No To Nuclear – Why Nuclear Power Destroys Lives, Derails Climate Progress, and Provokes War
By Linda Pentz Gunter, 8 Oct 25, https://www.plutobooks.com/product/no-to-nuclear/
There is no silver bullet for the climate crisis—but that hasn’t stopped people searching. Seizing its chance, the nuclear power industry wants us to believe that theirs is the only technical fix for our deliverance. The public, politicians and the media have been easily swayed.
This should come as no surprise. After all, the pro-nuclear PR campaign is richly funded and has an army of lobbyists sowing myths while the industry reaps the rewards of taxpayer-funded subsidies.
No To Nuclear calls the industry’s bluff. Blasting aside its claims to be safe and green, Linda Pentz Gunter makes the irresistible case that nuclear power is too slow, too expensive, too dangerous and too integrally connected to the nuclear weapons complex, to serve as a rational energy choice.
The book also delves into the lives of Indigenous peoples and communities of colour, who have been harmed the most by the nuclear sector, and questions whether the way we devalue nature and the environment is costing us the chance of a genuinely just energy transition.
UK Parliament blocks Declassified, citing our Gaza ‘standpoint’
MPs condemn ‘sinister move’ to deny access to Declassified reporters.
Martin Williams, Declassified UK, 23 September 2025
Parliament has been accused of an “outrageous abuse” that is “worthy of the Trump White House”, after blocking Declassified from holding a media pass.
Internal emails reveal that officials cited our “in-depth investigations… from a particular standpoint”, when rejecting our application.
They also flagged a recent investigation we published that raised concerns over pro-Israel bias in Westminster.
This is despite parliamentary authorities having a duty to remain politically impartial. Guidelines say that passes should be granted with “fair access across a range of outlets”.
The decision to deny Declassified access has been criticised by politicians across the political spectrum, including Labour, the Green Party, Plaid Cymru, and the Independent Alliance.
Almost 500 journalists currently hold a pass, which provides unfettered access to Westminster and daily government briefings. They include many from right-wing outlets like Guido Fawkes and GB News.
When Declassified’s application for a pass was first rejected, officials blamed space and capacity “due to limitations within the Parliamentary estate”.
But documents released under the Freedom of Information Act now reveal there is no limit to the number of press passes that can be issued – and capacity was not even discussed as a consideration.
In fact, at least three other journalists have been granted parliamentary passes since Declassified’s application was rejected.
In a bizarre attempt to justify the ban, documents also reveal that officials claimed Declassified’s focus on UK foreign policy does not count as “politics”.
An internal email said: “They are not specifically a politics organisation, as their main focus is around foreign affairs.”
‘Outrageous abuse’
Several politicians condemned the decision by parliament – and warned against “selectively silencing journalists”.
Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader, said: “Declassified have done outstanding, vital work exposing the scale of British complicity in Israeli war crimes.
“A healthy democracy rests on transparency and accountability. What does Britain have to hide?”
Liz Saville-Roberts, the leader of Plaid Cymru, said that parliament “should be proud to make itself open to investigative journalists”……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Threats
The decision to reject Declassified‘s media pass application was finalised by the Sergeant At Arms, Ugbana Oyet. But records suggest it was based on advice from the House of Commons press office, who highlighted the “standpoint” of Declassified’s coverage.
When we sent a “right of reply”, with advance notice of this article, the press office flatly denied the evidence contained in the internal emails. This is despite the fact they were disclosed by parliament itself, under the Freedom of Information Act.
Officials even threatened regulatory action against Declassified if we failed to publish a lengthy and misleading statement from a parliamentary spokesperson.
The statement claimed that decisions around press passes “are not based on an outlet’s editorial stance or coverage of any one issue, and any suggestion to the contrary is wholly untrue”.
And when Declassified said we were not prepared to quote from a misleading statement, parliament’s head of media responded: “We’d expect any outlet to use the full response we provide them – and would strongly dispute any suggestion that the statement provided is untrue.”
He added: “We would be happy to follow up with Impress [the media regulator] if our response is not reflected in your coverage.”
He also claimed that our article was based on “incomplete material [which] does not reflect the full picture”. However, if this is true, it suggests that parliament failed to fully comply with Declassified’s Freedom of Information request.
The press office proceeded to ignore further questions and provided no further information.
The spokesperson had said: “The House of Commons supports the work of a free and independent press – providing access and facilities to the Parliamentary Press Gallery. Demand far exceeds capacity here, hence numbers are required to be strictly controlled, whilst ensuring fair access across a range of outlets.
“For applications from an outlet that does not already have a pass, or for a request to increase the allocation given to an outlet, we require a business case to be submitted, details of which are available on our website. Unsuccessful applicants may reapply for a pass one year after their original application, and as Parliament is a public building, journalists are still able to visit, attend and report on proceedings and meet Members without a media pass. Decisions around accreditation are applied consistently across all applications.”
They added: “The range of media outlets currently granted access — spanning the full spectrum of political opinion and including a wide variety of independent and critical journalism — clearly demonstrates that the accreditation process is impartial and rooted solely in operational considerations and editorial relevance to parliamentary proceedings.”
The emails obtained by Declassified strongly suggest this claim is misleading.
We’ve written an open letter calling on parliamentary authorities to urgently review this decision and issue Declassified with a press pass. We also urge parliamentary authorities to review the way that future applications are processed, to avoid any partisan interference with future applications. Please add your name below – [Petition on original] https://www.declassifieduk.org/parliament-blocks-declassified-citing-our-gaza-standpoint/
The National Press Club of Australia, Caving to the Israel Lobby, Cancels My Talk on Our Betrayal of Palestinian Journalists.
By Chris Hedges / ScheerPost, October 4, 2025 https://scheerpost.com/2025/10/04/chris-hedges-the-national-press-club-of-australia-caving-to-the-israel-lobby-cancels-my-talk-on-our-betrayal-of-palestinian-journalists/
I was scheduled to give a talk at the National Press Club of Australia on October 20 called “The Betrayal of Palestinian Journalists.” It was to focus on the amplification of Israeli lies in the press, which most reporters know are lies, betraying Palestinian colleagues who are slandered, targeted and killed by Israel. But, perhaps inadvertently proving my point, the chief executive of the press club, Maurice Reilly, cancelled the event. The announcement of my talk disappeared from the web site. Reilly said “that in the interest of balancing out our program we will withdraw our offer.”
The Israeli Ambassador, retired Lt. Colonel Amir Maimon, who spent 14 years in the Israeli military, is reportedly being considered to speak.
It is true that I know only one side of the picture from the seven years I spent covering Gaza. I was on the receiving end of Israeli attacks, including being bombed by its air force and fired upon by its snipers, one of whom killed a young man a few feet away from me at the Netzarim Junction. We lifted him up, each person taking hold of an arm or a leg, and lumbered up the road as his body swayed like a heavy sack. I saw small boys baited and shot by Israeli soldiers in the Gaza refugee camp of Khan Younis. The soldiers swore at the boys in Arabic over the loudspeakers of their armored jeep. The boys, about 10 years old, then threw stones at an Israeli vehicle and the soldiers opened fire, killing some, wounding others.
I was present more than once as Israeli troops shot Palestinian children. Such incidents, in the Israeli lexicon, become children caught in crossfire. I was in Gaza when F-16 attack jets bombed overcrowded hovels in Gaza City. I saw the corpses of the victims, including children. This became a surgical strike on a bomb-making factory. I have watched Israel demolish homes and entire apartment blocks to create wide buffer zones between the Palestinians and the Israeli troops that ring Gaza. I have interviewed the destitute and homeless families, some camped out in crude shelters erected in the rubble. The destruction becomes the demolition of the homes of terrorists. I have stood in the gutted remains of schools as well as medical clinics and mosques and counted the bodies. I have heard Israel claim that errant rockets or mortar fire from the Palestinians caused these and other deaths, or that the buildings were being used as arms depots or launching sites.
I, along with every other reporter I know who has worked in Gaza, including the over 278 Palestinians journalists and media workers who have been killed by Israel since the start of the genocide, many in targeted assassinations, have reported a reality in Gaza that bears no resemblance to how it is portrayed by Israeli politicians, its military and many media outlets that serve as Israel’s echo chamber.
Lt. Colonel Maimon can obviously, if he chooses, enlighten us about the artificial intelligence-based program known as “Lavender” and how it selects people, along with their families, in Gaza for assassination.
He can explain how Israel determines the quotas of civilian dead, how soldiers are permitted to kill as many as 20 civilians in order to target a Palestinian fighter and hundreds for a Hamas commander. He can let us know why Israel continues the mass slaughter when an internal Israeli intelligence database indicates that at least 83 percent of Palestinians killed are civilians. He can tell us how Palestinian civilians are abducted, dressed in Israeli army uniforms, have their hands tied, and are then forced to walk as human shields in front of Israeli troops into buildings and underground tunnels that are potentially booby-trapped. He can explain how the special unit called the “Legitimization Cell” carries out propaganda campaigns to portray Palestinian journalists as Hamas operatives to justify their assassinations. He can detail the targeting, bombing and controlled demolitions that have damaged or destroyed 97 percent of Gaza’s educational system, including every university and nearly all its hospitals. He can explain how, after Israel blocked all humanitarian aid on March 2 to starve the Palestinians in Gaza, Israeli officials set up the so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation to lure emaciated and malnourished Palestinians to four aid hubs in the south — aid hubs with little food and which Human Rights Watch calls “death traps” and Doctors Without Borders calls “orchestrated killing.” These hubs, open only an hour, usually at 2:00 am, ensure a chaotic scramble for scraps of food. Israeli soldiers, along with U.S. mercenaries, who include members of the Infidels Motorcycle Club, a self-professed anti-“radical jihadist” biker group that counts members with Crusader tattoos among its ranks, fire live rounds into the crowds killing over 1,400 Palestinians and injuring thousands more in and around the hubs since May. He can lay out the plans for the concentration camps in southern Gaza and the efforts to ultimately expel the Palestinians from Gaza and repopulate it with Jewish colonists. He can explain why Israel abandoned its own hostages, why it fired on vehicles headed into the Gaza strip on October 7 carrying Israeli captives and why it used Hellfire missiles to obliterate the Erez Crossing installation when it was seized by Palestinian fighters knowing that dozens of Israeli soldiers were inside.
If Lt. Colonel Maimon spoke with this honesty and candor we could call this balance. It would fill in a side of the equation I glimpse from the outside. It would complete the circle. It would match truth with truth.
But Lt. Colonel Maimon, I see from his past statements, will spew out the mendacious narratives used by Israel to justify genocide — Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields, it operates command centers in hospitals, it sexually assaulted Israeli women on October 7 and beheaded babies. He will make the spurious claim that Israel “has the right to defend itself,” ignoring the fact that Hamas and other Palestinian resistance groups, which lack an air force, mechanized units, artillery, a navy, fleets of militarized drones and missiles, pose no existential threat to Israel. More important, he will not address Israel’s flagrant violation of international law by occupying and settling colonists on Palestinian land and carrying out a livestreamed genocide.
This is not balance, unless we accept a world where truth is balanced by lies. It is an abandonment of the fundamental mission of journalists — to hold power accountable. But most egregiously, it is a terrible betrayal of our colleagues in Gaza who have been killed for chronicling the daily savagery in Gaza, for doing their job.
No doubt, the corporate sponsors and wealthy donors of the press club are pleased. No doubt, the club is able to slither away from its journalistic integrity. No doubt, it is spared the attacks that would come from allowing me to speak.
But please, have the decency to remove the word press from your club.
Book Review: A Call to Arms About the Threat of Anti-Science
By Dan Falk. 10.03.2025. https://undark.org/2025/10/03/book-review-science-under-siege/?utm_source=Undark%3A+News+%26+Updates&utm_campaign=00d7f4a4e8-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_5cee408d66-185e4e09de-176033209
“Science Under Siege,” by Michael E. Mann and Peter J. Hotez, is an impassioned manifesto against attacks on science.
In the 1995 book “The Demon Haunted World,” the astronomer Carl Sagan warned that the United States was turning its back on science, and that the consequences would be dire. Near the start of their new book, “Science Under Siege: How To Fight The Five Most Powerful Forces That Threaten Our World,” Michael E. Mann and Peter J. Hotez cite Sagan’s vision of science as a “candle in the dark,” and argue that what the astronomer feared is now coming to pass. In fact, readers may get the impression that the situation is already much worse than what Sagan envisioned.
While Sagan was primarily concerned with the rise of pseudoscience, Mann and Hotez fear that we’re now in the midst of an anti-science boom, led by people, corporations, and governments who intentionally spread false or misleading information. “Anti-science has already caused serious illness and mass casualties in the near term,” they write. “Unmitigated, it will in the long term take millions more lives, produce misguided national policies, and have long-lasting catastrophic consequences, including potentially, the destabilization of our civilization.”
Mann and Hotez are not merely observers, but scientists who have found themselves on the front lines of the ongoing attacks on science. Mann is a climate scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, and director of the Penn Center for Science, Sustainability, and the Media. Hotez is a pediatrician and vaccine scientist at Baylor College of Medicine, where he is also the co-director of the Texas Children’s Center for Vaccine Development. In 2022, he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on a patent-free Covid-19 vaccine.
While attacks on science have taken many forms, the authors highlight the current pushback against vaccines and skepticism over climate science as two of the most urgent issues. Mann and Hotez describe the resistance to climate science and vaccines as a one-two punch, but add that there is a third punch as well, in the form of mis- and disinformation. The authors point to the devastating consequences of resistance to public health measures, especially vaccines, which came to the fore during the Covid-19 pandemic, the death toll from which currently stands at 1.2 million Americans, according to the World Health Organization.
Many of those deaths, they suggest, could have been prevented had people been vaccinated and followed social distancing and mask guidelines. And they’re not shy about saying who’s to blame: “The deaths occurred mostly along a political partisan divide,” they write, “with those living in Republican-majority (‘red’) states disproportionately suffering most of the deaths and disabilities as a consequence of being targeted by propaganda and misinformation from elected leaders, extremist media, and the modern political Right.”
Resistance to vaccines isn’t new, but the authors argue that the anti-vaxx movement reached new heights as the pandemic wore on: “Heading into 2023, the pandemic’s fourth year, we witnessed an expanded alliance of malevolent billionaires, tech bros, and high-net worth individuals — plutocrats, prominent podcasters, and far-right extremists, including Steve Bannon and the ‘Proud Boys’ — marching at anti-vaccine rallies and joining forces with the more established antivaccine activists.”
They rebuke Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican member of Congress, for calling those who administer vaccines “medical brown shirts,” using language associated with Nazis. And (not surprisingly) they chastise those who continue to give oxygen to the long-debunked alleged link between vaccines and autism.
Then there’s the climate crisis. The world is warming, global wind patterns and ocean currents are shifting, ocean levels are rising, and extreme weather events are becoming more frequent. Mann and Hotez call out many sources of climate misinformation, including “petrostates” — nations whose revenues are largely derived from fossil fuels. (The petrostates are one of the five “powerful forces” referenced in the book’s subtitle, the others being plutocrats, propagandists, the press, and pros — referring to scholars who use their credentials to promote unsupported or contrarian views.) Of the petrostates, Russia tops the authors’ list. Citing Russia’s dependence on fossil fuels and its authoritarian leadership, including what they see as a desire to destabilize Western democracy, they write: “These factors combine in a perfect storm of consequences for the global spread of civilization-threatening antiscience.”
The War Department’s War on Media
The Pentagon’s new restrictions will bar correspondents covering the American military from covering the American military, as the Trump regime attempts to exert full-spectrum control over media.
By Patrick Lawrence, Consortium News, September 30, 2025
It should be evident by now to anyone paying even casual attention that exerting full-spectrum control over American media is among the Trump regime’s most perniciously obsessive projects.
Of all the extra-constitutional messes this vulgar ignoramus is making, I count his assaults on media his gravest attempt to destroy what remains of American democracy and what little chance there may be to restore it.
There are all sorts of cases in point. President Trump has a citizen’s right to file lawsuits against various media — ABC News, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Paramount Global (the parent of CBS News) — but to call these anything other than an antidemocratic assertion of executive power is out of the question.
Lately there are the threats of Brendan Carr, the mad-dog chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, to take licenses away from broadcasters whose reportage and commentary are not to Trump’s liking.
“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” saith Carr when he forced ABC to take Jimmy Kimmel off the air (temporarily, it turned out) for a few utterly harmless remarks the late-night host made after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the influential conservative.
What a ridiculous comment from a ridiculous man, what a capricious display of authoritarian power. This is a war on media the Trump regime intends to wage on many fronts, to finish this pencil-sketch of the landscape.
What is to my mind the most portentous attack yet on media of all sorts and what little independence remains among the mainstream variety came a couple of weeks ago, when the Defense Department announced severe new restrictions on journalists covering the Pentagon.
To put the case simply, these rules will bar correspondents covering the American military from covering the American military.
My mind goes first to Jefferson’s famous remark in 1787, while serving as the young United States’ minister in Paris.
“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government,” he wrote to Edward Carrington, a prominent Virginian and a friend, “I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
Taking the Pentagon’s new restrictions on their own terms and also as a harbinger, Trump and Pete Hegseth, his buffoonish defense secretary, appear intent on delivering Americans to that condition Jefferson warned against 238 years ago.
Turning his question another way, I remind readers of W.E.B. DuBois, Mark Twain, Samuel Gompers, the James brothers (William and Henry), and other critics of the American imperium as it emerged at the end of the 19th century. There will be empire abroad or democracy at home, they asserted with a sort of desperate alarm, but Americans will not have both.
Considered in this context, Hegseth, with Trump’s evident approval, has just nodded in favor of this argument. Operating the late-phase imperium, Hegseth effectively advises Americans, requires the sequestration of power from public scrutiny.
The document announcing the Defense Department’s new restrictions on correspondents covering the American military runs to 17 pages; a covering letter signed by Sean Parnell, the Pentagon spokesman, describes it as “implementing the Secretary of War [sic] memorandum, ‘Updated Physical Control Measures for Press/Media Access Within the Pentagon,’ dated May 23, 2025.”
Note the date. By mid–May Pentagon correspondents had reported that Hegseth was using unsecured internet lines to conduct classified business and had brought his wife, brother, and personal attorney into a chat room where a top-secret aerial attack on Yemen was under discussion. A few days after that it was reported that he had invited Elon Musk to a briefing on potential war plans against China.
This guy had a lot of stupidity and incompetence to cover up. And the restrictions Hegseth authorized in May, detailed in the memorandum dated Sept. 18 and due to come into effect over the next few days, reek of the sort of revenge — against Democrats, against the universities, against the courts, against the media — that seems to rule within the Trump regime.
How damaging to our tattered republic, you have to conclude, are the petty vendettas of these thankfully passing people.
These new restrictions are beyond Draconian. Journalists covering the Pentagon are to be required to pledge not to report anything, anything at all, that has not been explicitly authorized by a department official. They will not be allowed even to gather information without such authorization. Access even to unclassified information will be limited to occasions “when there is a lawful government purpose for doing so.”
Reporters assigned to cover the Defense Department will now have to take pledges to get in the Pentagon’s front door? Just how far are these people going to go? This reminds me of the loyalty oaths required of federal employees during the McCarthyist 1950s.
Roughly 90 journalists cover the Pentagon at any given time. They will henceforth be restricted even from walking most of the building’s halls without an escort. “Failure to abide by these rules,” the memorandum warns, “may result in suspension or revocation of your building pass and loss of access.”
This is pretty close to Soviet, in my estimation.
“Journalists covering the Pentagon are to be required to pledge not to report anything, anything at all, that has not been explicitly authorized by a department official…. Access even to unclassified information will be limited…
Hegseth took to social media the day these restrictions were issued to journalists and, so, reported in their media. “The ‘press’ does not run the Pentagon,” he declared to all, “the people do.”
Tell me if this is not altogether Soviet.
It would be difficult to overstate the gravity of these measures. Taken to their extreme, and to go by the hyper-officious phrasing of the Sept. 18 memorandum the extreme is what Hegseth’s Pentagon has in mind, once these regulations go live the conduct of the imperium will no longer be visible to the public.
The imposition of total control of information — and so of all “narratives” — and the concealment of all conduct: These are the all-but-stated objectives. We are looking at unlimited prerogative and the strictest enforcement of secrecy, to describe this new regime another way. At this early moment I find it hard to imagine the extent of the lawlessness this may turn out to license.
I start to think the Trump II regime’s relations with media exceed the corruptions of the Cold War decades, and this is going some. But no president then was as brutishly ignorant and as indifferent to the Constitution as Trump. The imperium was on the ascendant during those first post–1945 decades; now it is bankrupt (in lots of ways) and obviously on the wane. The game is bound to get rougher as strength gives way to weakness…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Pete Hegseth has decreed a radical departure in professional practice for journalists covering the national security state. True and highly condemnable.
Pete Hegseth has codified long-established practices and a longstanding relationship between the press and power. True and highly condemnable. https://consortiumnews.com/2025/09/30/patrick-lawrence-the-war-depts-war-on-media/
How the media tears up its own rulebook to hide Israel’s atrocities
Jonathon Cook, 30 September 2025 , https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2025-09-30/media-rulebook-hide-israel-atrocities/
The news cycle has rules every rookie journalist understands. When the media choose to break them, you can be sure it is for entirely non-journalistic reasons
You can tell much from how the media choose to cover a news story – and from the facts they decide to e, mphasise in a headline. And you can tell even more from the fact that, on certain subjects, the media uniformly choose to break the most basic rules of news gathering taught to every young journalist.
Typically, reporters try to extract as much news “value” from a story as they can. That means there is often a formula hiding behind the coverage.
When the news first hits, it is handled as what we call a “breaking story”. It is the first draft of the event, containing essential information as it can best be understood at the time of the report.
Here’s an example of a possible headline on a breaking news story: “Two dead, over 40 injured as London-to-Brighton train derails.”
Later the same news event is repackaged in what is called a “follow-up” – once more information is available and errors can be corrected, or because, with more time to talk to those directly involved, there is the chance to present a different, or more interesting, angle on the same story.
Here’s the headline on a possible follow-up: “Train driver reportedly had heart attack before fatal train derailment.”
But there are cases where the natural order of the news cycle gets disrupted – and when it does, there are invariably likely to be non-journalistic reasons in play.
In the case of Israel, the news-gathering rulebook often gets torn up.
The first lesson taught to every rookie journalist is this: wherever possible, supply the reader with the “who, what, when, where, why and how” of the story.
I would not be the first to note how often news media forget in headlines – the only part of a story most readers see – to mention the first of those points, “Who?”, if the responsible party is Israel and it is committing indisputable war crimes.
We have had two years filled with this kind of rogue reporting, designed to obscure Israel’s role in systematically perpetrating atrocities that amount to genocide:
But I want to highlight a less noticed element to the media’s perverse coverage of Israel. And that is the regular skewing of the traditional news cycle. Too often the media simply skip the breaking stage of a news story and head straight to the follow-up.
By now, you might be able to guess why. Because a breaking story presents only the essential facts, and those facts cannot disguise the nature of Israel’s crimes.
By moving straight to the follow-up, the media get to muddy the water with Israel’s rationale, however preposterous, for its war crimes at the very moment those crimes first come to public attention.
Let us take as an example Israel’s strike last month on Nasser hospital in Khan Younis, the only major hospital still functioning, partially, in Gaza after Israel put out of action dozens of others. The strike killed scores of journalists and rescue workers.
The media uniformly framed Israel’s attack on a protected building – a hospital – and its murder of civilians there as potentially warranted by amplifying an Israeli claim that was patently ridiculous on at least three counts.
First, Israel claimed that it was targeting a camera on an outside balcony – and that the camera was such a threat, and an immediate one, that it needed to hit Nasser hospital with missiles to destroy it.
Second, Israel claimed that the camera was being used by Hamas, even though it belonged to a Reuters journalist and was actually being used by Reuters for a live feed at the time it and the hospital were hit.
And third, Israel claimed that the only way the camera could be disabled was by hitting the hospital with a series of missile strikes that killed journalists and emergency workers who rushed to assist those killed and injured in the initial strike that had destroyed the camera.
The problem with the coverage ran much deeper than the astounding levels of gullibility demonstrated by the entire press corps in reporting Israel’s “Hamas camera” claim.
The media also had to pervert the normal news cycle by failing to report the attack on the hospital as a breaking story. Instead the media moved straight to the follow-up, in which Israel was allowed to foreground its atrocity “denial” with the camera claim.
In large part, the media could do this only because Israel – which understands how to manipulate the news cycle, especially when the media are so ready to spread its disinformation – had its excuses ready from the outset of the attack. That alone should have rung alarm bells with any real journalists.
But further, major media outlets all chose as their follow-up Israel’s ludicrous rationale for an illegal attack on the hospital: the red herring of the “Hamas camera”. Were they doing their jobs properly, these outlets could have chosen an entirely different follow-up. They could have taken testimony from experts and witnesses on the ground to tear apart Israel’s tissue of lies.
The goal here, of course, was to distort the audience’s understanding of a simple news event – Israel’s attack on a hospital in violation of international law to kill journalists and emergency workers, also in violation of international law – to ensure any loss of sympathy with Israel was kept to a minimum.
The media’s role in artificially sustaining support for Israel, in the face of all the evidence of its crimes, has been absolutely essential to smoothing the path, over the past two years, to genocide.
Once you understand how the media pervert the normal news cycle when it serves larger political purposes, the strange presentation of other events starts to make more sense. Such as the minimal coverage of police detaining George Galloway, a former MP and leader of a UK political party, at Gatwick airport at the weekend under draconian terrorism laws. Galloway also had his electronic devices seized.
His detention alone should have been a big news story. But there was also plenty of extra news “value” that could have been extracted from it.
The story was more than ripe for follow-ups, given Galloway’s outspokenness about Israel and its genocide in Gaza; the Starmer government’s efforts to silence dissent on Gaza from journalists, lawyers and now politicians using terrorism laws; and the government’s recent abuses of the terrorism laws to proscribe for the first time in British history the direct-action group Palestine Action, which has been targeting weapons factories in the UK, like the Israeli firm Elbit’s, supplying Israel with the tools to carry out the Gaza genocide.
Were the Russian government to detain and seize the electronic devices of a politician critical of Putin’s policies in Ukraine, we all know how the British media would cover that story. There would be endless follow-ups of Putin’s growing and ruthless authoritarianism, of the struggle of critics to speak openly about events in Ukraine, of the need for more sanctions on Russia, and so on.
Contrast that to the coverage of Galloway’s persecution – which comes in the wake, also largely unreported, of a growing number of arrests and investigations of journalists and lawyers under the same terrorism laws after they have criticised the Starmer government’s complicity in the Gaza genocide.
Notice two days later the lack of follow-ups in the British media on Galloway’s detention. Outlets have reported the breaking story – one in which headlines connect Galloway to “terrorism” – but not issued follow-ups whose headlines might push back against the authoritarian over-reach of the British security state overseen by Starmer.
In this case, the breaking story serves the British establishment’s interests in implicitly vilifying Galloway far better than any follow-up.
A follow-up would either have to “put up” – that is, provide a rationale for detaining Galloway under terrorism laws that, we can infer, doesn’t exist – or interrogate the narrative the government has been manufacturing to justify its persecution of regime dissidents.
Paradoxically, the only outlet that has offered a follow-up – as shown in the screenshot above of a Google search late this afternoon – was from the rightwing Israeli outlet The Jerusalem Post. Uniquely, its headline “‘Politically motivated intimidation’: George Galloway reportedly detained at Gatwick airport” captures the story the British media is carefully avoiding.
The media aren’t reporting the news. They are shaping the news to shape our minds, our perceptions, our sympathies. Until we grasp that simple fact, we will continue cheering those whose only goal is to keep oppressing us and enriching themselves.
When Palestinians Die in Israeli Captivity, US Media Almost Never Take Note
Drew Favakeh, FAIR, September 27, 2025
The different treatment accorded to the plights of Palestinian and Israeli prisoners by US corporate media illustrates a persistent double standard that treats some people as more human than others.
Take 20-year-old Palestinian prisoner Ahmed Saeed Tazaz’a, who died in Israel’s Megiddo Prison after nearly three months of illegal detention, according to the Commission of Detainees and Ex-Detainees Affairs (CDA), an agency of the Palestinian Authority (8/3/25).
Tazaz’a, who was from Jenin in the northern occupied West Bank, was imprisoned on May 6 of this year without a charge or a trial. He was held under Israel’s policy of “administrative detention,” which locks up Palestinians indefinitely “on the grounds that he or she plans to break the law in the future,” according to the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem. Tazaz’a did not suffer from prior health problems before his arrest, according to his family (WAFA, 8/7/25).
There are currently some 3,613 Palestinians under administrative detention in Israeli prisons, according to the July 2025 CDA report, and more than 10,000 Palestinians in Israeli custody (not including those held in military camps) in total. Even Israel’s own military intelligence only identifies a quarter of its detainees from Gaza as “fighters,” while human rights groups and Israeli soldiers have reported even fewer—roughly 15%—as Hamas members (Guardian, 9/4/25).
The CDA reports that Tazaz’a was the 76th identified Palestinian to die in Israeli custody since October 7, 2023.
And yet, while the fates of Israelis held captive by Hamas regularly make front-page news, US corporate media have not reported on Tazaz’a’s death—much less investigated it. Among the few news outlets to report his death were the Palestine News & Information Agency (WAFA, 8/7/25), Yemen News Agency (8/3/25), Haaretz (8/6/25), DropSite (8/3/25), Middle East Monitor (8/4/25) and Middle East Eye (8/19/25).
“There is no value for life”
Since January 1, 2025, the CDA and foreign media have recorded at least 13 deaths of Palestinians held captive by Israel:
- Musab Al-Ayadeh, age 20, at Ofer Prison (died on 8/25/25);
- Ahmed Saeed Tazaz’a, 20, at Megiddo Prison (reported 8/3/25);
- Sameer Mohammad Yousif al-Rifai, 53 (7/17/25);
- Mohyee al-Din Fahmi Najem, 60, at Naqab Prison (5/4/25);
- Walid Ahmad, 17, at Megiddo Prison (3/22/25);
- Rafaat Abu Fanouneh, 34, at Ramla Prison (2/26/25);
- Khaled Mahmoud Qassem Abdullah, 40, at Megiddo Prison (2/23/25);
- Ali Ashour Ali al-Batsh, 62, at Naqab Prison (2/21/25);
- Sayel Rajab Abu Nasr, 60 (1/21/25, revealed on 6/30/25);
- Mutaz Abu Znaid, at Gadot Prison (1/13/25);
- Musab Haniya, 35 (1/5/25, revealed on 2/24/25);
- Ibrahim Adnan Ashour, 25 (6/23/24, revealed on 1/29/25);
- Mohammad Sharif al-Asali, 35 (5/17/24, revealed on 1/29/25).
Of these 13 deaths, only one—that of 17-year-old Brazilian-Palestinian Walid Ahmad—prompted any coverage in US corporate news outlets, according to a FAIR search of the US Newsstream Collection on ProQuest and supplemental Nexis and Google searches.
Ahmad died in Megiddo Prison on March 22, reportedly the youngest Palestinian to die in an Israeli prison since October 7. The Associated Press ran two original reports about Ahmad’s death (4/1/25, 4/6/25, plus a brief followup at the end of another piece—4/11/25) that a few other outlets republished, and CNN (4/6/25) ran one original report .
On April 1, the AP published a detailed report by Julia Frankel headlined “A Palestinian From the West Bank Is First Detainee Under 18 to Die in Israeli Prison, Officials Say.” The article reported that Ahmad “was held in an Israeli prison for six months without being charged [and] died after collapsing in unclear circumstances.” …………………………………………………………………………
Palestinian prisoners: not newsworthy?
By all measures, the AP’s stories were well-sourced, humanizing and put into appropriate context—yet few other US outlets picked them up. …………………………………………………………………………………………..
International and independent accounts
It’s not particularly difficult for US journalists to find details about these deaths—including the unlawful conditions and/or abuse causing or coinciding with them—as the details are extensively documented by their overseas counterparts (mainly in the Middle East)……………………………………………………………………………………
Prison abuses continue, coverage doesn’t
In 2024, at least a few deaths of Palestinian prisoners were covered by US corporate media outlets, including those of Dr. Adnan Ahmad Albursh, chief of orthopedics at Al-Shifa hospital (New York Times, 5/3/24) and Iyad al-Rantisi, director of the Kamal Adwan Hospital in Beit Lahia (Washington Post, 7/1/24). The Journal notably published an article (more than 2,500 words) about how the deaths of Albursh and other imprisoned Palestinians “fuel allegations of abuse” (8/8/24).
In 2024, at least a few deaths of Palestinian prisoners were covered by US corporate media outlets, including those of Dr. Adnan Ahmad Albursh, chief of orthopedics at Al-Shifa hospital (New York Times, 5/3/24) and Iyad al-Rantisi, director of the Kamal Adwan Hospital in Beit Lahia (Washington Post, 7/1/24). The Journal notably published an article (more than 2,500 words) about how the deaths of Albursh and other imprisoned Palestinians “fuel allegations of abuse” (8/8/24).
The lack of US media attention in 2025 cannot be attributed to a lack of either abuses or available leads. In July, an exposé by Israeli newspaper Haaretz (7/6/25) showed Megiddo Prison to be one of the more brutal of Israeli prisons. The report revealed “medical neglect,” including the “rampant spread” of scabies and a “high probability of an outbreak of a contagious intestinal disease” leading to diarrhea and weight loss, which was also caused in part by reduced food rations. Routine violence at Megiddo Prison is also prevalent, including gas spray in the prisoners’ faces, baton beatings, kicking and the assault of inmates with fists or clubs.
Haaretz described the deaths of two Palestinian prisoners, one of whom suffered “broken ribs and a broken sternum” and was “severely beaten in the head before his death” and another of whom suffered from “broken ribs, a damaged spleen and severe inflammation in both of his lungs.” Such conditions had previously been documented repeatedly by the CDA (4/13/25, 4/13/25, 5/28/25) and Addameer (3/14/25, 5/12/25).
The Haaretz article expanded on the death of Ahmad, including that he “collapsed in the prison yard and died.” Haaretz included the doctor’s finding that Ahmad “had almost no fatty tissue left in his body, suffered from colon inflammation and was infected with scabies.”
Haaretz also reported that, when asked whether the autopsy “led to any action,” the Health Ministry “refused to provide details.” The article included input from a 16-year-old inmate, identified by Haaretz under the pseudonym “Ibrahim,” who said that after Ahmad’s death, “the violence decreased but didn’t stop.”
No corporate US news outlet has covered or followed up on Haaretz‘s report.
Front-page news: ‘Israeli hostages’
By comparison, the US corporate press has put far greater focus on Israeli prisoners held by Hamas—highlighting a long-documented double-standard.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. To be clear, media should be reporting on Israeli captives—not just on their deaths, but when they are released as well, detailing their experiences.
It only serves the interests of the Israeli government, however, for US corporate media to foreground the plight of Israelis held by Hamas while failing to do so for Palestinians in Israeli captivity—especially when the latter are a part of what many nations, politicians, scholars, experts and others deem a “genocide.” https://fair.org/home/when-palestinians-die-in-israeli-captivity-us-media-almost-never-take-note/
UN Declares Genocide in Gaza While 250 US Lawmakers Are in Israel.
The visit was previously announced as part of a broader campaign launched last month to host some 400 delegations involving over 5,000 participants by year’s end, “to help spread the Israeli narrative in international media,” according to the ministry.
Tyler Poisson, September 26, 2025 https://fair.org/home/un-declares-genocide-in-gaza-while-250-us-lawmakers-are-in-israel/
The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory published a report on September 16 that charged Israeli authorities and security forces with having committed, and continuing to commit, acts of genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
The 72-page report, replete with 495 footnotes, was compiled by senior independent rights investigators appointed by the UN Human Rights Council. Specifically, the report concludes that Israel is responsible for committing four of the five genocidal acts defined by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, namely:
- (i) killing members of the group;
- (ii) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- (iii) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and
- (iv) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.
This report brings the UN into line with leading human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, Genocide Watch, Amnesty International, B’Tselem and Oxfam, all of whom have explicitly labeled Israel’s crimes in Gaza genocidal. The International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) also recently passed a resolution stating that Israel’s policies and actions in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide.
The corporate press relayed the IAGS resolution to its readers and viewers with varying degrees of emphasis and efficacy. Writing for FAIR (9/4/25), Saurav Sarkar highlighted the fact that the New York Times (9/1/25) “buried the news in the 31st paragraph of a story headlined ‘Israel’s Push for a Permanent Gaza Deal May Mean a Longer War, Experts Say.’”
Corporate coverage of the United Nation’s latest report was also of varying seriousness. The New York Times (9/17/25) decided that it was appropriate to relegate the headline that “Israel Is Committing Genocide in Gaza, UN Inquiry Says” to page A8 of its print edition. Granted, the UN finding that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza was mentioned on the front page, only under the heading “Israeli Ground Forces Push Into Gaza City, Forcing Many to Flee: Assault Deepens a Humanitarian Crisis.”
ABC (9/16/25) similarly treated the UN report as a footnote, referring to it in the final moments of a minute-and-15-second report on the assault on Gaza. Fox News (9/17/25) covered the news in the course of rebuking the UN, going so far as to put the label of “genocide” in quotes. While the Wall Street Journal (9/16/25) included the most recent genocide allegations as a subhead, the only mention we could find on MSNBC‘s website (9/18/25) came in an opinion piece headlined “The New Gaza City Offensive Is a Disaster. Trump Is Shrugging.”
The Washington Post (9/16/25) ran a piece on its website about the UN declaration, but did not find it worth a spot in its print edition.
Some corporate outlets, such as CNN (9/17/25) and Time (9/16/25), have given more appropriate emphasis to the news that the world’s preeminent governing body has officially labeled what is happening in Gaza genocide, offering dedicated articles.
‘Help spread the Israeli narrative’
On the same day the UN released its report, approximately 250 US state legislators, representing all 50 states and both parties, were in Israel for a “50 States, One Israel” conference sponsored by the Israeli government. The Jerusalem Post (9/15/25) characterized it as “the largest-ever delegation of US lawmakers” to Israel.
According to ethics disclosures reported in the Boston Herald (9/14/25), Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Alan Silvia’s trip to Israel for the conference cost $6,500. The Herald said Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs would “reimburse, waive or pay for travel expenses, though it was unclear what portion of the costs the government planned to cover.”
Quoting Rep. Ilana Rubel (D-Idaho), Boise State Public Radio (9/17/25) reported that no Idaho taxpayer funds were used to send any of five Idaho state legislatures to the conference.
The Oregon Capital Insider (9/18/25) reported that Rep. Emily McIntire (R-Ore.) “said in an email from Israel that traveling to the country has always been a dream for her, and the trip has only solidified her support for Israel.”
In this connection, the Times of Israel (9/7/25) was open about the purposes of the conference:
The ministry stresses the [“50 States, One Israel”] delegation’s strategic importance, noting that state legislators often influence anti-Israel bills, such as those supporting the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Israel hopes the visitors will help block hostile legislation at the state level and promote initiatives combating antisemitism and strengthening US/Israel ties.
The visit was previously announced as part of a broader campaign launched last month to host some 400 delegations involving over 5,000 participants by year’s end, “to help spread the Israeli narrative in international media,” according to the ministry.
Alert readers may have noticed that this article has only cited local, independent and Israeli sources about the “50 States, One Israel” conference. (See also Columbus Dispatch, 9/17/25; Georgia Public Broadcasting, 9/15/25; Mondoweiss, 9/25/25.)
At the time of this writing, the “50 States, One Israel” conference is conspicuously absent from all existing reporting on Israel in the national US corporate media. Not one major US outlet has covered the largest delegation of US state legislators to Israel. This is a startling act of omission on the part of the corporate media in the United States, and it speaks to the indispensability of local, not-for-profit, independent news.
Given that half of US voters believe that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza (Al Jazeera, 8/25/25), it is surely in the interest of the public to know if, when, why and that their local representatives were in Israel networking with parties to what the UN has labeled a genocide.
The Shift: 50 States, One Israel
Amid the ongoing genocide, the largest-ever delegation of U.S. lawmakers attended the “50 States, One Israel” conference in Jerusalem last week. It’s clear from the event, and the local reactions it sparked, that Israel’s isolation is only worsening.
It seems clear that this event was organized out of a growing sense of desperation, not a position of strength.
By Michael Arria September 25, 2025 https://mondoweiss.net/2025/09/the-shift-50-states-one-israel/
Multiple installments of this newsletter have covered congressional delegations to Israel, but the “special relationship” goes far beyond Washington and permeates politics at the most local of levels.
Last week, lawmakers from across the U.S. flew to Jerusalem to attend “50 States One Israel,” which was billed as the largest delegation of politicians to ever visit the country.
“I thank you for coming here to stand with Israel. Thank you, Democrats and Republicans alike,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the attendees. “We value and cherish your support. This is an active effort to counter attempts to besiege Israel – not isolated, not symbolic, but a real effort to push back.”
“It may sound a little bit this afternoon as if I’m almost speaking on behalf of Israel rather than the U.S.,” Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee told the group.
“If you came to my house tonight for dinner and you came in and you said, ‘Oh, Mike, we like you,” he continued. “We really think the world of you. We just enjoy being with you. So excited to be here with you and have dinner with you. ‘But your wife, we can’t stand her. We don’t like her a bit. I hope she’s not going to be at the table.’ I would say, ‘Well, she will be. You won’t be. Get out.’ Because if you were to insult my partner, you have insulted me.”
Normal stuff.
There wasn’t much coverage of the event in the mainstream media, but you can find a lot of interesting coverage in local outlets, and see how the battle over Israel is taking shape in multiple states.
Let’s start with the Idaho Capital Sun, where Clark Corbin covered the state’s participants. Idaho sent five lawmakers to Israel, four of whom were Republicans. The only Democrat to attend was House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel (D-Boise).
A group of state Democrats is circulating a letter condemning Rubel for attending and calling for her to step down from her leadership position. The Idaho Young Democrats published a statement criticizing the move as well.
Shiva Rajbhandari, an Idaho human rights advocate, wrote an Op-Ed for the Idaho Statesman, arguing that Rubel and her Republican colleagues “lack the moral courage for public service of any kind.”
Rubel published her own Op-Ed, in which she wonders why we can’t all just get along.
“If you want someone that will indignantly shun the other side, I’m not your person,” writes Rubel. “I prefer useful results.”
It’s unclear what results Rubel’s referring to, but she goes on to dismiss the anti-genocide position as an example of “ideological purity,” giving people “false comfort.”
Next, the Alaska News Source. Wil Courtney reports on four Alaskan lawmakers making the trip.
Courtney says his paper “sent all members of the delegation questions..including questions over the war in Gaza, which were not answered.”
He notes that the World Health Organization estimates over 640,000 people will face “catastrophic levels of food insecurity” in the Gaza Strip.
Alaska’s News Source also reached out to the governor’s office, but did not receive a response.
On Instagram, the daughter of New Mexico State Senator Jay Block (R) posted a video criticizing her dad and other “loser politicians” for attending the conference.
“It seems like he sold his soul to the devil and is now just peddling lies and propaganda,” she declared. “I just genuinely hope this will be the end of my dad’s political career.”
“50 States, One Israel” occurred amid growing international solidarity against the ongoing genocide in Gaza and Israel’s further isolation on the world stage. Lately, Netanyahu has expressed anxiety about the country’s actions impacting its economy.
A recent piece by Mitchell Plitnick, explains why BDS is so crucial at this juncture. “An isolated Israel is a failed Israel, and Netanyahu knows it. So do his business cronies,” he wrote.
Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar called on the conference attendees to combat the BDS movement within their communities.
“Instead of boycotting Israel, promote engagement with Israel,” he told the lawmakers. “Instead of divesting from Israel, promote investments in Israel. And instead of sanctioning the only Jewish state, speak out clearly against those who recycle age-old hatred in modern form.”
It seems clear that this event was organized out of a growing sense of desperation, not a position of strength.
Block the Bombs
The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) has voted to endorse the Block the Bombs Act.
The news was first reported by Prem Thakker at Zeteo.
“The Block the Bombs bill is the first step toward oversight and accountability for the murder of children with US-made, taxpayer-funded weapons,” said Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-IL), who leads the bill. “In the face of authoritarian leaders perpetrating a genocidal campaign, Block the Bombs is the minimum action Congress must take.”
The legislation currently has 50 House co-sponsors.
It focuses on bunker buster bombs, 2,000-pound bombs, Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs), 120mm tank rounds, and 155mm artillery shells.
Many find it difficult to take the merits of this bill seriously.
It does nothing to deter “defensive weapons” like Iron Dome. In fact, it allows Israel to keep receiving all weapons by simply providing “written assurances satisfactory to the President.”
On top of all that, it obviously has no chance of passing.
However, the Progressive Caucus is one of the largest in Congress, and it has traditionally avoided the issue altogether. This is the first time it has endorsed legislation directly related to Palestine.
The fact that it’s backing an effort that’s opposed by groups like AIPAC is certainly notable, as it points to the decline of Israel’s brand among Democratic voters.
In a recent Common Dreams Op-Ed, Peace Action president Kevin Martin puts this bill, and recent related efforts, in a wider context:
The bill is as close as we have to a de facto arms embargo on Israel, as it would ban transfers of seven specific offensive weapons systems, from bunker busting bombs to tank ammunition to white phosphorus artillery munitions. While House Speaker Mike Johnson and the Republican majority will probably not allow the bill to advance, even to consideration by a House committee, building support to Ban the Bombs to Israel can help put pressure on President Trump (who recently blurted out that Israel had lost its “total control” of Congress) to exert leverage on Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to end his inhumane slaughter in Gaza.
In addition to further votes on Joint Resolutions of Disapproval on specific weapons transfers to Israel, the Senate could also move privileged measures including a War Powers Resolution to prevent further support for Israel’s actions in Gaza, or an inquiry under section 502(B) of the Foreign Assistance Act for Israel’s clear violations of U.S. law. Or, the Senate could attach language such as that in the House Block the Bombs bill as an amendment to an Appropriations Bill.
None of those actions would be an easy lift, and would not be likely to pass (or override an expected presidential veto) but the reality now is the political tide has turned decisively against Israel.
Perhaps the simplest way to look at this is that advocates for peace and human rights have done their job, and the public has responded, as only 8% of Democrats approve of Israel’s actions in Gaza, with the overall number at only 32%, according to a recent Gallup poll.
‘Near Daily’ Israeli Assaults on Lebanon Have Become Non-News for Western Media
Belén Fernández, September 26, 2025, https://fair.org/home/near-daily-israeli-assaults-on-lebanon-have-become-non-news-for-western-media/
The Israeli military unleashed a large wave of air strikes on densely populated towns in South Lebanon on Thursday, September 18—although you’d never know it from the Western corporate media, who have increasingly lost interest in reporting on Israel’s unceasing war on its northern neighbor. This proceeds unabated in spite of a ceasefire, brokered by the United States and France, that ostensibly took hold last November. Prior to Thursday’s strikes, area residents were given an hour to evacuate.
The BBC (9/18/25) was one of the few corporate outlets that managed to find a bit of space for these events, under the headline, “Israeli Air Strikes Hit Southern Lebanon.” The outlet noted that
an Israeli military spokesman said the targets were infrastructure belonging to Hezbollah and in response to the group’s attempts to re-establish activities in the area. He provided no evidence.
The piece also explained that Israel “has carried out air strikes on people and places it says are linked to Hezbollah almost every day, despite a deal that ended the war with the group in November.”
Reuters (9/18/25) managed an even shorter writeup—and took Israel’s word for it in the headline: “Israel Attacks Hezbollah Targets in South Lebanon.”
No casualties were reported in these particular attacks, but the fiery spectacle naturally sent a whole lot of people fleeing in terrorized panic. The fact that such terrorism by the state of Israel transpires “almost every day” is perhaps part of the reason the media have largely relegated it to the realm of non-news.
Another part of the reason might be that outlets are too busy serving as apologists (FAIR.org, 4/11/25, 4/25/25, 6/6/25) for the ongoing US-backed genocide in the nearby Gaza Strip, which Israel launched in October 2023, and which has thus far officially killed more than 65,000 Palestinians, including 20,000 children—although this is likely a grave underestimate.
‘Along the border’
It was the momentum of this very genocide—and the accompanying astronomical increase in America’s already-astronomical financial and military assistance to Israel—that spurred Israel to once again go after Lebanon (pardon, “Hezbollah infrastructure”). Between October 2023 and November 2024, Israel killed more than 4,000 people in Lebanon and injured nearly 17,000 (Al Jazeera, 8/7/25).
In the seven months following the “ceasefire” agreement, another 250 people were killed, as the New York Times (7/9/25) acknowledged in one of its sporadic reports on Israel’s “near-daily strikes,” while also acknowledging that the Israelis had “held onto five positions along the border in violation of the agreement.” Had the paper wanted to be precise, it might have specified that these five positions are not simply “along the border,” but rather entirely within Lebanese territory.
Speaking of occupying Lebanese territory, it bears mentioning that the US is currently wrapping up construction of a gigantic fortress in the hills overlooking Beirut, which will soon serve as the country’s new embassy. It “dwarfs any government facility in Lebanon,” as observed by Lebanese journalist Habib Battah in an article for MERIP (4/10/24).
Boasting a trapezoidal swimming pool and buffed marble courtyard, the “19-structure ziggurat” also comprises a “labyrinth of megalithic blast walls emerging from deep excavation pits.” In other words, it’s the perfect setting for the US to continue strong-arming Lebanon into disarming Hezbollah, which, in addition to being one of Israel’s pet nemeses, has long been a thorn in the side of US empire, complicating America’s pursuit of regional hegemony.
And while Lebanese President Joseph Aoun is fully on board with the disarmament plan and the handing over of Hezbollah’s weapons to the Lebanese army, he warned in the aftermath of Thursday’s air strikes that the “silence of the states sponsoring the ceasefire agreement is a dangerous failure that encourages these attacks.” It is hardly a stretch to add that media silence similarly encourages such aggression, adding an extra layer to the impunity Israel already knows so well.
Given that Hezbollah is the only force in Lebanese history that has proved capable of defending the country from Israeli predations, pretending that Israel isn’t continuously bombing Lebanon during a “ceasefire” also seems like a pretty good way of denying that there is any further need for Hezbollah. The Lebanese army, for its part, has not once managed to protect the nation from its bellicose neighbor to the south—a failure directly related to the US’s longtime “security cooperation” with Lebanon’s armed forces.
When corporate media outlets do find themselves obliged to document Israeli strikes on Lebanon, this is done in typically decontextualized fashion. Hezbollah are generally understood to be the “bad guys”; rarely is it mentioned that the group owes its very existence to the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, greenlit by the US, that killed tens of thousands of Lebanese and Palestinians, and occurred in the context of a brutal 22-year Israeli occupation of South Lebanon.
‘Governments have been largely silent’
On Sunday, September 21, there was a relative flurry of corporate media activity after reports emerged that four of the five people killed in an Israeli drone strike on the South Lebanese town of Bint Jbeil—three of whom were children—were US citizens. The four got top billing, for example, in the CNN headline “Four US Citizens Killed, Including Three Children, in Israeli Strike on Lebanon, Says Lebanese Government,” with the fifth, non-American victim banished to the text of the article (9/21/25). CNN has now updated the headline as follows: “Five Killed in Israeli Strike on Lebanon, But Claim Some Were US Citizens Is Being Disputed.”
Indeed, the frequent selectivity of media coverage means it is sometimes easier to keep up with Israel’s activities in Lebanon by checking the Israeli military’s English-language X account—although the content must first be translated from Israel-speak about “terrorists,” “precision strikes” and so forth.
On Thursday, the same day as the underreported attacks on South Lebanon—and one year and one day after Israel detonated personal electronic devices across the country in an unprecedented terrorist attack, killing 12 and wounding thousands—the army’s X account broadcast another attack on eastern Lebanon that was unreported by the corporate media.
The next day, Friday, there was so much news out of Lebanon that the X post required bullet points, including one registering that “a Hezbollah ‘Radwan Force’ terrorist was eliminated in Tebnine, southern Lebanon.”
Bullet points were incidentally also necessitated the previous week when Israel slaughtered 31 journalists in air strikes on Yemen—another of the no fewer than six countries that Israel managed to attack in the span of 72 hours. The X version of this particular event began by claiming that the Israelis had “struck military targets belonging to the Houthi terrorist regime in the areas of Sanaa and Al Jawf in Yemen.
As the Washington Post (9/19/25) noted, the Israeli army “did not respond to a request for evidence of military activity at the site” where the journalists were struck. But why bother presenting evidence when you are never, ever held accountable? Even the Post found it worth remarking that “governments have been largely silent on the Israeli strike.”
‘Raising fears for truce’
As for intermittent media silence on Lebanon, one effect of this is to normalize Israel’s unending war on the country. And yet sometimes it does have to be talked about at length, as in the aforementioned New York Times article (7/9/25) acknowledging Israel’s “near-daily strikes” that ran under the headline “Israel Launches New Ground Incursion in Lebanon, Raising Fears for Truce.” No kidding.
This article was occasioned by the visit to Beirut of US special envoy Tom Barrack, who was set to receive the Lebanese government’s response to the “road map” to Hezbollah’s disarmament. The Times reported: “Just hours before Mr. Barrack’s visit, Israel launched a wave of airstrikes across southern and eastern Lebanon,” while the “announcement of renewed Israeli ground operations came shortly after” his arrival. Following his meeting with President Aoun, Barrack nonetheless declared himself “unbelievably satisfied” with Lebanon’s response to the disarmament plan.
Fast forward to September 18 and the Reuters (9/18/25) nod to the South Lebanon air strikes, which includes this detail:
The Lebanese army warned on Thursday that Israeli attacks and violations risked hampering its deployment in the south, and could block the implementation of its plan to end Hezbollah’s armed presence south of the Litani River.
Which makes one wonder if perhaps an end to the war on Lebanon isn’t what Israel wants at all.
Trump Turns Pentagon Into Department of War on First Amendment
Ari Paul, 22 Sept 25, https://fair.org/home/trump-turns-pentagon-into-department-of-war-on-first-amendment/
The Trump administration has said it will require Pentagon reporters to “pledge they won’t gather any information—even unclassified—that hasn’t been expressly authorized for release, and will revoke the press credentials of those who do not obey,” the Washington Post (9/19/25) reported. It added that even being in possession of “confidential or unauthorized information, under the new rules, would be grounds for a journalist’s press pass to be revoked.”
The National Press Club (NBC, 9/20/25) called the rules “a direct assault on independent journalism at the very place where independent scrutiny matters most: the US military.’” Even right-wing provocateur James O’Keefe (The Hill, 9/20/25) came out against the restrictions, saying the US government “should not be asking us to obey.”
Other Trump loyalists stood with the government decision. “For too long, the halls of the Pentagon have been treated like a playground for journalists hungry for gossip, leaks and half-truths,” long-time Republican activist Ken Blackwell said on Facebook (9/20/25). He added that “reporters have strutted around the building like they owned it.”
The authoritarian impulse
The US government has always been aggressive when it comes to undermining the press’s ability to obtain government information, especially when it pertains to national security. The pooling system for frontline correspondents in the first US war against Iraq in 1990–91 has long been considered one of the most draconian acts of wartime censorship in recent US imperial memory. The US under the elder President George Bush regularly detained press who dared to report on the war independently and without the restraint of government minders (New York Times, 2/12/91; Human Rights Watch, 2/27/91).
This authoritarian impulse only accelerated in the post-9/11 age (Extra!, 9/11). The Justice Department under then-President Barack Obama obtained “two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for the Associated Press,” AP (5/13/13) reported, in an apparent “investigation into who may have leaked information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot.”
Former New York Times journalist James Risen (Intercept, 1/3/18) documented his ordeal with the Obama and George W. Bush administrations, which took legal action against him to force him to release sources:………………………
Full-throttle attack
The new Trump directive transcends this already anti-democratic tradition of suppressing national security and military information, and takes the nation into new authoritarian and absurd territory.
For one thing, telling Pentagon reporters to avoid unreleased information is like telling a fish to avoid water. Recall that top Trump administration officials accidentally included Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg in a Signal chat about an attack on Yemen. To quote Mark Wahlberg from The Departed, “Unfortunately, this shithole has more fuckin’ leaks than the Iraqi navy.”
Now the Pentagon is saying it will only credential reporters if they promise to be stenographers for the department’s press team, regurgitating press releases and spokesperson talking points, and avoid independent interviews and investigations. This is happening as the White House has iced out reporters from the AP for not relabeling an international body of water at the president’s directive (FAIR.org, 2/18/25), while bringing administration sycophants like Brian Glenn and Tim Pool into the presidential press herd.
Journalist access is only one piece of the Trump administration’s full-throttle attack on the free press. The president “said overwhelming negative coverage of him by television networks should be grounds for the Federal Communications Commission to revoke broadcast licenses” (USA Today, 9/18/25). He threatened ABC’s Jon Karl, saying the attorney general will “probably go after people like you, because you treat me so unfairly” (Deadline, 9/16/25). More television and online new outlets are coming under the ownership umbrella of Trump allies (FAIR.org, 9/19/25).
Imperial bellicosity
IT is especially chilling that this directive came from the Pentagon. The US has the most powerful military in the world, and it is the taxpayer’s largest expense after Social Security. Despite assurances from right-wing media that Trump would be a peace president (Compact, 4/7/23), he is in fact delivering a ferocious brand of imperial bellicosity.
Trump carried out nearly as many airstrikes in the first six months of his second term as the hawkish Joe Biden did in four years (Independent, 7/15/25). Almost as many civilians were killed in his attacks on Yemen as were previously killed in two decades of strikes against that nation (Airwars, 6/17/25).
Trump dropped 14 of the world’s biggest non-nuclear bombs on Iran, weapons that had never been used against an enemy before. He boasted of using the military to murder supposed Venezuelan drug smugglers, hundreds of miles from US shores. He resumed shipments of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel, even as he encouraged Tel Aviv to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from Gaza (Guardian, 1/26/25).
Meanwhile, he’s deployed the military domestically, vowing to use it to carry out mass deportations , renaming the Department of Defense to the Department of War, firing top officers who disagree with him.
If there’s ever been a time when we need an independent press keeping a close eye on the military, and listening to dissenting voices, it’s now.
Resisting Pentagon dictates
Thankfully, some news organizations are speaking out against the Pentagon’s new edict (Reuters, 9/21/25; CNN, 9/22/25). The New York Times called it an “attempt to throttle the public’s right to understand what their government is doing”; the Washington Post said that “any attempt to control messaging and curb access by the government is counter to the First Amendment and against the public interest.”All major news organizations can and should fight this, in the public and in court; a ban on reporting any unauthorized information clearly violates the First Amendment, and any prior restraint is regarded as constitutionally suspicious.
News outlets should also bear in mind that reporting on the military does not necessarily require being physically present in the Pentagon. As the brave correspondents showed who defied the US military’s patronizing pooling system in the Gulf War, some of the best reporting is done outside official channels. An independent press corps with no physical access to the Pentagon is infinitely more valuable to democracy than a press corps that has pledged to only report officially sanctioned news.
‘Media Really Took at Face Value What Trump Said About This Boat and Its Occupants’: CounterSpin interview with Alex Main on Venezuelan boat assault.
FAIR, Janine Jackson, 18 Sept 25
Janine Jackson interviewed CEPR’s Alex Main about Trump’s Venezuelan boat assault for the September 12, 2025, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.
Janine Jackson: The US military struck a small boat in the southern Caribbean September 2, killing 11 people. The next day, the New York Times told readers, “Pentagon officials were still working Wednesday on what legal authority they would tell the public was used to back up the extraordinary strike in international waters.”
As telling and concerning as that is, it seems it might’ve been generous in posing it as a question to be asked. In an online exchange, Vice President JD Vance declared that “killing cartel members who poison our fellow citizens is the highest and best use of our military.” And when someone pointed out that killing the citizens of another nation who are civilians, without any due process, is called a war crime, Vance replied, “I don’t give a shit what you call it.”
It does matter what things are called, how they relate to the law as we understand it, and how such an act is responded to. We’re joined now by Alex Main, director of international policy at the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Welcome back to CounterSpin, Alex Main.
JJ: Reporting on this strike is full of qualifiers. Politico says it was “against an alleged drug vessel leaving Venezuela, which President Donald Trump said was aimed at the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua group, killing 11 suspected traffickers.” But as the story gets told and retold, qualifiers morph into facts, and it becomes a matter of how else should we kill narco terrorists, if not in international waters?
And you want to say, “Wait, wait, wait. No. We have to first properly understand the events themselves.” So before we get to the pretenses behind it, the uses sure to be made of it, what do we actually know about this strike attack on a boat, that killed 11 people last week?
AM: Yeah, excellent question, and one that still needs to be figured out. And I’m really glad you bring up the fact that from the outset, so much of the media really took at face value what the Trump administration said about this boat and its occupants and its origin, and didn’t really seem to question this idea that they were all drug traffickers, that they might be associated with the Tren de Aragua. And we can talk more about the Tren de Aragua, which is a very nebulous sort of organization indeed.
And there was no effort whatsoever made, at least initially, to try to identify who the victims were, who were these 11 people that were shot in a small boat, that was clearly not a military boat of any kind. There was no indication that these individuals were armed, and all we know about them is what we see from aerial footage that was proudly posted by President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio—just shows this grainy footage of a small boat, with what looks like people inside, and then a big flash of light, and that suggests that the boat was blown up.
And that’s really all we had. But, again, you immediately saw a lot of the media just go along with the narrative that was put out there by the Trump administration, and that itself is very problematic.
And to this day, I haven’t seen, really, any sort of major media, certainly from the US, make any sort of effort to try to identify the victims. The most I’ve seen in that regard has been from local media in Venezuela, where it seems that a small village, where there does seem to be drug trafficking, they had lost eight people from that village, and other people from neighboring villages. I mean, this sort of remains hearsay, but this is the most that I’ve really seen in terms of any kind of documentation. But I haven’t really seen any journalists investigate this, in any depth. And that doesn’t seem to be a priority………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
In fact, it’s just been revealed that the video, that was heavily edited and was then posted by President Trump and by Secretary Rubio, that editing, what it didn’t show—according to sources, apparently within the military, that spoke to the New York Times—is that the boat was shot at repeatedly. The boat had turned around, and headed in the other direction. So if it wasn’t bad enough that this boat had been shot up without any clear justification, it’s becoming clear that the boat had actually turned away and was heading in the opposite direction, thereby not posing, really, any kind of threat whatsoever, if ever it had posed a threat…………………………………………………………………………………… https://fair.org/home/media-really-took-at-face-value-what-trump-said-about-this-boat-and-its-occupants/
Trump masters the art of “dobbing” on an Australian journalist.
By Vince Hooper | 20 September 2025, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/trump-masters-the-art-of-dobbing-on-an-australian-journalist,20177
Trump turned a simple conflict-of-interest question into a schoolyard spat — threatening to “tell on” a journo to Australia’s Prime Minister, writes Vince Hooper.
IT TAKES A CERTAIN theatre of the absurd to transform a routine White House press gaggle into a diplomatic sideshow. Yet that is precisely what happened when an Australian Broadcasting Corporation journalist, researching U.S. President Donald Trump’s family business interests, asked a straightforward question about whether it is appropriate for a sitting president to be engaged in so many business activities.
The question was sober and reasonable: a matter of conflicts of interest, wealth accumulation, and transparency in public office. Trump’s response, however, veered quickly into the surreal. He first insisted that his children were running the business empire, then abruptly shifted the ground.
Instead of grappling with the premise, he went after the journalist’s nationality, declaring:
“The Australians, you’re hurting Australia.”
And then came the kicker — Trump promised to personally inform Prime Minister Anthony Albanese about the journalist’s behaviour, as if geopolitics had suddenly collapsed into a schoolyard spat where the ultimate threat was tattling to the headmaster. The art of dobbing.
At one level, the episode is comic, a reminder of Trump’s instinct for spectacle and grievance. But beneath the absurdity lies something darker: a consistent refusal to treat journalistic inquiry as a legitimate part of democracy. Instead, accountability is reframed as disloyalty. The president of the United States, confronted with a basic question about conflicts of interest, responded not with explanation but with a kind of diplomatic intimidation.
This is part of a longer pattern. From his first term to his second, Trump has cast journalists as enemies rather than interlocutors. The “war on the media” is not rhetorical garnish but central to his political style. In this worldview, truth-seekers are painted as traitors, tough questions are reframed as acts of sabotage, and now even foreign allies are enlisted as props in his domestic culture wars. By claiming that the ABC reporter was “hurting Australia,” Trump implied that the act of pressing a leader for clarity was somehow an attack on his allies themselves.
What is most revealing is how quickly Trump personalised diplomacy. The U.S.–Australia relationship is built on strategic alignment, trade, military cooperation, and shared democratic values. It is not dictated by whether a reporter poses a question he finds confrontational. Yet in his rhetoric, the fate of nations collapsed into the thin skin of one man. This habit of reducing statecraft to personal loyalty tests is not merely undignified; it is dangerous. If bilateral alliances can be bent around one leader’s grievances, they risk becoming unstable, transactional, and unpredictable.
Trump turned a simple conflict-of-interest question into a schoolyard spat — threatening to “tell on” a journo to Australia’s Prime Minister, writes Vince Hooper.
IT TAKES A CERTAIN theatre of the absurd to transform a routine White House press gaggle into a diplomatic sideshow. Yet that is precisely what happened when an Australian Broadcasting Corporation journalist, researching U.S. President Donald Trump’s family business interests, asked a straightforward question about whether it is appropriate for a sitting president to be engaged in so many business activities.
The question was sober and reasonable: a matter of conflicts of interest, wealth accumulation, and transparency in public office. Trump’s response, however, veered quickly into the surreal. He first insisted that his children were running the business empire, then abruptly shifted the ground.
Instead of grappling with the premise, he went after the journalist’s nationality, declaring:
“The Australians, you’re hurting Australia.”
And then came the kicker — Trump promised to personally inform Prime Minister Anthony Albanese about the journalist’s behaviour, as if geopolitics had suddenly collapsed into a schoolyard spat where the ultimate threat was tattling to the headmaster. The art of dobbing.
At one level, the episode is comic, a reminder of Trump’s instinct for spectacle and grievance. But beneath the absurdity lies something darker: a consistent refusal to treat journalistic inquiry as a legitimate part of democracy. Instead, accountability is reframed as disloyalty. The president of the United States, confronted with a basic question about conflicts of interest, responded not with explanation but with a kind of diplomatic intimidation.
This is part of a longer pattern. From his first term to his second, Trump has cast journalists as enemies rather than interlocutors. The “war on the media” is not rhetorical garnish but central to his political style. In this worldview, truth-seekers are painted as traitors, tough questions are reframed as acts of sabotage, and now even foreign allies are enlisted as props in his domestic culture wars. By claiming that the ABC reporter was “hurting Australia,” Trump implied that the act of pressing a leader for clarity was somehow an attack on his allies themselves.
What is most revealing is how quickly Trump personalised diplomacy. The U.S.–Australia relationship is built on strategic alignment, trade, military cooperation, and shared democratic values. It is not dictated by whether a reporter poses a question he finds confrontational. Yet in his rhetoric, the fate of nations collapsed into the thin skin of one man. This habit of reducing statecraft to personal loyalty tests is not merely undignified; it is dangerous. If bilateral alliances can be bent around one leader’s grievances, they risk becoming unstable, transactional, and unpredictable.
Compare this to other democratic leaders. Joe Biden, for all his gaffes, generally responds to press scrutiny with irritation at worst, never with the threat of raising the matter in a diplomatic call. Anthony Albanese himself fields barbed questions from Australian journalists on policy, integrity, and leadership without implying that the act of questioning undermines Australia’s alliances. Even populist figures like Britain’s ex-PM Boris Johnson or India’s Narendra Modi, while often prickly, have not suggested that reporters risk harming national security simply by doing their jobs. Trump stands almost alone in converting a press query into a matter of international loyalty.
In the end, Trump’s outburst says less about Australia than about America. It was not Australia’s reputation on trial, nor the alliance, nor the ABC reporter’s patriotism. It was the president’s tolerance for accountability — and that, once again, proved to be vanishingly thin and fake.
Vince Hooper is a proud Australian/British citizen and professor of finance and discipline head at SP Jain School of Global Management with campuses in London, Dubai, Mumbai, Singapore and Sydney.
Read this book!
M.V. Ramana’s new book, Nuclear Is Not The Solution, The Folly of Atomic
Power in the Age of Climate Change.
I must confess that I read Ramana’s book some time ago — in other words, immediately upon receipt — because I knew it was going to be a riveting read as well as an essential primer.
Then I got enmeshed in completing my own book — No To Nuclear. Why
Nuclear Power Destroys Lives, Derails Climate Progress and Provokes War (to
be published by Pluto Press next March and for which Ramana provided some
invaluable feedback).
Consequently, this review is inexcusably late. I
could stop here and just say “Read This Book!” But it’s important to
say why it’s essential reading. One of the challenges of our subject area
is its complexity. We struggle to reduce it to a soundbite. We must,
perforce, explain. And in so explaining, we risk losing an audience waiting
for a simple answer to the question: “Why not nuclear power?” Now, that
challenge has been made doubly difficult by having to further explain,
“why not small modular reactors?”
M.V. Ramana answers these questions
and more in his comprehensive yet concise volume, covering not only the
illusory new reactors themselves but the propaganda around them, the insane
costs, interminable timelines, the jobs delusion, false sense of prestige,
persistent waste problems and, of course, the ties to nuclear weapons. In a
stroke of brilliant originality, Ramana finds the perfect analogy to
describe the folly of small modular reactors, by quoting, of all people,
the legendary British football manager, Brian Clough. “We had a good team
on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass.” “On paper” is
exactly where small modular reactors remain.
Beyond Nuclear 14th Sept 2025,
https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2025/09/14/read-this-book/
New York Times misstates Palestinian death toll, downplays genocide.
As award-winning investigative journalist Laila Al-Arian writes of The New York Times: “They’ll be remembered for minimizing genocide, normalizing Palestinian death and whitewashing Israel’s atrocities.”
Michael F. Brown Media Watch 5 September 2025, https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/michael-f-brown/new-york-times-misstates-palestinian-death-toll-downplays-genocide
Nearly two years into the Gaza genocide, The New York Times is failing to convey to its readers the enormity of what is happening to Palestinians.
On 30 August (the online publication date), in an article about the Venice International Film Festival and organizing there on behalf of Gaza, the newspaper claimed that 39,000 people in Gaza had been killed as of July.
“In July, the enclave’s health ministry said that more than 39,000 people had been killed, a toll that does not distinguish between civilians and combatants. And this month, a group of global experts said that Gaza City and the surrounding territory were officially suffering from famine.”
But that 39,000 figure is from July of 2024.
In fact, according to the health ministry in Gaza, over 63,000 Palestinians had been killed when The New York Times article was published. The official death toll was updated to more than 64,000 a few days later.
I requested a correction on 2 September after I first read the article. Pro-Israel media-monitoring organizations such as CAMERA and HonestReporting did not appear to be seized by the matter with the latter clearly looking past the error on the number of Palestinians killed.
The New York Timesappended this correction to the article the next day: “An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated the Gaza health ministry’s death toll. The ministry recently put the figure at more than 60,000 people, not over 39,000.”
The correction run on 4 September on the corrections page reads: “An article on Monday about a pro-Palestinian demonstration that took place during the 82nd Venice International Film Festival on Saturday misstated the death toll cited by the Gaza health ministry. The ministry recently put the figure at more than 60,000 people, not over 39,000.”
Even the correction knowingly erases some 3,000 Palestinians killed. The number slain during the Israeli-administered genocide at the time of original publication was over 63,000.
In the chaos of Gaza as institutions are destroyed and people are buried in the rubble, it is worth noting that some estimates of the casualty figures go far higher.
Genocide
The newspaper of record – as opposed toThe Washington Post – also appeared very reluctant to devote much attention to the resolution passed on 31 August by the International Association of Genocide Scholars that declares Israel is carrying out a genocide in Gaza.
Just two paragraphs were devoted to the issue on 1 September by The New York Times.
First, the newspaper noted, “On Monday, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, a leading group of academic experts on the topic, declared that Israel’s policies and actions in Gaza met the legal definition of genocide.”
Then, in a longer sentence, the Israeli foreign ministry was given space to rebut the charge.
“A spokesman for the Israeli foreign ministry denounced the conclusion as ‘an embarrassment to the legal profession,’ adding in a statement that it was ‘entirely based on Hamas’ campaign of lies and the laundering of those lies by others.’”
Historian Assal Rad noted the shortcomings of the reporting by The New York Times, highlighting the absence of headlines or a dedicated story focusing on the fact Israel is committing genocide.
As award-winning investigative journalist Laila Al-Arian writes of The New York Times: “They’ll be remembered for minimizing genocide, normalizing Palestinian death and whitewashing Israel’s atrocities.”
Further bias can be seen in a New York Times article published shortly before publication of this article.
Liam Stack writes that “the war began after the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, terror attack on Israel, in which roughly 1,200 were killed and 250 more taken hostage.”
Stack employs the term “terror attack,” but at no point references Israeli war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide.
He did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Electronic Intifada regarding bias at the newspaper.
1 This Month
18 March Webinar @ 1 PM EST: An Assessment of SMR Projects: The Case of Canada
register for the zoom:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_o8BIIOUvQ2ONJR1nta65DQ#/registration
of the week – STOP SMALL MODULAR REACTORS IN CANADA
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- February 2026 (256)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 