah that threaten to turn into a wider war and open a second front along Israel’s northern border. On Sunday and Monday, the Iran-backed militia group that controls Lebanon fired mortars, rockets, and antitank missiles into Israel, killing one civilian and wounding at least 18 civilians and IDF soldiers.
Thus far in the war, Israel has engaged in tit-for-tat retaliation against Hezbollah targets in southern Lebanon and Syria while avoiding escalation, but there are signs that Israeli patience is running out. Defense Minister Yoav Gallant warned Hezbollah on Saturday, following a speech by Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, that “what we can do in Gaza, we can do in Beirut.” In a Monday article in the left-wing daily Haaretz, Amos Harel noted that while Israel “does not currently seek war with Hezbollah,” it “will have to consider whether it can continue to show restraint.” Later in the day Monday, IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi said, “We are preparing strongly for action plans for the north” in order to “bring security” for civilians in northern Israel, though he did not offer further details as to what the IDF had in store.
The consensus in Israel, then, is that while war with Hezbollah is best avoided for now, the terror militia’s aggression is making the IDF’s defensive posture untenable. But the Biden administration is taking precisely the opposite position—namely, that Israel needs to tone down its response to avert a “regional war,” even insinuating that it’s the Israelis who are escalating the conflict and thereby trying to drag the United States into a war with Hezbollah. In Axios, Barak Ravid reports on a Saturday phone call between Gallant and U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin:
Some in the Biden administration are concerned Israel is trying to provoke Hezbollah and create a pretext for a wider war in Lebanon that could draw the U.S. and other countries further into the conflict, according to sources briefed on the issue. Israeli officials flatly deny it.
The Scroll asked Tony Badran, Tablet’s news and politics editor, and in-house expert on Lebanon, Hezbollah, and all things related to the Levant, to weigh in:
It’s been established that the Biden administration has repeatedly warned Israel against targeting Hezbollah in Lebanon, which appears to be an American red line. This latest report, which comes amidst an increase in intensity of Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel and the latter’s responses, goes the extra step of framing Israel's response as a deliberate provocation aimed at goading Hezbollah into war. In other words, the administration is communicating publicly that it would blame Israel for any conflagration in the north and thus would consider it an act of aggression, not self-defense, even as it was Hezbollah that lit up the Lebanese front starting on Oct. 8.
This latest warning to Israel on Hezbollah’s behalf should be read against the following background. The day following the Oct. 7 attack, the Biden administration’s special envoy Amos Hochstein reached out to Hezbollah through a familiar cutout: the former head of Lebanon’s Directorate of General Security, Abbas Ibrahim. According to Ibrahim, in addition to reassuring the Lebanese that the U.S. opposed widening the war in Gaza, the back channel had to do with getting American dual nationals, held hostage by Hamas, out of Gaza. Hochstein had used the Ibrahim channel when he negotiated with Hezbollah over the maritime border delineation deal in 2022.
For those in need of a refresher on that deal, read Tony’s articles for Tablet here and here.
Tony elaborates on Washington’s commitments to Israel’s enemy to the north:
What that deal made explicit was that Team Obama-Biden had extended an American protective umbrella to Hezbollah, and had inserted the U.S. between Israel and the Iranian-backed terrorist group. Signaling that the tiny country was under American sponsorship, in a condominium with Iran, the Biden administration is constructing a brand-new, $1 billion U.S. Embassy in Lebanon—a symbol of the U.S.’s commitment to underwriting the country’s existing Hezbollah-led order.
IN THE BACK PAGES: Richard Landes on the birth of anti-Israel fake news in the 2000 controversy over the death of Muhammad al Durah.
The Rest
→Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel’s Abraham Accords partner states (the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan) helped block several anti-Israel measures at a joint summit of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in Riyadh over the weekend. The final resolution adopted by the summit included strong language against “Israeli aggression” and “war crimes” in Gaza, a demand for the UN to implement a cease-fire, and a call for the international community to block arms sales to Israel. But the summit considered and rejected several more concrete anti-Israel measures. According to a report in the Jewish News Syndicate, the rejected demands were:
to prevent the transfer of U.S. military equipment to Israel from American bases in the Middle East region; suspend all diplomatic and economic contacts with Israel; cut back oil sales to the United States over Washington’s support for Israel; stop Israeli air traffic over the skies of the Gulf and send a joint delegation to the United States, Europe and Russia to push for a ceasefire.
The summit also rejected an Iranian proposal to designate the IDF a terrorist organization and Iranian calls for the elimination of Israel, instead endorsing a two-state solution based on 1967 borders. The Tehran Times, an anti-regime Iranian expat publication, wrote that the summit “laid bare some fundamental rifts between Iran and the Arab world on ‘Palestine.’”
→Eight Iranian proxy fighters were killed in U.S. airstrikes in eastern Syria on Sunday, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an independent conflict monitor. The American airstrikes, which targeted a training facility and a safe house used by Iranian proxy militias, marked the third time in the last three weeks that the U.S. has hit targets in eastern Syria linked to the Iranian “axis of resistance,” though this is the first time casualties have been reported. Although these strikes mark a mild U.S. escalation, Tehran is unlikely to see the deaths of Syrian militiamen as a significant loss compared to its earning from Iran’s oil and gas industries, against which the Biden administration has declined to enforce U.S. sanctions.
Read more here: https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20231113-at-least-eight-pro-iran-fighters-killed-in-fresh-us-strikes-on-syria
→Large crowds turned out over the weekend for pro-Palestine protests in New York; Austin, Texas; London, and several other Western cities. A nonexhaustive list of highlights from the “mostly peaceful” protests:
Video emerged on social media of Brooklyn high school students chanting “Takbir! Allahu Akbar!” during a Thursday public school walkout organized by a parent advisory board, which distributed a list of recommended chants including “From the river to the sea” and “Say it loud, say it clear, we don’t want Zionists here!” In one of the videos, a student can be heard shouting “Fuck the Jews!,” while another video of the same walkout shows students intimidating orthodox Jewish shop owners in Brooklyn’s Borough Park.
Six people were arrested at a Friday night protest at Grand Central Station in New York. Attendees of the “Flood Manhattan for Gaza” protest—named for “Al-Aqsa Flood,” Hamas’ name for the Oct. 7 attacks—burned Israeli flags, splattered fake blood on the New York Times building, and tore down U.S. flags commemorating Veterans Day before converging on Grand Central, where they attempted to break through the terminal’s locked doors.
Hundreds of thousands marched in London on Saturday with estimates of the number of attendees ranging from 300,000 to 800,000. Videos on social media showed several instances of antisemitism and open support for terrorism among the protestors, including a man saying “Hitler knew what to do with these people,” a woman shouting “Death to all the Jews!,” and a group of Hamas supporters assaulting and attempting to stab an Iranian dissident holding a sign that said “Hamas is ISIS.” British Home Secretary Suella Braverman was fired on Monday for referring to the protest as a “hate march.” The newspaper The Times had previously reported on Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps infiltration of anti-Israel protests in the UK.
On the other side of the ledger, more than 100,000 people rallied in Paris on Sunday to protest antisemitism, after more than 1,200 antisemitic incidents have been recorded by French authorities since Oct. 7. Attendees included former Presidents François Hollande and Nicolas Sarkozy and National Rally leader Marine Le Pen. The march was boycotted by Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the leader of the French far left.
At a pro-Palestine rally in Miami, a woman was caught on camera yelling “Hitler should have fucking finished the job, he knew what the fuck he was doing” at pro-Israel counterprotestors:
→Quote of the Day:
Menachem Gida and 26 of his friends living in the communities in the area, who established a WhatsApp group called Field Security Operational Monitor, listened in to the wireless traffic of Hamas over a period of years. Time after time they heard how the organization’s combat personnel were practicing the breaching of the fence and arriving from the sea, conquering kibbutzim such as Zikim, Netiv Ha’asara and Nir Oz, seizing hostages and destroying everything in their path.
The group grasped the significance of the daily training exercises as being preparations for real operations, and they passed on all the information to the IDF. The army personnel they were in contact with were less worried—“fantasies” was their term for the talk about preparations to capture territory in Israel. Finally, last April the army restricted the group’s ability to monitor Hamas’ wireless traffic. Despite this, the group discerned an intensification of the training, and that information was reported by Kan 11, the public broadcaster, a few days before the attack.
That’s from a long and damning article in Haaretz magazine by Uri Bar-Joseph, a historian of Israeli intelligence, on the intelligence failures leading up to Oct. 7. As the quote above illustrates, some of the warning signs that Hamas was planning an invasion were so clear that Israeli civilians took note, only to be dismissed by security officials convinced that such an operation was impossible.
Read the rest here: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-11/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/israels-deadly-complacency-wasnt-just-an-intelligence-failure/0000018b-b9ea-df42-a78f-bdeb298e0000
→American officials and analysts repeatedly warned that an Israeli ground operation in Gaza was a mistake that would fail in its objectives, lead to even greater harm to Palestinian civilians, and further inflame the region. Israel went ahead with it anyway. In an essay posted on X, Yoni Leviatan explains what we’ve learned so far:
Two predictions about this war that have not played out so far:
1. Everyone said a ground op into Gaza would greatly increase the casualties on both sides, but the opposite has happened—far less innocent Gazans have died from ground forces in the last few days than they did when the air force was busy preparing the battlefield.
Most of the people dying now are Hamas.
Just as important, far less IDF soldiers have died than anyone expected, notwithstanding the tragic few we’ve already lost. They've also been able to safely evacuate 200,000 more Gazans from the northern strip—Gazans that Hamas was shooting at in order to get them to stay and die as human shields.
The slow and steady strategy seems to be working well for everyone (except Hamas).
Again, this is only true at this point, but the larger point is Americans forgot that Gaza isn’t Fallujah while Europeans forgot that Israelis aren’t blithering cowards.
All of which goes to show why Israel should continue to ignore the naysayers and stick to the business of eradicating Hamas, haters be damned.
2. Everyone said Israel would ruin its ties with the Arab world, but not a single friendly Arab country has chosen to do so.
In fact, Saudi Arabia said it intends to continue pursuing relations with Israel. It also called for the hostages to be released at the Arab League/OIC summit this weekend.
Additionally, Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco, Mauritania, Djibouti and Saudi Arabia all voted against a proposal that wanted to: cut ties, disrupt oil supplies to Israel and its allies, prevent the transfer of US equipment to Israel from bases in Arab countries, prevent flights to and from Israel using Arab countries’ air space, and form a joint mission to put pressure on Western nations for a ceasefire.
Numerous Arab countries rejected all of that.
Just as we should reject all of the NGOs, government quacks, armchair quarterbacks and keyboard commandos who don’t know the first thing about how to survive in the Middle East.
Read it here: https://twitter.com/songsofyoni/status/1723694561514426789
TODAY IN TABLET:
Bridging Divisions During Wartime, by Hillel Kuttler
In Israeli restaurants, people are coming together across religious and political lines
SCROLL TIP LINE: Have a lead on a story or something going on in your workplace, school, congregation, or social scene that you want to tell us about? Send your tips, comments, questions, and suggestions to scroll@tabletmag.com.
Today’s edition of the Back Pages was first published in Tablet on October 3, 2018.
Netzarim Junction and the Birth of Fake News
Almost two decades after the global news media fell for a hoax, a key investigator revisits the scene of a journalistic crime
by Richard Landes
One of the most shocking and transformative experiences occurred to me in late October 2003, when I got to see the original raw footage that a Palestinian cameraman had shot three years earlier at Netzarim Junction on Sept. 30, 2000. It was a peek through the lens of Talal Abu Rahma, the Palestinian cameraman who had filmed what journalists later depicted as a day of riots that killed many in the Gaza Strip, including the 12-year-old boy, Muhammad al Durah.
Charles Enderlin, chief correspondent of France2, aired the footage as news with his cameraman’s narrative: an innocent Palestinian boy, targeted by the IDF, gunned down while his father pleaded with the Israelis to stop shooting. It became an instant global sensation, enraging the Muslim world and provoking angry protests where Western progressives and militant Muslims joined to equate Israel to the Nazis. Ironically, for the first time since the Holocaust, “Death to Jews” was heard in the capitals of Europe. From that point on, for many, Israel was to blame for all violence, a pariah state.
Even had the child died in a crossfire, blaming his death on deliberate Israeli action made it a classic blood libel: A gentile boy dies; the Jews are accused of plotting the murder; violent mobs, invoking the dead martyr, attack the Jews. In Europe, the attacks the al Durah libel incited were mostly on Jewish property. In the Middle East, a new round of suicide bombers, “revenging the blood of Muhammad al Durah” targeted Israeli children to the approval of 80% of the Palestinian public. It was, in fact, the first postmodern blood libel. The first blood libel announced by a Jew (Enderlin), spread by the modern mainstream news media (MSNM), and carried in cyberspace to a global audience. It was the first wildly successful piece of “fake news” of the 21st century, and, as an icon of hatred, it did untold damage.
But it gets worse. Not only did the evidence show that the Israelis could not have fired the shots that hit the boy and his father, but everything about the footage suggests the scene was staged. There was no blood on the wall or ground and footage never shown to the public appeared to show the boy moving after being declared dead. I set out to explore this staged hypothesis, first raised by Nahum Shahaf, and exposed to the Anglophone public by James Fallows in 2003.
And that had brought me to see these rushes, the raw, unedited footage shot that day in September 2000 at Netzarim Junction. The film was in the possession of senior French-Israeli journalist and France2 chief correspondent Charles Enderlin, who was the employer of Abu Rahma, the cameraman who had shot the footage. He was known to only show the rushes to investigators “on his side” but coming on the recommendation of a friend, Enderlin assumed I was sympathetic. For the viewing, I had Enderlin on my left, and on my right, an Israeli cameraman working for France2, who had been with Enderlin in Ramallah the day of the filming.
What I saw astonished me. In scene after scene, Palestinians staged scenes of battle, injury, ambulance evacuation, and panicked flight, which the cameraman deliberately filmed, all the while standing around in front of the Israeli position, completely unafraid. To judge by Abu Rahma’s 21 minutes of film, and a Reuters cameraman’s two hours, Netzarim Junction that day of September, the “third day of the intifada,” was the site of multiple makeshift stages upon which cameramen, most Palestinian, some foreign, filmed “action sequences,” performed by everyone from military men with guns to teenagers and kids standing by.
At one point in our viewing, a very large man grabbed his leg and began to limp badly. Perhaps he had not faked his injury convincingly enough, perhaps his size discouraged anyone from picking him up. In any case, only children gathered around, whom he shooed away, and, after looking to see no one was coming, he walked away without a limp.
The Israeli France2 cameraman snorted.
“Why do you laugh?” I asked.
“It’s so obviously fake,” he responded.
“I know,” I said, turning to Enderlin, “this all seems fake.”
“Oh, they do that all the time. It’s a cultural thing” The senior correspondent replied.
“So why couldn’t they have faked it with al Durah?”
“They’re not good enough,” said Enderlin. “They can’t fool me.”
The other shoe had dropped. In earlier sessions with Nahum Shahaf, the first (“semi-official”) Israeli investigator of the al Durah affair, hired by IDF southern commander, Yom Tov Samia, I had seen over two hours of video from that day. This footage, shot by a Palestinian cameraman working for Reuters, had familiarized me with the Palestinian practice of staging scenes, whose basic sequence ran: Fake a dramatic injury, have people gather around you, pick you up (often brutally, without stretchers) and rush you to an ambulance, helpers eagerly grabbing the injured on the run, in order to get on camera. Those carrying the wounded, then throw him in the back of the ambulance, slam shut the doors, and the driver takes off, sirens blaring. That evening, you all go home and see how many times you made the news.
I already knew that Palestinians faked footage, but what I now understood was that the mainstream news media, whose first imperative was to filter out such blatant propaganda, had accepted it as a normal practice, and used the fakes to tell the “real” story. Professional standards for journalists in the West can make even staging B-roll problematic. But apparently, in the Middle East, Western journalists have few problems with staged A-roll as long as they can cut it into believable site-bytes of Israeli aggression and Palestinian victimhood. Veteran 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon would later describe Netzarim Junction as the focal point of the new Arab-Israeli war, one in which “more than 30 were killed and hundreds injured.”
For anyone familiar with journalistic norms in the Middle East, the practice of staging news as a tactic in ideological and narrative warfare, should not come as a surprise. Indeed, the Islamic Mass Media Charter adopted at the First International Islamic Mass Media Conference in 1980 states clearly its mission: “To combat Zionism and its colonialist policy of creating settlements as well as its ruthless suppression of the Palestinian people.” Elsewhere, the charter declares, “Islamic media-men should censor all material that is either broadcast or published, in order to protect the Ummah from influences that are harmful to Islamic character and values, and in order to forestall all dangers.” Another document, the Arab Information Charter of Honour, developed in 1978 by the Council of Arab Information Ministers in Cairo affirms the following:
The Arab media should care about Arab solidarity in all material that is presented to the public opinion inside and outside—it should contribute with all its capacity in supporting understanding and cooperation between the Arab countries. It should avoid what might harm Arab solidarity and restrain from personal campaigns.
Indeed, as one Jordanian editor noted, Arab states have been innovators of fake news.
Only a Western chauvinist would imagine a Palestinian cameraman based in Gaza like Abu Rahma, would not consider staging scenes an acceptable form of journalism. Ramah, in fact, lied readily to the press, and smiled charmingly when caught. He made deadly accusations against the IDF under oath and then denied them in unannounced faxes. He proudly proclaims his participation in the struggle for Palestine and his determination to “continue to fight with my camera” as Rahma did in 2001 at an award ceremony in Dubai.
When Esther Schapira, in her documentary Three Bullets and a Dead Child, asked a TV official with the Palestinian Authority why he had spliced into the al Durah footage a shot of an Israeli aiming his gun (at crowds rioting because of the al Durah footage, making it look like he was ‘targeting’ al Durah, he responded:
These are forms of artistic expression, but all of this serves to convey the truth … We never forget our higher journalistic principles to which we are committed of relating the truth and nothing but the truth.
It’s harder to come by a more revealing expression of the vast gap that (in principle) separates Western modern professional journalistic attitudes towards “truth,” and prevailing Palestinian, premodern, attitudes in which manipulating evidence to make accusations of murder, is loyalty to a higher truth. It is the distinction between a premodern world in which propagandists retailed blood libels, and a modern one in which professional commitments are supposed to prohibit journalists from such behavior. The distinction has become even more fraught as a postmodern attitude has taken root in the West, which allies itself with the premodern in treating notions like ‘objectivity’ with suspicion and disdain.
This episode in 2003 with Enderlin was the first time that I got the response of a Western journalist to the rather obvious fakery and it amounted to: “But they do it all the time.”
A few months later, when the same footage was viewed in Paris with three “independent” journalists from the French MSNM, they too remarked on the extensive staging and they got a similar response: “Yes Monsieur, but, you know, it’s always like that,” said Didier Eppelbaum, Enderlin’s boss. To which one of the journalists, maintaining his commitment to integrity (but not for long), responded indignantly, “You may know that, but the public doesn’t.” Indeed, while both Enderlin and his boss will admit, behind what they think are closed doors, to this highly unprofessional behavior done “all the time,” on record, they state precisely the opposite. “Talal abu Rahma, Enderlin assured Esther Schapira in 2007, “is a journalist like me; he’s a prima facie witness. He told me what happened. I’ve no reason not to believe him.” Three years later, in his self-justifying book, he elaborated: “Never failing in his professionalism, Talal is a most credible source, and has been employed by France2 since 1988.”
This public secret about the widespread staging of news footage so pervaded French journalistic circles that one commentator, Clement Weill-Raynal invoked it to dismiss criticism of France2 from French media analyst, Philippe Karsenty. (Enderlin sued Karsenty for defamation of character, a case that took years.) According to Weill-Raynal:
Karsenty is so shocked that fake images were used and edited in Gaza, but this happens all the time everywhere on television and no TV journalist in the field or a film editor would be shocked
The implications of this remark undermine its very use in his argument: How can Karsenty defame Enderlin by accusing him of using staged footage when, as Clément Weill-Raynal here admits, everybody does it? Or, given that he too was critical of Enderlin, was this a deliberately sarcastic comment on a widespread and dishonest attitude that protected Enderlin from criticism?
Either way, the comment reveals a situation in which the TV news media were ‘in’ on a secret that they kept from the public. Palestinians faked scenes and journalists regularly edited that footage, taking small, believable soundbites and stringing them together to present the Palestinian narrative of victimization by the Israeli Goliath. Indeed, more than one Western commentator has adopted the same argument “from higher truth, used by the PATV propagandist. Here, for instance, is Adam Rose attempting to rebut James Fallows’s article about the events at Netzarim Junction:
In other words, above and beyond “historical” truths of what actually happens in particular “singular” events, there are “philosophical” truths of what “probably or necessarily” happens “universally” in certain types of events… it [the fake] is an authentic symbol of the Israeli occupation.”
Or, as the New York Times headline ran in defense of Dan Rather’s faked letters from George Bush’s commander in the National Guard, released just before the 2004 election, “Memos on Bush are Fake but Accurate, Typist Says.” When the “higher truth” is paramount, mundane facts and professional commitments give way.
And so it was with this footage produced by the Palestinian street and cooperative cameramen, whose higher truth was the Israeli-Goliath and Palestinian-victim. Thus, talented, respected journalists like Enderlin, perhaps unaware, perhaps unconcerned, perhaps just glad to have material, could offer stories of clashes between Palestinian children throwing rocks and Israelis soldiers armed to the teeth, and pepper them with high casualty figures for the Palestinian victims, all to this background footage of injury and evacuation. In other words, B-roll for Palestinian lethal narratives. And as far as Enderlin was concerned, the al Durah story was believable precisely because it “corresponded to the situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip at the time.” In other words, the situation was not as Enderlin thought: that ‘PA journalist-warriors aren’t good enough to fool me’, but rather, he was so set on getting his headlines that their rubbish effortlessly fooled him.
As I left the building, still stunned by Enderlin’s response—he had been using the cameraman, apparently never rebuking him for his unprofessional behavior, for twelve years!—thinking about the deep symbiosis of Palestinian staging and Western news reports. “It’s an industry,” I thought, “a ‘national’ industry, like Hollywood, or Bollywood… it’s Pallywood.
Had Enderlin had the courage to respond to Abu Rahma’s al Durah, lethal propaganda by firing him, and running a sensational piece on how his own Palestinian cameraman had tried to trick him into airing a staged scene in support of a potentially lethal blood libel… had he warned his fellow journalists of the danger to their professional integrity in running Palestinian-filmed footage without checking carefully… the course of the Oslo Jihad, and with it, the future of civil society in the 21st century might have been very different.
What I soon discovered, however, was the immense resistance of everyone involved, even the Israelis, to any effort to change the narrative. Aside from a few dyed-in-the-wool Zionists, who would believe that the MSNM as a pack, could misreport so dramatically that it would be the willing or (worse?) unwitting arm of Palestinian information warfare, running their war propaganda, as news? How could I possibly hope to convince anyone who had to watch out for his or her credibility, that the 21st century started out with a massive (MSNM-wide) injection of fake news into the Western public sphere? Much less get them to think of the damage that (ongoing) catastrophe has caused… including the spread of fake news to the various parts of a MSNM increasingly split over domestic issues…
Now, almost two decades later, many who might otherwise agree with my analysis, consider the story ‘ancient history.’ Except that it’s not; not only does Pallywood—MSNM collusion persist, they have spread like a disease. As David Collier recently noted:
The demonization of Jewish people, via a colossal anti-Israel disinformation campaign, has infected every local authority and education establishment in Europe. A continent-wide anti-semitic trend just 70 years after the Europeans exterminated six million Jews. Truly sickening.
And it’s not just Israel and the Jews who suffer from this disinformation campaign; as history has long shown, the second victim of anti-Semitism, are the anti-Semites. If in the 20th century, Isaiah Berlin could quip: “Anti-Semitism is hating Jews more than absolutely necessary,” the 21st century version is “Anti-Zionism is hating Israel even when it hurts you.” Indeed, it just may be that the key to unraveling the dysfunctions and madness that seem to have overtaken the Western and Arab-Muslim public spheres in the 21st century, lies in reconsidering this first, sustained case of fake news in the 21st century. Just how much damage does this plague have to wreak before people who care about democracy catch on? Woke, anyone?
Not Nihad Awad of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), who marked this 18th anniversary of this calamitous fake with a reverent tweet: Remembering the #Palestinian boy #MohamedAlDurrah who was murdered by Israeli soldiers 18 years ago today. #Palestine”
The mainstream or legacy media absolutely cannot be trusted on any news relating to the war in Gaza
Very illuminating history of history. Skepticism is the only defense against this world of lies...