THE CHILDREN HAD NAMES

Israel’s failure in the information war

By Andrew Fox

On 26th February 2025, tens of thousands of Israelis lined the roads for the funeral procession of Shiri Bibas and her sons, Ariel and Kfir. Orange balloons, the colour of the boys’ hair, marked the route. Men dressed as Batman, Ariel’s favourite superhero, saluted as the coffins passed. Ariel had been four when he was abducted; Kfir was nine months old. Through family photographs and a desperate campaign to bring them home, strangers worldwide came to know these two little boys, who were brutally killed by Hamas in Gaza.

**The Color Orange**. The world could relate to the tragic unfolding horror of the Bibas family – the brutally kidnapped mother and her two kids – easily recognizable by their ginger hair.

Israel’s government should have understood why their story reached people who would never read an IDF briefing. The families had kept their children recognisable through months of arguing about a war in which they had no say. Doing so deserved sustained government support from the start. Leaving so much of it to people already enduring the unimaginable was a failure of both compassion and, if we are being brutally cold about it, strategy.

Psychologists call the tendency to respond more readily to a named person than to anonymous suffering the ‘identifiable victim effect’. In a 2007 study, Deborah Small, George Loewenstein and Paul Slovic compared an appeal about deprivation across Africa with one about Rokia, a seven-year-old girl in Mali. Among participants who received no prior explanation of the effect, those reading about Rokia donated an average of $2.83, compared with $1.17 from those given the statistics.

That said, for balance, later research has been less conclusive: a 2016 meta-analysis found a small average effect, and a subsequent replication using hypothetical donations failed to reproduce it. We cannot turn a charitable-giving experiment into a measure of how many people changed their minds about Gaza. It does, however, give us a useful starting point for understanding why an individual’s suffering can command attention that casualty figures struggle to hold.

There is much less uncertainty about Yahya Sinwar’s calculation. In June 2024, the Wall Street Journal reported on messages in which he treated Palestinian civilian deaths as an advantage in the war. Citing the losses suffered in other conflicts, he called them “necessary sacrifices”. More deaths meant more pressure on Israel. Sinwar believed he could outlast the Israeli offensive whilst the people of Gaza paid for it. The suffering itself needed no invention. In November 2023, footage of Khaled Nabhan kissing his dead granddaughter, Reem, travelled around the world. She was three. In CNN’s account, he remembered the game in which she pulled his beard, and he pulled her pigtails; he spoke about the fruit the children had wanted and the tangerines he had managed to find. Anyone with a child or grandchild could recognise the affection in those small exchanges, and something of the agony of losing them. This is the key to the information war: making the suffering of innocents feel personal to those observing the physical war from abroad.

**The Young and the Dead**. These are just some of the faces of the children violently impacted by Hamas’s attacks against Israel on October 7th. 2023.

The opportunity for Hamas arose when that grief provided the sole explanation for the war. The viewer saw a dead child and the consequences of an Israeli strike, with all context stripped away. The men who had launched the massacre on 7th October and who continued to hold hostages could disappear from the account. Whenever sympathy for Palestinians became pressure on Israel to stop fighting, without equivalent pressure on Hamas to release their captives and surrender power, their strategy benefited. Foreign audiences did not have to like Hamas for this to work.

They used Israeli suffering with the same ruthlessness. On 16th October 2023, Hamas released footage of Mia Schem, wounded and captive. Her mother, Keren, recognised her daughter’s fear and believed she could see Mia repeating what her captors had told her to say. Hamas had abducted her; now they controlled what her family could see of her. A Palestinian family’s bereavement could be used to generate pressure against the offensive, whilst an Israeli family’s desperation could be used to press for a deal on Hamas’s terms. Their control over the hostages gave them a way to prolong that desperation.

The bitter irony is that Israel had their own human stories from the first morning, and yet was unwilling, and many will argue, rightly so, to use those stories as an information war opportunity. Shani Louk was a 22-year-old German-Israeli tattoo artist who went to Nova to dance. Much of the world first encountered her through the footage of her body in a pickup truck, subjected to the humiliation her killers chose for her. Her family’s memorial website shows her drawings and offers her tattoo designs for others to use. There is work there which she made before anyone knew her name, and which people can still choose to carry on their skin. Her family have given strangers a way to know her beyond the manner of her death.

**Killing Kids**. The child’s stroller and personal belongings seen here seen on the road next to a car near Kibbutz Kfar Aza reveals the horrendous horror of an orgy of butchering young families while traveling on a country road. (Photo: Ronen Zvulun/Reuters)

The families of the observers at Nahal Oz have done something similar. Roni Eshel was 19 and loved Taylor Swift. Her parents planted fruit trees in her memorial park because she loved them. Her father, Eyal, has also spoken about the warnings she gave before the attack and the army’s failure to listen. Remembering Roni properly means making room for all of this. Her youth and enthusiasms belong alongside the responsibility she carried at the border, and her father’s anger at the people who were supposed to protect her.

These efforts by ordinary Israelis and their friends worldwide began early. The “Kidnapped” posters created by Nitzan Mintz, Dede Bandaid and Tal Huber put names and photographs on streets around the world within weeks of the massacre. Israeli officials spoke about the hostages too, including Kfir Bibas. The Israeli government failed to turn those scattered efforts into a coherent campaign, with the resources and continuity a prolonged information war required.

**“No one will dare to tear down a poster of a dog, but of Jews? No problem”**. Street artists Dede Bandaid and Nitzan Mintz (above), who together with Tal Huber started the viral hostage poster campaign, expressed shock at videos showing individuals tearing down the posters, viewing it as a blatant expression of antisemitism. (Photo: BFA)

In October 2025, former IDF spokesman Nachman Shai wrote that Israel still lacked a unified public advocacy structure that brought government and civil society together. He was right. Two years into the war, this was an extraordinary indictment of the government’s priorities. I would go further than Shai’s criticism of the machinery. Explaining why the IDF had struck a tunnel was necessary, but the explanation also needed to reach people who had no understanding of what it meant to live within reach of Hamas or the way in which they weaponised the suffering of their own people. The victims’ families could make that danger comprehensible in ways a military briefing could not.

The Nova exhibition shows what was possible. It opened in Tel Aviv in December 2023 and reached London in May 2026, bringing belongings recovered from the festival together with testimony from survivors and bereaved relatives. A friend of mine went multiple times with a variety of people from different backgrounds, and they all came away with a different perspective on 7 October and the subsequent war in Gaza. The organisers had been doing this work for years. Their achievement makes the Israeli government’s failure harder to excuse: people outside the state had already demonstrated how to give foreign audiences a sustained encounter with the lives destroyed on 7th October. Israel should have helped such work reach far beyond those already inclined to listen.

The audience is more hostile now. Pew’s June 2026 findings showed that 69% of British adults viewed Israel unfavourably, up from 61% a year earlier. Let us be real: anger at Israeli policy and the destruction in Gaza cannot simply be attributed to manipulation, and no poll tells us what a better Israeli campaign would have achieved. It does show how difficult it is to secure a hearing for Israel today.

Israel ceded the initiative while much of the world was forming its understanding of the war. Testimony can still change minds, but a family speaking now may first have to persuade an audience that their loss deserves a hearing at all. The opportunity to shape those first impressions has gone. Recovering ground will take more than belatedly discovering that the dead had names. The government should pay for translation and help willing families take their testimony abroad, without making support conditional on what they say. If ministers want the world to hear Roni Eshel’s story, they must accept that her father will also tell the world who ignored her warnings. They cannot ask for the authority of his grief and then edit out his accusation.

**Butchering Babies**. What Israelis fail to recover from and what most the world hardly saw and remain uninterested or are subsequently interested in seeing are images such as this of toys and personal items lying on a bloodstained floor of a Jewish child’s bedroom in kibbutz Beeri following the massacring by Hamas gunman. (Photo: Ronen Zvulu/Reuters)

No bereaved family should have to owe the state a PR campaign. Those willing to speak deserve its support, with the freedom to say things ministers would rather the world did not hear. Israel’s government should have understood this when families were putting up posters and pleading for help. By the time people lined the roads with orange balloons, those families had spent months asking the world to care. They should never have had to shoulder so much of that work themselves.

About the writer:

A veteran of three grueling tours of Afghanistan, Major Andrew Fox holds a Batchelor’s degree in Law & Politics, a Master’s in Military History & War Studies, Msc in Psychology and is currently studying for a PhD in History.

While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves. LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).

ON THE WAY TO GAZA

Repeated visits reveal fresh insights, revelations and questions.

By Jonathan Feldstein

On the way to the Gaza border, my friend asked how many times I had been there since the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack and massacre.

I had to think about it.

I remember the first trip vividly. Several other trips were outstanding whether visiting soldiers and bringing supplies or preparing and providing food, one on one like the time with my friend Marziyeh (Marzi) Amirizadeh and seeing the devastation through the eyes of a woman who suffered the evil hatred of radical Islam growing up and living in Iran and identifying the evil we faced with the evil that she lived under for most of her life, or planning for and implementing our incredible Root & Branch program bringing Christian volunteers to harvest olives in Israel and along the Gaza border.

There were other trips with friends and donors, as well as relatives, media and more. In the car, I estimated that I had visited the Gaza border at least 30 times. In retrospect it’s probably more. Surely averaging once a month. Considering my travels, that’s a lot.

Some trips blur together. Some are memorable for different reasons. All are emotionally draining. Yesterday was no different. It had been a while since the last time.

**Horrific Legacy**. High school students from across Israel were visiting the sights where the massacre and killings took place three years earlier. (Photo: Jonathan Feldstein)

Along the roads from Routes 34, 232, 25 and more, I noticed the increased number of memorials along the side of the road. From once piles of stones with flags and photographs these have been “developed” to permanent and thoughtful memorials. In America and other countries, you see similar respectful homage where people have died in car accidents. The roads here have been repaved and show no signs of what happened that day anymore. But I remember the countless points where one would drive and see large dark spots on the road with a slight bump as you drove over them, burn marks from the high temperature flames where cars were set on fire. Torched with people inside.

**Graveyard of Vehicles**. A young school student engages at the Car Wall memorial near moshav Tkuma in Israel’s Gaza Envelope where over 1,500 burned, twisted, and bullet-riddled vehicles are stacked into the shape of a wall. With each damaged ‘shell’ representing lives lost, the memorial functions as an educational and remembrance site for visitors, families, and delegations. (Photo: Jonathan Feldstein)

The roads no longer have the scars but the memorials along the side of the roads show the points where hundreds of people were shot and burned to death, their bodies and their cars littering the roads.

I looked at the piles of the shot up and burnt remains of the vehicles from that day. More than 1000 cars, many of which became death traps for their passengers. As we visited the site that also has been built up as a permanent memorial, first I noticed dozens of tour buses. Most were for Israelis for whom the site has become a pilgrimage. People wanting to see, understand, bear witness to the horrors of that day.

**Murderers on Motorbikes**. A piled heap of burnt motorcycles used by Hamas terrorists during the assault is displayed alongside the victims’ vehicles as physical testimony of the attack. (Photo: Jonathan Feldstein)

There are few tourists in Israel now so most of the guides and survivors telling stories of what happened that day were speaking Hebrew. What broke my heart, other than the memorial itself, was the prevalence of young people. It’s terrible that we must educate our children about this all and it’s part of the legacy we leave them. It’s not new but it is still sad. Many high school students. Some of whom got to practice their English in a spontaneous conversation with Marzi about her life and imprisonment in Iran. She connected the dots of the Islamic Republic and Hamas as the same evil. That we have the same enemy. That the Iranian people are not the regime that hijacked Iran 47 years ago and that the people support Israel.

Three years ago, they were early adolescence and three years from now they will all be serving in the army defending their country. I wondered if in 7 or 10 or 15 years, my own grandson’s will be part of this pilgrimage.

I saw a group of soldiers. Three years earlier they were the age of the high school students we encountered. They stood there with weapons over their shoulders, against the backdrop of piles of dozens of burnt remains of just some of the cars. Their weapons are used to defend us against the evil that perpetrated the crimes that we witnessed with the cars just as one reminder, listening to things they surely remember from three years ago when they were just students and Israel was at its most vulnerable.

**Burden of Defense**. Responsible for protecting Israel today, young IDF male and female soldiers at the Car Wall memorial, who were school students when the massacre occurred in October, 2023. (Photo: Jonathan Feldstein)

At the site of the Nova Music Festival where some 25% of the 1200 people killed that day were slaughtered, the memorials have become uniform and standardized, albeit with personal touches from the loved ones of those who were killed and mutilated there that day. I always describe it as a cross between Woodstock and Auschwitz. We spent nearly an hour there, but what’s really needed to understand the enormity and the scope of the loss is much more, even if you’ve been there multiple times before as I have.

**Dance to Death**. The site of the dance floor at the Nova Music Festival massacre where, Hamas terrorists raped, mutilated, beheaded, burnt, slaughtered and shot 364 of the attendees, party staff, police security, and medical service personnel. (Photo: Jonathan Feldstein)

In Sderot, we visited the powerful memorial at the site of the former police station in which all the police on duty that morning were killed and many others on the street. As hard as it is to think, amid the slaughter there was incredible heroism and it was a miracle that more people were not killed there that day. Of course, that’s no comfort for the survivors whose loved ones are no longer with us.

**Poignant Pillars**. ‘Pillars of Eternity’, the memorial built on the ruins of the original Sderot police station destroyed by heavily armed killer Hamas squads. The memorial features 18 tall, eleven-to-twelve-meter columns representing the fallen police officers and defenders, integrated with Hebrew letters symbolizing hope and energy. (Photo: Jonathan Feldstein)

I told the story of the Suisa family, the young parents, Odaya and Dolev, who were trying to flee Sderot in their car and were caught in an ambush and murdered in front of their two young daughters, leaving them orphans. It must be noted that the person who sacrificed his life trying to save the family was a Bedouin Arab, Amer Odeh Abu Sabila. A construction worker who was in Sderot early that fateful Saturday morning, Amer heard Odaya screaming after Dolev had been killed and got into the driver’s seat to try and bring Odaya and her two young daughters to safety at the Sderot police station. Not knowing that the police station had already been overrun by the terrorists, both Abu Sabila and Odaya were murdered, while the two kids, Romi, 6, and Lia, 3, lay on the floor of the car unscathed. There is harrowing video footage from that day that shows the two young girls screaming for help as police officers arrived.

**Brutally Murdered**. Odaya (33) and Dolev Swissa (34) who were murdered in front of their two daughters. The family tried to leave Sderot as sirens sounded but were attacked by Hamas terrorists and killed in their car.

Amer Odeh Abu Sabila’s story is not unique as many Israeli Arabs were killed that day, including a police officer inside the police station, but is important to recount as it reveals the reality of life in Israel of Arabs who tragically died alongside their fellow Jewish citizens.

**Sacrificed his Life**. Bedouin construction worker, Amer Abu Sabila (25), lost his life as he bravely attempted to rescue Dolev and Odaya Swisa’s two daughters near the police station in Sderot.

As the sun was setting, we made our way to one of the lookout points from which Gaza is visible. Despite international claims to the contrary, even with the naked eye one can see entire cities still standing. And even three years and a week after the inhuman Hamas attack and massacre, there was a jarring audible punctuation of the reality as we heard gunfire in the distance coming from inside Gaza, indicating that if these killers are not fought and pushed back, they will rise and try to attack us again and again.

The numbers alone do not sufficiently represent the enormity of the day. Each of the 1200 people, including Jewish and Arab Moslem and Druze Israelis, as well as many foreigners including Christians, is the loss of an entire universe for them and their loved ones. But there’s a national story as well, timeless in the sense that it’s an unfortunate part of the reality of Jewish history and the foreseeable future.

**“The Day the Music Died”**. Photo memorials of each of the murdered party-goers at the Nova Music Festival. (Photo: Jonathan Feldstein)

However many times I have gone to visit these sites, each time thinking that there’s nothing particularly new in doing so other than bringing people who have not yet witnessed it, I am sadly shocked at how there’s still so much to absorb and process and how such experiences are necessary.

About the writer:

Jonathan Feldstein - President of the US based non-profit Genesis123 Foundation whose mission is to build bridges between Jews and Christians – is a freelance writer whose articles appear in The Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel, Townhall, NorthJersey.com, Algemeiner Journal, The Jewish Press, major Christian websites and more.

NAVI PILLAY AND THE HEDGEHOG TRAP

Why the Nobel Peace Prize sacrificed genuine peacebuilding for ideological reductionism and anti-Israel bias.

By Yoram Blumstein

By rewarding a rabid anti-Israel activist-jurist and chief peddler of baseless “genocide” and “apartheid” claims against the Jewish state with the prestigious Peace Prize, the Oslo Committee did not recognise peace – but weaponised lawfare and institutional bias against the Jewish people and Israel. The Nobel Committee, which lacks a moral compass, forms part of a coterie of ignoble institutions that espouse systematic animus towards the Jewish state and provide a fertile ecosystem for the normalisation of antisemitism. Israel and the United States (U.S.) rightfully rejected the decision to award the coveted Peace Prize to Navi Pillay, a South African ad hoc judge at the compromised International Court of Justice (ICJ) and former jurist on the International Criminal Court (ICC), as it is an affront to the Jewish people and rewards Hamas and Israel’s enemies. Conversely, the feckless South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, France, Iran, United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, and Hamas praised the award as a victory for international justice.

**Hands-on Hatred**. Navi Pillay addressing the Nuremberg Forum in Nuremberg on 9 October 2026 following the announcement that she will be awarded the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize has kept her hands on the ball on promoting anti-Israel bias. (Photo: Daniel Karmann/ Getty Images)

Fundamentally, the Oslo Committee (which bears sole responsibility for awarding the Peace Prize) betrayed Alfred Nobel’s (a genius, polyglot, and inventor of dynamite) stated conditions (as enshrined in his last will), which required the recipient to meet specific criteria for advancing international diplomacy, peace, and dialogue. Pillaydid not meet Alfred Nobel’s essential requirements to be elevated to the pantheon of great peacemakers such as Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, F.W. De Klerk, Henry Kissinger, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, Menachem Begin, Anwar Sadat and Elie Wiesel, amongst others, and is an affront to the Jewish people.

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

In his 1953 essay, “The Hedgehog and the Fox”, the British Jewish philosopher Sir Isaiah Berlin asserted that:

“…the fox knows many things, while the hedgehog knows one big thing.”

Berlin borrowed the line from the ancient Greek poet, Archilochus. Berlin’s dichotomy can serve as a heuristic tool to expose confirmation bias and as a stark warning against singular, dogmatic thinking. Metaphorically, hedgehogs are monists who reduce reality to a single, central vision or organising principle. By contrast, foxes are pluralists who relentlessly pursue different avenues, nuances, variety, and complexity without forcing everything into a rigid, singular vision. Berlin used the distinction to analyse Leo Tolstoy’s inherent personal contradictions, whom the British philosopher diagnosed as a “fox by nature”, but a “hedgehog by conviction”. Tolstoy, a cerebral writer, foresaw the infinite complexity of life, but he desperately tried to force it into a “grand singular theory of life.” In Berlin’s philosophical dichotomy, a hedgehog-like approach is not inherently bad, but political scientists like Philip E. Tetlock have repurposed the “fox-and-hedgehog” framework to warn analysts and policymakers against overconfidence, single-cause grand perspectives, and confirmation bias in expert forecasting.

THE NOBEL PEACE COMMITT’S HEDGEHOG TRAP

The Nobel Peace Committee’s diabolical decision fits the hedgehog diagnosis. The decision is inextricably linked to the current torrent of violent antisemitism and anti-Israel bias. It carefully reduced the criteria for the prize to a singular grand vision (as a purported fact), while filtering out complex realities about:

– the Israel-Palestine conflict

– the normalisation of antisemitism, and

– the role of terror networks such as Hamas and Lebanese Hezbollah.

**Politicizing a Prize**. Would Alfred Nobel view the 2026 Nobel Peace prize to South African jurist Navi Pillay as a faithful fulfillment of his will or a weaponization of the award to legitimize anti-Israel hatred and prejudice?

Before the prize announcement, Pillay prodigiously used the label “genocide” and “apartheid state” to describe Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. She supports the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement and endorsed the UN Durban Anti-Racism Process, which set the tone for a notable uptick in modern antisemitism and institutional bias. In addition, she failed the neutrality test as an international jurist when she signed a joint letter accusing Israel of “domination and oppression” before heading the UN Commission of Inquiry into the Occupied Palestinian Territories. In September 2025, the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry, chaired by Pillay, released a report concluding that Israel had committed “genocide” in Gaza. However, the ICJ has yet to rule on South Africa’s baseless accusations. The report took statements from individual Israeli senior officials out of context and recommended criminal prosecution for senior Israeli officials at the ICC. Pillay and the bodies she represents are structurally biased against Israel and the Jewish people. Even when the Oslo Committee notified her of the award, she continued to accuse Israel of “genocide”:

“The last thing I did was the report on Gaza naming what’s happening in there as genocide…Why would you need courage to speak the truth? You interpret the law. You look at all the facts, so it’s an impartial decision.”

Check your facts at the door, Pillay:

Your reporting shows no impartiality; your statements and opinions are steeped in tendentiousness. You are an ingloriously useful idiot!

Pillay was visibly surprised when she was announced as the 2026 recipient, as other deserving nominees, such as U.S. President Donald Trump, played a pivotal role in negotiating a ceasefire in Gaza, spearheaded peace talks between Israel and Lebanon, and agitated for a modus vivendi between Israel and Syria. Geopolitical optics do matter. Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, continues to use her office to frame Israel’s actions in Gaza and Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) as “genocidal” while failing to acknowledge Israel’s defensive policies against a genocidal terrorist entity. The September 2026 United Nations General Assembly debates focused almost exclusively on Israel. The United Kingdom’s recent import ban on “settlement” goods, sanctions frameworks, and arms export restrictions align with European and Western nations (such as Ireland, Spain, the Netherlands, and France) in restricting trade with Israel following meritless advisory opinions from international legal institutions like the ICJ. In a different, yet crucial context, on October 4^th, the Green Party of England and Wales adopted a preposterous policy at its annual conference, formally equating Zionism with racism. While the Green Party is a fringe party with a few parliamentary seats, the decision carries significant political and diplomatic weight. It will further galvanise the normalisation of antisemitism in Europe and beyond. On October 17^th, during a local elections campaign rally in Rylands (Cape Town), a predominantly Muslim and Hamas-loving suburb, Ramaphosa emphasised South Africa’s ongoing genocide case against Israel and the African National Congress’ (ANC) steadfast support for the Palestinian cause. It is perplexing why a head of state would use a misguided foreign policy issue to attract Muslim voters when the focus should be on fixing service delivery failures in ANC-led municipalities.

Based on the above, the Nobel Committee fits the hedgehog framework with a singular, misguided vision. By betraying Alfred Nobel’s explicit wishes, the Oslo Committee has succumbed to the prevailing cosmos (which is dominated by narratives munificently bandied about by the “New Antisemites” – a violent neophyte species of state and non-state actors) that demonises and delegitimises the State of Israel. Hence, the said Committee has failed to uphold impartiality in awarding the peace prize to an individual whose career has been fixated on spreading disinformation about Israel. Regrettably, the Oslo Committee is afflicted with a growing pathology of institutional bias, as highlighted by incessant anti-Israel resolutions and declarations by the UN and its allied institutions.

**Institutionalizing Antisemitism**. Far from promoting peace and international law, the Committee’s selection of Navi Pillay exposes the double standards and deep-rooted hostility toward the Jewish state within international institutions.

A FOXLIKE COUNTERARGUMENT

Lamentably, the Nobel Committee exposed its bias in awarding the prestigious prize to Pillay by failing to consider:

– the prevailing facts on the ground

– alternative or contrarian perspectives

– Israel’s right to self-defense, and

– Pillay’s track record of vehement anti-Israel rhetoric.

These factors are inconsistent with the qualities of a peacemaker, which Pillay lacks. The facts speak for themselves. A fox would have determined that Israel did not commit genocide or war crimes, cause mass starvation in Gaza, or deliberately kill babies and civilians. In fact, Israel took reasonable measures, which are well-documented, to comply with laws of armed conflict and international humanitarian conventions.

The real danger lies in ideological monism, when international institutions (like the Oslo Nobel Committee) gravitate toward “hedgehog thinking” and compromise their role as neutral arbiters. By awarding the Peace Prize to Pillay, the Nobel Committee acted as the sole, supreme arbiter of peace, and the decision was biased, predetermined and influenced by the anti-Israel zeitgeist and extremist voices. The Nobel Committee’s decision is consequently alarming, as it facilitates the normalisation of antisemitism, which is disturbing to Jews as violent antisemitism sweeps across Western capitals.

Pillay is not a peacemaker and unworthy of the Nobel Peace Prize. She should have declined the award as she had not done enough to comply with Alfred Nobel’s wishes. The key state instigator of unfounded genocide allegations against Israel, South Africa, was the first to congratulate Pillay on her undeserved prize. Yet, the ANC’s reckless decision to take Israel to the ICJ provided the building blocks for antisemitism to thrive. Ambassador Rabbi Yehuda Kaploun, the U.S. Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism, remarked in early October that South Africa’s ICJ genocide case against Israel led to an exponential increase in antisemitism and anti-Israel hostility.

**Under the Shadow of Nobel**. Ambassador Rabbi Yehuda Kaploun, the US Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism asserts that South Africa’s decision to make its ICJ case against Israel a centerpiece of its foreign policy is contributing to global antisemitism.

About the writer:
Editor’s Note: Yoram Blumstein is a nom de plume the author uses to protect their identity because of previous security threats.

THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE OFFENSIVE

Hardly in pursuance of “peace” when an Islamist death cult applauds the announcement of the 2026 South African winner.

By Craig Snoyman

On 9 October 2026, the Norwegian Nobel Committee (“the committee”) awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Navanethem (Navi) Pillay for:

– her efforts to promote peace and international law”,

and announced that:

– “Peace requires justice”.

**Humanitarian or Political?** The decision to award the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize to former U.N. human rights chief Navi Pillay sparked fierce backlash from U.N. watchdogs for her longstanding anti-Israel bias and defending antisemitic rhetoric. (Photo: Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Image)

In Nuremberg, ironically, Pillay told a crowd celebrating her award: “The last thing I did is the delivery of the report on Gaza, naming what’s happening there as genocide.” In Oslo the committee said that it was “not taking a stance” on genocide, as “it’s her report”. Perhaps the committee should have made its announcement on 7 October, the day of the worst genocide of Jews since the Second World War, rather than two days later.

On 9 October 2009, seventeen years earlier to the day, the committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”. Obama’s response, as his memoir records, was a question: “For what?” In 2015 the committee’s secretary disclosed that the committee chose Obama because it believed the prize would help him achieve his goals.

The will of Alfred Nobel’s will is quite clear what the requirements for the Peace Prize are. It is for those who, “during the preceding year”, have “conferred the greatest benefit to mankind”. It is for the person who has done “the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”.

The records of the favoured candidates were clear. Vanessa Nakate campaigned for the vulnerable communities affected by climate change. The volunteers of Sudan’s Emergency Response Rooms were bringing food, medical help and evacuation to civilians in Sudan’s civil war. Yulia Navalnaya became the political voice of her husband, Alexei Navalny, who died in a Russian Arctic prison colony.

Pillay’s record was not as impressive. Having signed South African BDS petition to “Sanction Apartheid Israel” she had no qualms in chairing the singularly inappropriately named “Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel” She proceeded to conduct an investigation in which Israel refused the commission entry and the commission acquired its information from second-hand sources.

Ten weeks after she tendered her resignation, the commission published its results and conclusions, finding that the State of Israel was responsible for committing genocide, for failing to prevent it and for failing to punish it. In September 2024, it had recorded that Hamas was guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. In its 2025 report to the General Assembly it absolved Hamas, mentioning it once, in a quotation from an Israeli minister. It declared that Israel had the intent to destroy the Palestinians of Gaza, as this was “the only reasonable inference”. It traced that intent back to “decades of unlawful occupation and unlawful settlement, with racial segregation or apartheid”. When asked whether the states that still supplied arms to Israel were complicit in genocide, Pillay answered: “Yes.”

**Jaundiced Judgment**. And how did judge Navi Pilay (center) react when fellow UN Human Rights Council’s Commission of Inquiry into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict member, Miloon Kothari (right) expressed that social media was “controlled largely by the Jewish lobby,” she defended him saying he had been “deliberately decontextualized.” (Photo: Luke Tress/Times of Israel)

Her record as a judge at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (“the tribunal”) is equally chequered. When the defence in the Media case applied for Pillay’s recusal, because she had already expressly pronounced on the guilt of the radio station RTLM in an earlier case, the chamber in which she sat dismissed the application. When a press report accused three judges of the tribunal of laughing while defence counsel cross-examined a rape survivor about how her attackers had undressed her, Pillay, as president of the tribunal, called the report “a mischaracterisation of the scene”, and in the same statement declared that it would not be appropriate for her to discuss the conduct of other judges in an ongoing trial. The survivors’ organisations Ibuka and Avega suspended their cooperation with the tribunal.

Her attitude has remained constant. When her fellow commissioner, Miloon Kothari, told an interviewer that the “Jewish lobby” largely controlled social media, Pillay stated that he had been “deliberately misquoted”, without saying how. Kothari subsequently apologised and wrote that it had been “completely wrong” for him to describe social media in that way. Pillay was not as forthcoming.

In the Rwanda tribunal, the Appeals Chamber annulled and replaced various decisions over which Pillay presided, because of her misdirection concerning conduct outside the tribunal’s temporal jurisdiction. In the Palestine commission matter it was easier. Her commission was to investigate violations “leading up to and since 13 April 2021” and was not limited by time issues. During the investigation, Pillay stated: “The occupation is as non-ending as our mandate.” This followed earlier prejudicial remarks, when Pillay told the General Assembly that “Israel’s occupation is now unlawful”. The evidence of her bias, and her (lack of) regard for natural justice, did not prevent her from sitting on either the tribunal or the commission.

The Appeals Chamber in the Rwanda tribunal reversed Pillay’s Media case decision on the basis that a reasonable trier of fact could not find conspiracy to commit genocide to be “the only reasonable inference” from the evidence. Pillay, not a great historian, repeated her conclusion when deciding on Israel’s conduct, with a greater paucity of evidence. But then, a report to the UN General Assembly has no Appeals Chamber above it that can set aside such a legal conclusion.

In September 2022, when the United Nations Association of Germany proposed to present her with its Otto Hahn Peace Medal, Ron Prosor, Israel’s ambassador in Berlin said:

“To have Navi Pillay investigate Israel is like asking Putin to chair a commission of inquiry into Ukraine.”

The ceremony did not take place. In November 2025, when Sydney gave her its peace prize, the Premier of New South Wales declined to attend, and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry had said that the prize went to recipients “for having the ‘correct’ opinions, rather than for making a real contribution to peace.”

The Nobel committee wanted Obama to achieve in 2009, and it paid him in advance. In 2026 it wants Pillay’s report to achieve the definition of Gaza as genocide before any court has ruled, and it has paid her in advance as well. She is well positioned to pay it back, as she sits as an ad hoc judge in the Gambia v Myanmar genocide case and will no doubt work hard to change the definition of genocide.

The function of the Nobel Peace Prize committee was to ask what Pillay did in the preceding year for fraternity between nations, and what she did for fewer standing armies and for peace congresses. She ticks none of those boxes. She incites friction and animosity. She accused one nation of genocide and called the nations that arm it complicit. Nobody punished the committee for the Obama Peace Prize, and now the committee has taken another step further. It is no longer an award for anticipated fraternity; it is now an advance to persuade political opinion. Again, the committee goes unpunished. But this time the sin is more egregious. A political finding on genocide lets the committee ignore its own principles, and lets its members’ antipathy toward Israel translate the big lie of Israeli genocide into a Nobel medal.

**Pilay’s Prize**. By awarding to a recipient with an agenda of endangering Jews worldwide, has the Nobel Peace Prize -one of the five original Nobel Prizes established by the will of Alfred Nobel – been irreparably tarnished?

So, to you Ms Nakate, to you, the volunteers of Sudan’s Emergency Response Rooms, and to you Ms Navalnaya: speaking for the vulnerable, feeding civilians under fire or defying the Kremlin will not win you this prize. Better luck next year. President Obama asked “For what?”

The committee has now answered: the correct opinion, not peace.

About the writer:

Craig Snoyman is a practicing Advocate in Johannesburg.

WORD HAS IT

Orwell at the UN General Assembly (UNGA 81) – Decoding the anti-Israel Diplomatic Bias.

By Yoram Blumstein

In the aftermath of October 7^th, an alarming new reality has gripped global Jewry: a wave of antisemitism and anti-Israel animus. This has been fueled by the overlapping efforts of states, non-state actors, and multilateral organisations (the UN, the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, and other agencies). The 81^st Session of UNGA bore testimony to the lies, manipulation of political language and distortion of truth for pure emotional intimidation, as leader after leader took to the UN rostrum to accuse Israel of “genocide”, “war crimes”, “mass starvation”, and creating conditions resembling a “concentration camp.” George Orwell, one of the greatest writers of the twentieth century, would have characterised the speeches of world leaders or their representatives (especially those of Brazil, Ireland, Spain, Turkey, Iran, Jordan, Qatar, France, Malaysia, the Palestinian Authority,and South Africa) as corrupt language designed to obscure their real intentions using metaphors and imagery about Israel’s purported “genocidal” conduct in Gaza. Orwell’s written masterpieces (like Nineteen Eighty-Four) were prescient. In his 1946 essay, ‘Politics and the English Language’, Orwell aptly stated:
“Political language…is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

**War of Words**. George Orwell recognized that political power is sustained not just through physical force, but through the deliberate corruption of words, a stratagem in the armory of Israel’s multifarious enemies.

This article applies an Orwellian diagnostic approach to dissect the diplomatic rhetoric which was nonchalantly employed by anti-Israel delegates at UNGA 81, where calumnies about the only Jewish state were employed as political weapons to manipulate public perception, while distorting the facts and the objective reality in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), as well as Gaza. Such mendacities, especially if spewed from the rostrum of the world’s premier international organisation, against the Jewish state carry enormous weight in the court of public opinion and have real-world impact on the Israeli government and Jews. In using Orwellian tools, this article seeks to decode the speech of the main state sponsor of Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood terrorism and genocidaire-in-chief, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. While other world leaders used similar anti-Israel canards, the singular honour must go to Erdoğan (who stands as one of Israel’s most vocal critics) since his speech was laden with political lies, devoid of legality, and nothing more than pretentious diction. By deconstructing Erdoğan’s speech as pre-packaged lies, the article will extract specific speech acts used by the Turkish president in his invective against the State of Israel and juxtapose them with real-world facts grounded in legality and empirical observation.

**Master of Malevolence**. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has a long history of severe verbal attacks against Israel, frequently labeling the country a “terrorist state” and comparing its leadership to the Nazi regime. (Photo: Adem ALTAN / AFP via Getty Images)

DECYPHERING TURKEY’S LIES ABOUT ISRAEL

Instead of using the general debate to promote international peace and security initiatives (especially in the Middle East), Erdoğan devoted a large portion of his speech to spreading lies about Israel and promoting a clear domestic and international agenda. In Orwellian terminology, Erdoğan’s speech was littered with metaphors, imagery, political theatrics, selective moral outrage, and terminology, while obscuring the truth to fill political bandwidth. Yet, the Turkish leader is guilty of the very baseless charges he levels against Israel and thus deflects self-scrutiny.

“Gaza is the most inhuman concentration camp of our time…” and “the world’s largest graveyard for children…”

This was a high-octane and emotionally charged statement by Erdoğan. As such, it was designed for maximum impact. It is palpable that references to “concentration camp” and “graveyard” are insensitive and invoke historical analogies with the Holocaust, when the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (commonly known as the Nazi Party) killed more than six million Jews through gassing, summary execution and starvation. This is historical inversion and an affront to the Jewish people, the remaining Holocaust survivors and their families. Turkey is clearly creating a simplified good-versus-evil dichotomy, while purposefully ignoring geopolitical complexities and concealing Erdoğan’s hideous policies against the Kurds in northern Syria and Iraq.

How would Orwell relate to the above? Erdoğan is known for his double standards. He portrays himself as the leader of the Muslim world. Yet, he has:

– committed genocide against the Kurds in northern Syria and Iraq, as he will not countenance the creation of a Kurdish corridor or crescent (straddling northern Syria, Turkey, northern Iraq, and western Iran)

– armed and sponsored the former leader of the now-disbanded terrorist outfit Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and now president of Syria, Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa (formerly known by his nom de guerre, Abu Mohammad al-Julani), as a proxy against the Syrian Kurds

– supports Islamist movements in Libya and Sudan, and

– hosts Hamas leaders.

Hence, Erdoğan lacks the moral authority to lecture Israel on morality, and he should be treated as a diabolical, homicidal creature. The Turkish president’s specific utterance was not based on facts, but on weaponising language for political gain. The truth speaks for itself. Gaza is not a “concentration camp” or “graveyard” for children. It is an active combat zone; Hamas terrorists are doing the fighting, and Israel has taken extraordinary steps to minimise civilian casualties. In fact, the Israeli Defense Forces’ (IDF) Coordinator for the Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) has assisted Israeli, regional and international aid agencies with the erection of temporary tents. At the same time, what government, bent on confining people to a “concentration camp”, would coordinate with international agencies to launch a polio vaccination campaign, if the intention is to kill them? By using and inverting the Holocaust analogy of “concentration camps”, Israel did not put policies and resources in place to confine Gazans to a specific location to eventually kill Palestinians. Conversely, this is exactly what Adolf Hitler and his henchmen did against Jews in major concentration camps in Germany, Poland, Austria, France, Estonia, Latvia, and the Czech Republic. They intended to exterminate all Jews as part of Hitler’s “Final Solution”, which was carried out by Adolf Eichmann, Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich. It is inaccurate to portray Israel as having created a “graveyard for children”, as the IDF has taken reasonable measures, in line with international humanitarian law, to protect children in Gaza. The faux sultan, Erdoğan, willfully neglected to inform the General Assembly that Hamas used hospitals, schools and public facilities in Gaza as shields and weapons storage facilities in its terrorist campaign against the IDF and Gazans. Tragically, children died in the war, yet Turkey, which, along with Qatar, has enabled Hamas to build its own open-air prison, from which it launched its murderous campaign against Jews and Israelis on October 7^th. Erdogan also omitted the fact that COGAT continues to coordinate with Israeli humanitarian agencies to distribute vital baby formula to Gazans, as Hamas has intercepted aid supplies. The double standard is clear: There is no condemnation that Hamas started the war against Israel and should bear responsibility for all fatalities in Gaza. Israel was under attack and responded in self-defense. Check your facts, Erdoğan!

“Insatiable genocidal mindset…” and “state terrorism”

Erdoğan’s arsenal of egregious statements against Israel includes references to the Israeli government as inherently “genocidal” and engaging in “state terrorism.” He further asserted that:

“There is no war in Gaza; there are no two sides. This is an invasion, a massacre, a genocide, a policy of mass destruction.”

Israel never committed genocide and only acted in self-defense. The IDF launched “Operation Swords of Iron” to rescue the hostages and target those responsible for the October 7^th massacre. This was a legitimate response, in line with the law of armed conflict. Regrettably, Erdoğan seems to be inspired by South Africa’s genocide case against Israel. The threshold to prove genocide is exceedingly high, as it is often referred to as the “crime of crimes.” The 1948 Genocide Convention defines genocide as “the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such.” The accuser or the plaintiff must prove specific intent (dolus specialis) and the mental element (mens rea). Therefore, it is not enough to demonstrate massive civilian casualties, widespread destruction, or severe human suffering. In fact, Hamas is responsible for the implosion of Gaza, as it launched an unjustified attack on Israel. Erdoğan and his ally, the avaricious African National Congress (ANC), rely excessively on individual statements by a few senior Israeli politicians to prove “genocidal intent.” Israel’s legal team cogently argued that individual Israeli politicians’ statements were taken out of context and expressed in anger at the surprise October 7^th attacks (the deadliest in Israel’s history since the Holocaust). The ICJ requires proof that political statements translated into official government policy that directed IDF commanders and soldiers to carry out “genocidal actions” in Gaza. This is a no-brainer since Israel did not display intent to kill and displace Palestinians. It is a figment of Erdoğan and South Africa’s imagination. The IDF’s actions were aimed at targeting Hamas’ terrorist infrastructure and leadership, and it put measures in place to ensure the safety of civilians in Gaza.

In Orwellian terms, Erdoğan has failed to separate rhetoric from facts. As a matter of fact, Erdoğan should be hauled before the ICC and ICJ for war crimes and genocide committed against the Kurds, as his campaign was intentional and specific. He unleashed the full might of the Turkish army, intelligence and its proxies in northern Syria and Iraq to exterminate the Kurds, who rightfully deserve a state of their own. The Turkish government does not distinguish between Kurdish fighters (who have been instrumental in the defeat of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria – ISIS) and civilians. Additionally, Erdoğan has exported his brand of Islamist fundamentalism to radical Islamists in Libya, Sudan and part of the Horn of Africa with political and material support, which continues to undermine regional stability and the peacemaking efforts of the African Union, Gulf countries and the international community.

BUILDING A RESILIENT, OFFENSIVE AND DEFENSIVE ECOSYSTEM IN DEFENSE OF ISRAEL

As lies and propaganda against Israel and the Jewish people will continue unabated, it is important to reclaim the narrative battlespace. By its own admission, the Israeli government has done a terrible job in promoting Israel’s international image since October 7th. In his address to UNGA 81, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu correctly pointed out that Israel is fighting a battle on the eighth front: the battle for the truth. Erdoğan and those of his ilk are the chief purveyors of false claims of genocide. The Turkish leader’s anti-Israel missive is nothing more than bullshit. In an entertaining little book, ‘On Bullshit’ (2005), Harry G. Frankfurt remarked that, “A person who undertakes bullshit his way through has much more freedom. His focus is panoramic rather than particular. He does not limit himself to inserting a certain falsehood at a specific point, and thus he is not constrained by the truths surrounding that point or intersecting it. He is prepared, so far as required, to fake the context as well.”

**Rousing Rhetoric**. Erdoğan speaks of the “ murderous ideology called Zionism” and said that “the genocide network has turned Gaza into the world’s largest cemetery for children.”

As Israel is central to Jewish identity, it behoves Jews to act as citizen-diplomats for the State of Israel and disabuse the liars of maligning the only Jewish state. The South African Jewish community, although Lilliputian in size (52 300, according to a recent study by the Kaplan Center for Jewish Studies at the University of Cape Town) compared to other diaspora communities, is the most Zionist in orientation, as evidenced by the indefatigable spirit of the leadership and volunteers of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) and Zionist Federation (SAZF), which continue to engage with the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) and the South African Presidency whenever unwarranted policies and statements are made against Israel. This is active citizen diplomacy, as South African Jews accept constructive criticism of Israel, but not when it pivots towards antisemitism, extremism and lies. The South African Jewish community, of which I am a proud member, has built an effective ecosystem in defense of Israel. Other diaspora communities should take a page from the South African Jewish community’s commendable pro-Israel efforts.

About the writer:

Editor’s Note: Yoram Blumstein is a nom de plume the author uses to protect their identity because of previous security threats.

SAUDI ARABIA’S SECRET JEWISH MISTRESS

The secret tryst that no one wants to admit is happening.

By Jonathan Feldstein

From my balcony in the Judean mountains, I can see the lights of Jordan on a clear night and the skyline of Amman at sunrise. On other nights I simply look south and east and know that the same Iranian missiles and drones from the Houthis in Yemen threatening my children and grandchildren are also threatening the mosques, holy cities, the oil fields and very capitol that keep the House of Saud in power. That is the uncomfortable intimacy of this region. We are not friends. We are not yet even fully acknowledged as legitimate neighbors. Yet Riyadh is knocking on Jerusalem’s door like a man who has four wives and seeks out his mistress for marital counseling.

Let’s call it what it is. Saudi Arabia is treating Israel as that secret mistress.

The official household is crowded and they don’t always get along. Wife number one is Pakistan: nuclear-armed, Sunni, and now bound to Riyadh by a mutual-defense pact signed in Mecca itself. Wife number two is Turkey: NATO’s second-largest army, Islamist, and freshly joined to the same Mecca Joint Defense Agreement (Mecca Pact) that treats an attack on one as an attack on all. Wife number three is Egypt: the first Arab state to make (a cold) peace with Israel, a partner in Sinai security, and a regular interlocutor sharing a threatened body of water with the Saudis, and which is an essential lifeline to Cairo’s shipping and own stability. Wife number four is the United States, still the biggest and best arms supplier and now offering a glittering dowry of forty-eight F-35s worth more than twenty-four billion dollars.

**Security Shield or Doubtful Deterrence?** On August 7, 2026, Saudi Arabia signed the Mecca Pact with Turkey and Pakistan, establishing a mutual-defense framework in which an attack on one is treated as an attack on all. (Photo Credit: SPA)

All four are public. All four come with contracts, smiling photo-ops, and statements about Islamic solidarity or strategic partnership. The first three of the four are more concerned about their own marital chamber – and the tribes that they come from – rather than the well-being of the house itself, and would have no problem burning it all down to protect their own interests. None of them, so far, has stopped the Houthis from shooting at Saudi oil facilities, threatening the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, or sending drones toward Mecca. The fourth, the United States, has been asked to help protect the whole house, but has declined to do so.

It may look good – showing a united house – on paper, but it seems someone forgot to put batteries in the Mecca mutual defense pact. So, the kingdom has quietly asked help from the one country that has spent years intercepting Iranian missiles, hunting Houthi launchers, eliminating terrorist leaders and command centers, and sharing intelligence through CENTCOM: Israel.

That is the secret tryst that no one wants to admit is happening. The man with four wives has come running to the woman he will not introduce at family gatherings, or even acknowledge her existence outside her penthouse that he doesn’t even pay for, and only “visits” under the dark of night.

I do not acknowledge this with bitterness. I acknowledge it with the weary clarity of someone who has watched this pattern for decades. Arab leaders have always preferred to keep Israel in the shadows while they collected American weapons, Pakistani nuclear umbrellas, Turkish drones, and Egyptian political cover. And play these off other suiters including China, and the abusive ex, Iran, who nobody wants anything to do with, but none can avoid. When the missiles start flying, the shadows become less useful. Israel’s air defenses, its intelligence, and operational experience against the exact Iranian axis now squeezing the Red Sea – these are not theoretical. They are proven. The Saudis know it. That is why the secret relationship exists.

The irony is almost biblical. Esau and Jacob reconciling and then going their own ways but never fully embracing one another as brothers. The “Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques” is asking the Jewish state – the younger blessed sibling – to help protect the approaches to those same mosques from a Shiite militia that chants “Death to America, Death to Israel” and now, increasingly, “Death to the House of Saud”. The same kingdom that still reflexively conditions any public recognition of Israel to a Palestinian Arab state is privately seeking Israeli help so that its tankers can leave port, its pipelines can supply the tankers, and its pilgrims can reach Mecca without looking up at the sky in fear. And so, the Houthi missiles don’t become an insurrection that threatens the House of Saud falling like a house of cards.

This is not new in kind. Egypt made peace in 1979 because it had been beaten and needed the Sinai back, if not for the land, at least to save face and for its own stability. Jordan followed because it understood the alternative was chaos. Peace with Egypt and Jordan is cold, functional, just between governments, all while state run institutions continue to foment anti-Israel rhetoric that makes Israel hated on the streets of Cairo and Amman.

The Abraham Accords materialized because the Arabs saw Iran as the greater threat and Israel as the only regional power that had already paid the price of confronting it. Saudi Arabia is simply later to the same realization, and still too proud or too constrained by its own street and its own clerics – and the Palestinian cause tying them down – to say it out loud. Israel remains the hidden mistress to which the discontented husband turns for real comfort.

The Mecca Pact with Turkey and Pakistan seems impressive on paper. Mutual defense. Joint exercises. A secretariat. It has not produced a single Saudi battery that can do what Israeli systems have done night after night. The American F-35s, if they ever arrive, will take years to field and come with the usual restrictions and the usual questions about qualitative military edge. Egypt can talk and coordinate; it cannot replace the targeting picture Israel already has of Houthi positions and Iranian supply lines.

So, the mistress remains useful. She is not invited to family gatherings. She is not mentioned in the communiqués. She is simply the one who knows how to keep the house from burning down.

I am not naïve about what this means for Israel. We have interests too in the Houthis and their Iranian puppeteer being roundly defeated. We should give the intelligence. We should coordinate through CENTCOM. We should not pretend that quiet cooperation is the same as peace, or that Riyadh’s current desperation will automatically produce an embassy in Jerusalem. Normalization will come, if it comes, only when Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman decides the cost of public hypocrisy – and specifically tying his vision for a Saudi future is more inhibited by championing the Palestinian cause that brings it down – is higher than the cost of public honesty. Yet even with four wives in the same family, the Saudis do not share everything that goes on with each of the wives with all the others. MBS may come around when he’s ready to admit that all the smoke and mirrors of the Mecca mutual defense pact is not worth the paper on which it is written. Until then, Israel remains the woman who is visited only when the wives cannot satisfy their husband’s needs.

**Holding Hands to Dowry**. Following Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman holding hands on the Nov. 18, 2025 in the Oval Office at the White House, the U.S. State Department has officially approved a $24.3 billion sale of 48 F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter jets to Saudi Arabia (Photo: Reuters)

That is not a dignified position. It is, however, a familiar one. Jews have been useful to empires and caliphates for centuries – until we were not. The difference now is that we have a state, an army, and the ability to say no. We can help because it is in our interest that Iran and its proxies not control the Red Sea.

From these hills I watch the same sky the Saudis watch. I pray for the safety of my family and my neighbors, and I pray that the men who rule in Riyadh will one day have the courage to treat Israel as a public partner rather than a secret mistress. Until that day, the comfort provided by the mistress will continue behind closed doors.

**State of Affairs**. Despite close security cooperation between Israel and Saudi Arabia, it was too much for Saudi Arabia to agree to Israel’s request to send planes – even civilian planes – to fetch its traumatized citizens following the hijack and terror attack on Flydubai.

About the writer:

PRETORIA’S HOUSE OF CARDS AT THE HAGUE

While creating a fine photo-op, 21 national flags do not a verdict make.

By Shaun Schutte

On 22 September 2026, the International Court of Justice confirmed that Colombia had withdrawn its intervention from South Africa’s genocide case against Israel. President Abelardo De La Espriella’s government has also restored diplomatic relations with Israel and reversed other decisions taken by the previous administration, while Nicaragua had already withdrawn its separate application to intervene in April 2025.

Colombia’s decision matters because it exposes something the ANC government has been allowed to blur since it filed the case on 29 December 2023. Pretoria repeatedly creates the impression that every country appearing in the proceedings has joined South Africa, supports its accusation and accepts that Israel committed genocide.

That is not what the court record shows.

South Africa is the applicant making the accusation. Israel is the respondent denying it. The other countries are interveners, and intervention does not automatically mean joining South Africa’s side or accepting that its allegation has been proven.

Under Article 63 of the ICJ Statute, any state party to the Genocide Convention may intervene when the interpretation of that Convention is in dispute. A country may explain how it believes genocide, genocidal intent and the duties of states should be interpreted without presenting new factual evidence, endorsing South Africa’s allegations or declaring Israel guilty.

Palestine and Belize also invoked Article 62, claiming a specific legal interest that may be affected by the eventual judgment. That gives them a different basis for requesting participation, but it still does not transform every government appearing in the courtroom into an independent witness for Pretoria.

“We continue to work closely with Türkiye……Türkiye has made its support for the case very clear,” said Ronald Lamola, South African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation to reporters on the ICJ genocide case against Israel at the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Foreign Ministers Meeting in Kruger National Park, South Africa, May 24, 2026. (Photo: AA)

THE COURTROOM ANALOGY

Imagine a prosecutor bringing twenty-one people into a courtroom and then walking outside to tell the public that all twenty-one are witnesses supporting the prosecution.

When their statements are examined, the picture changes. Some openly support the accusation. Others are merely explaining how they believe the law should be interpreted. One specifically avoids deciding the disputed facts, while four warn that the prosecution may be attempting to lower the standard required to prove the crime.

The prosecutor nevertheless points towards everyone inside the courtroom and presents them as one united group standing behind the accusation.

That is the impression Pretoria has created, and it is misleading.

THE COUNTRIES LEANING TOWARDS PRETORIA

Libya intervened on 10 May 2024 and left very little room for doubt about its position. It alleges that Israel’s acts and omissions are genocidal and were committed with the required specific intention to destroy Palestinians in Gaza as part of the broader Palestinian national, racial and ethnic group.

Libya is not simply discussing the meaning of the Convention. It has aligned itself directly with South Africa’s accusation.

Mexico followed on 24 May 2024, concentrating on the obstruction of humanitarian assistance, destruction of civilian and cultural infrastructure and the cumulative consequences of Israel’s military campaign.

Its submission advances a broader method of inferring genocidal intent and materially assists Pretoria, but it does not provide an independent judicial finding that Israel entered Gaza intending to destroy the Palestinian people.

Palestine intervened on 31 May 2024 under both Articles 62 and 63, claiming a direct legal interest in the eventual outcome. Its position openly supports the allegation that Palestinians in Gaza are being subjected to genocide.

Palestine is directly affected by the war and has an obvious reason to place its case before the Court, but it cannot simultaneously be presented as an independent and neutral confirmation of South Africa’s accusation.

Spain entered on 28 June 2024 and argued that killing, serious bodily or mental harm, forced displacement and deprivation must be assessed collectively when determining whether genocidal acts and intent exist.

That interpretation could make Pretoria’s allegation easier to establish, but Spain is still presenting a legal argument about how evidence should be assessed. It is not arriving with proof that the final legal threshold has already been crossed.

Türkiye intervened on 7 August 2024 and strongly supports South Africa’s position, arguing that Israel’s conduct must be considered as a complete pattern rather than as isolated events.

That stance is consistent with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s openly hostile political posture towards Israel, and it is reasonable to ask how much of Türkiye’s involvement arises from independently assessed evidence and how much reflects an established geopolitical position.

Consistently hostile towards Israel and frequently seen at political rallies adorning a Palestinian keffiyeh over his shoulders, one questions whether Türkiye president Erdoğan’s position in supporting South Africa’s case against Israel is motivated by law or politics? (Photo: Reuters)

Chile filed its declaration on 12 September 2024, arguing that genocidal intent may be inferred from a consistent pattern of conduct and the surrounding circumstances.

This assists Pretoria’s legal argument, but it still does not establish the central fact that must eventually be proven:

that Israel’s purpose was to destroy Palestinians as a people rather than to destroy Hamas as a military organisation.

The Maldives intervened on 1 October 2024 and focused on civilian deaths, displacement, deprivation of essential supplies and living conditions allegedly calculated to cause physical destruction.

These are grave matters that must be examined, but the consequences of war and the specific intention to destroy a protected group remain separate legal questions.

Bolivia followed on 8 October 2024 and has openly supported South Africa’s case. Its government has also been politically aligned with the anti-Israel bloc for years.

Political alignment does not automatically invalidate its submission, but neither can that alignment be displayed as independent proof that genocide occurred.

Ireland entered the proceedings on 6 January 2025, concentrating on humanitarian assistance, collective punishment, civilian protection and the interpretation of the prohibited acts listed in the Convention.

Its arguments may assist South Africa, but Ireland did not arrive carrying a judgment that genocide had already been proven. It supplied legal interpretation, not a verdict.

Cuba intervened four days later, on 10 January 2025, and openly supports both the Palestinian position and Pretoria’s use of the Genocide Convention against Israel.

Cuba’s longstanding alignment against Israel and the United States is part of the political context and cannot simply be ignored. That alignment may explain its position, but it is not evidence of genocidal intent.

Belize filed on 30 January 2025 under both Articles 62 and 63, claiming a legal interest in the proceedings while supporting a broader interpretation of the Convention.

Its participation adds another flag to the coalition Pretoria displays, but an application to intervene remains neither evidence nor a finding of guilt.

Brazil intervened on 17 September 2025 and argues that the cumulative effects of Israel’s military operations must be examined when determining whether the Convention has been violated.

That is a legitimate legal argument for the Court to consider, but the Court must still distinguish between political condemnation, possible violations of humanitarian law and the very specific crime of genocide.

Comoros followed on 29 October 2025, supporting South Africa’s position and a broader interpretation of destructive conditions, deprivation and genocidal intent.

Comoros is also a member of the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. That does not disqualify its submission, but it forms part of the political background when its flag is presented as supposedly independent confirmation of Pretoria’s claim.

Belgium entered on 23 December 2025 and supports judicial scrutiny of Israel’s conduct while advancing interpretations that could broaden the circumstances from which prohibited acts and genocidal intent may be inferred.

Once again, the submission may assist Pretoria, but it does not establish the one element South Africa must ultimately prove:

Israel’s specific intention to destroy Palestinians as a protected group.

Iceland intervened on 11 March 2026 and leans towards a broader interpretation involving displacement, deprivation, civilian harm and the circumstances from which intent may be inferred.

It is an argument about how the Court should examine the evidence. It is not independent factual confirmation that the evidence already proves genocide.

Namibia entered on 12 March 2026 and clearly supports South Africa, arguing that genocidal intent must be assessed through the complete context and combined pattern of conduct.

Namibia’s own history of genocide gives its voice moral significance, but historical experience cannot replace the evidentiary requirement to prove Israel’s intention in this particular war.

THE COUNTRY THAT HAS NOT PRETENDED TO DECIDE THE FACTS

The Netherlands intervened on 11 March 2026 and made an important distinction. Its government explicitly stated that its declaration does not determine the disputed facts or conditions on the ground. It confines itself to explaining how parts of the Genocide Convention should be interpreted.

The Netherlands argues that the available evidence should be considered comprehensively and that forced displacement or deprivation of humanitarian assistance may, in certain circumstances, contribute to proving prohibited acts or genocidal intent.

Parts of that interpretation may assist South Africa, but the Netherlands has not declared Israel guilty and cannot honestly be displayed as a country that confirmed Pretoria’s accusation.

THE COUNTRIES RESISTING PRETORIA’S APPROACH

Paraguay intervened on 3 March 2026 to defend the original, narrow meaning of genocide. It insists that the crime requires proof of a specific intention to destroy a protected group and warns against weakening that requirement.

Paraguay is formally involved in the same proceedings, but no honest account could count it as part of South Africa’s coalition.

The United States entered on 12 March 2026 and explicitly rejected the genocide accusation as false. Its submission argues that widespread civilian casualties, even on a horrific scale, do not automatically establish genocidal intent, particularly during urban warfare against an armed organisation operating from within civilian areas.

Its intervention warns that lowering the threshold would transform genocide from a precisely defined crime into a political label applied to any destructive war.

Hungary intervened on the same day and also insists upon a high evidentiary threshold. Its position warns against taking possible violations of international humanitarian law and simply re-labelling them as genocide without proving the additional and very specific intention required by the Convention.

Hungary is inside the same courtroom, but it is there to challenge Pretoria’s legal approach — not to support it.

Fiji’s intervention also demands strong proof of both the prohibited acts and the intention to destroy the protected group. It raises concerns about relying uncritically upon politically contested reports from international organisations and advocacy groups.

Fiji is involved in the case, but it is not there to endorse South Africa.

WHAT THE NUMBERS ACTUALLY SHOW

There are now 21 states formally involved as interveners. Sixteen broadly support, lean towards or legally assist parts of Pretoria’s approach. The Netherlands restricts itself to legal interpretation without deciding the facts. Paraguay, the United States, Hungary and Fiji defend a stricter interpretation that challenges South Africa’s case.

That is not an international verdict. It is not 21 independent bodies of evidence, 21 witnesses confirming genocidal intent or 21 governments arriving at the same legal conclusion.

South Africa is entitled to bring its case, and every state party is entitled to offer its interpretation of the Genocide Convention. What Pretoria is not entitled to do is convert legal participation into political endorsement and then present the number of flags surrounding the proceedings as proof that the accusation has already been established.

The International Court of Justice has not found Israel guilty of genocide. Its provisional orders were issued to preserve possible rights and prevent irreparable harm while the case continues. They were not a final judgment that genocide had occurred, yet that distinction has repeatedly disappeared from the political narrative.

THE WAR DID NOT BEGIN INSIDE A COURTROOM

On 7 October 2023, Hamas-led forces crossed into Israel and deliberately attacked civilian communities. Approximately 1,200 people were killed and more than 250 were abducted and taken into Gaza.

Those civilians were not accidentally caught between two armies. Civilians were among the intended targets.

Hamas then returned to one of the most densely populated territories on earth with the hostages. It continued operating through an extensive military system built within and beneath civilian areas, with fighters, weapons, command facilities and tunnel entrances positioned in or near locations protected by their civilian function.

This did not remove Israel’s duty to distinguish between combatants and civilians. Civilian casualties are never irrelevant, and every credible allegation of unlawful conduct must be investigated.

It did, however, create a battlefield in which reaching Hamas would inevitably place civilians at risk, while every civilian casualty could be turned into political and strategic pressure against Israel. Hamas had constructed a war in which it could benefit from either outcome:

survive beneath the civilian population, or gain international support from the destruction caused when Israel came underground to find it.

The suffering in Gaza is real and devastating. Acknowledging that suffering does not require us to erase the organisation that started the war, murdered civilians, retained hostages and embedded its military machinery within the civilian environment upon which the war would be fought.

War crimes, disproportionate force and genocide are not interchangeable terms. Genocide requires proof of a specific intention to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group because it is that group.

Civilian deaths alone do not prove that intention. Destruction alone does not prove it. Political speeches, operational failures and even serious violations of the laws of war cannot simply be stacked together until they automatically become genocide.

The required intention must still be proven.

THE FLAGS CAN NO LONGER HIDE THE DIFFERENCES

Colombia has changed course and withdrawn. Nicaragua stepped back before it. Their decisions do not determine the case, but they prove that intervention is neither permanent nor beyond reconsideration.

The remaining governments must now clarify what their flags represent. If they possess independently verified evidence that Israel intended to destroy the Palestinian people, they must produce that evidence and stand openly behind the accusation.

If they intervened only to explain how the Genocide Convention should be interpreted, they must publicly reject any attempt by Pretoria to use their participation as proof that they endorsed South Africa’s factual claims.

If their involvement was driven primarily by ideological alignment, diplomatic pressure or bloc politics rather than independently assessed evidence, they should follow Colombia and withdraw.

The ANC government may possess the executive authority to conduct South Africa’s foreign policy, but it does not own the conscience of every South African whose name it carried into that courtroom. Neither does it own the flags of other governments merely because they entered the proceedings to speak about the law.

Pretoria cannot have it both ways.

It cannot count every intervention as support when addressing its political audience and then retreat behind legal technicalities when asked what those countries actually proved.

The choice facing every government involved is now clear:

● Stand behind the genocide accusation and produce the evidence.

● Clarify publicly that your intervention concerns legal interpretation and does not endorse Pretoria’s factual claims.

● If your flag is there only because political alignment placed it there, withdraw it.

Twenty-one flags may create an impressive photograph. They do not create evidence, they do not establish intent, and they do not amount to a verdict.

About the writer:

Shaun Schutte is a South African security professional, independent writer and founder of Black Knight Bodyguards. He served for eight years in the South African Defence Force before spending seventeen years in international close protection and security operations across conflict environments including Iraq, Afghanistan, Angola and Somalia. His writing draws on this operational background to examine asymmetric warfare, terrorism, protective security and the political narratives surrounding modern conflict. He writes from the perspective of a practitioner rather than an academic, combining publicly available evidence with lessons gained through direct experience in unstable and hostile environments.

SOURCES

International Court of Justice—declarations of intervention:
https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192/intervention

ICJ confirmation of Colombia’s withdrawal and current list of intervening states:
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/icj-press-release-22sep26

International Court of Justice—complete case record:
https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192

A FAILURE OF A FILM

The truth is collateral damage in NAZA

By Rolene Marks

In the last two weeks, two Israeli-made shows have dominated the headlines. One is the massive hit, Fauda, which in its latest season that is centered on the horrors of 7 October, is laying bare the atrocities and trauma in as much excruciating pain that art imitating life allows. The show’s creators take viewers as close to that day that the boundaries of television permit. Fauda has managed to succeed where Israel’s public diplomacy has failed – and the results are evident as it soars to the top of the Netflix rankings, especially in the Arab world. At the time of writing this, Fauda was ranked 4 overall in global rankings. It already debuted at number 1 in Lebanon and is in the top 10 of Arab countries.

The other is the movie, NAZA. The title is an Israeli military acronym derived from “nezek agavi”, Hebrew for collateral damage – but most people will reach for another analogy. You know the one.

The premise of the movie that is ironically backed by the notoriously anti-Israel publication, The Guardian, relies on anonymous testimony from 24 IDF soldiers who claim to have served in the elite intelligence unit, 8200, and claims that using AI (artificial intelligence) a planned strike that would result in 500 civilian deaths was approved.

**Spain Again**. Hardly surprising for a country historically antisemitic for its people to demonstrate support of the “NAZA” documentary film by Israeli directors Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor as seen at the 74th San Sebastian International Film Festival in the northern Spanish Basque city of San Sebastian on September 25, 2026. (Photo: Ander Gillenea/AFP via Getty Images)

Israel’s war with Hamas is the most scrutinized conflict in the world, and if there ever was an incident where 500 civilians were killed, it would definitely have dominated the front pages of every media outlet. The only strike where the number 500 was mentioned was on the 17 October 2023 when Hamas alleged that an Israeli airstrike had struck the Al-Ahli hospital, killing that many civilians. Faster than Hamas were miraculously able to count alleged civilian deaths, was the speed in which this made headlines around the world. When the facts were investigated, it was discovered that a Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket that had fallen short, hit the parking lot causing a small crater and sadly killed a handful of civilians. The lie had gotten out, put its trousers on and was gallivanting around the world – and the result was mass protests and attacks on several synagogues.

A similar analogy can be drawn with NAZA. The documentary has been screened and the headlines about its content have dominated media publications around the world, despite it not being thoroughly vetted for factual accuracy and everything that one hopes a subject matter of this importance should be subjected to.

The IDF have reacted very strongly to what has been shared. They have refuted the veracity of claims that the army use AI to determine targets and that a strike was carried out that killed 500. They also demanded a widespread, robust campaign that must include the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and National Public Diplomacy Directorate.

In a statement released by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, they called NAZA, “pure propaganda, created by radicals who serve the narrative of murderous terrorists. It is yet another element of the anti-Israel campaign that began after October 7, driven by the Red-Green coalition of the radical left and Islamist movements.” The Ministry took aim at the lack of verification, saying in their statement, “the “film” claims that the IDF approved a planned strike despite anticipating 500 civilian deaths. This is false. It never happened. Never. The IDF would never approve such an operational plan. But there is a reason – and a method – behind the dissemination of such an outrageous allegation. The method employed throughout this campaign, including in this “film,” is familiar: introduce a shocking falsehood, amplify it around the world, and allow it to shape headlines and public opinion. By the time the facts emerge and corrections follow, the damage to Israel’s image has already been done. Again and again, false accusations against Israel receive immediate global attention, while their subsequent collapse receives only a fraction of the exposure and impact. This film follows precisely the same pattern.

The same applies to another false accusation – that the IDF allows AI systems to make operational decisions independently of human judgment. This is simply false and fundamentally misrepresents how the IDF operates. Operational decisions are made within a defined human chain of command and are subject to human judgment and oversight. The IDF has developed extensive procedures intended to prevent and mitigate harm to non-combatants.”

Methods of warning to mitigate civilian casualties are conspicuously ignored. Methods include roof knocking, dropping pamphlets announcing impending strikes, SMS’s, phone-calls in Arabic and other methods that have been lauded by other army officials.

**Rebutting NAZA**. Freed hostage Omer Shem Tov p(right) pushed back against the directors (left) of “NAZA” in Gaza, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed explaining that Hamas – not the Israeli military – used captives as actual “collateral damage” (The Hebrew meaning of NAZA).

Former hostage, Omer Shem Tov, in an op-ed written for the Wall Street Journal said:

“One of my captors told me his mother had received a phone call warning her to leave her home because an Israeli strike might put her in danger. The call came from the Israel Defense Forces. Hamas knew where I was and left me to die. Israel didn’t know my location, but it knew where my captor’s mother was and called to make sure she wasn’t killed accidentally. There I was—kidnapped, starved and tortured by her son—while my army was trying to keep his mother alive.”

His op-ed continued:

“Israel desperately wanted me home. But not at any price. There were Palestinian civilians between Israel and me. So Israel dropped leaflets, sent messages, made phone calls and ordered evacuations. It tried to minimize NAZA, or collateral damage.

I also saw what death meant to the other side. One day, my captors celebrated after Hamas fighters killed Israeli soldiers. The next day, Israel bombed the area where I was being held. The explosions came about 10 seconds apart. I was terrified. The terrorist beside me was delighted. To him, every explosion was proof of success: Look what we made Israel do. Look how much we hurt them. I understood something then. For Hamas, destruction itself could be victory. As long as there was death on either side, Hamas could win.”

Shem Tov is not the only former hostage who has lambasted the filmmakers. Eliyah Cohen took to his Instagram page and wrote, “”I understand that there is the law and we live in a free and democratic country and everyone deserves to say what they want, but we as a nation, not as a state, as a nation, cannot allow this to pass by unanswered,” he said. “We need to take to the streets, hang posters of them, and spread pictures of them through every medium so that when they walk on the street, they’re allowed to walk here, we won’t do anything that’s against the law, but when they walk on the street they will feel ashamed.”

Cohen also mentioned the soldiers who fought to free him from captivity: “In this country they (Avraham and Szor) cannot go and humiliate my brethren and my friends and the people who fought every day to bring me home and who fight every day so our families could live here, and they’ll go and spread lies… and what will we do? We’ll let it go?”

**Dubious Duo**. Rachel Szor and Yuval Abraham are not only the Israeli directors of the controversial documentary NAZA but directors of intensifying the global hate towards their own country. Photo: Dimitrios Kambouris/Getty Images)

Liri Albag, who was one of the female observer soldiers taken captive from Nahal Oz base, published a scathing response, “Hey… Do you know that although you only served for two weeks in the IDF and were discharged because of your political views, if you had fallen into Hamas captivity, they would have considered you a soldier anyway? And they would have tortured you for being a soldier. Don’t ask me how I know.

“Do you understand that if you had been in the Gaza border area on October 7, none of the terrorists would have stopped and said, ‘Hey, leave him alone—he’s okay; don’t hurt him’? Or perhaps you would simply have joined the ‘struggle to liberate Palestine’ and harmed your own people? “At first, I wanted to write ‘blood of my blood,’ but then I remembered that we most certainly do not share the same blood—and fortunately so! Ugh, disgusting. You sold out your own people for people who yearn for your death, and that is unforgivable. How do people like this have citizenship here?! They should be launched out of our country on a missile.”

A soldier who claimed to have participated in the movie, spoke to Walla, one of Israelis biggest news publications — and made serious allegations about how his testimony and casualty figures were obtained. He said his testimony was manipulated, and sources were financially incentivized to provide higher civilian-casualty figures. “I participated in this film, unfortunately, and they manipulated me so much,” he says. He continues, ““Numbers of 400 and 500 collateral damage don’t exist.” He claims participants were financially incentivized. Most significantly, he alleges that interviewees were financially incentivized to give increasingly higher figures, “They offer you ten shekels for every additional person you say: say 400, get 4,000; say 500, get 5,000.” He claims this caused participants to exaggerate: “People start exaggerating. They see the money and cash in front of their eyes.”

Why? Why did these two Israelis who claim to call Israel home, produce such a damaging movie, aided by a publication that is notorious for its anti-Israel bias? Plaudits from peers? In this instance, a 25 minute ovation at the Venice Film Festival, ironically the same festival who gave the same accolades to Leni Riefenstahl, Hitler’s favoured celluloid propagandist. They claim it is concern for Palestinian casualty recognition.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has a different opinion. The Ministry says, “The truth is the opposite of what the “film” seeks to portray. And yes, in Israel’s democracy, where freedom of expression is cherished, there are also radical Israelis who lie, distort facts seeking political goals and personal gains. The “film’s co-director, Yuval Abraham, is no neutral investigative journalist – he is a longtime radical anti-Israeli activist committed to demonizing and delegitimizing Israel.

As part of this method, the film creators deliberately omit Hamas from their narrative, erasing the terrorist organization whose actions are at the heart of this war. Hamas deliberately targets Israeli civilians, as it did on October 7, while embedding itself within Gaza’s civilian population and using civilians as human shields. Israel is fighting this bloodthirsty jihadist terrorist organization while the IDF operates in accordance with international law and takes extensive measures to minimize civilian harm.”

The filmmakers lack that ability of a truly perspicacious reporter and examine what their motives are. When questioned by a reporter on Israel’s Channel 12, Abraham simply could not verify any of the accusations and when pushed about omitting the atrocities of 7 October and Hamas’s role in the war, he testily responded with “go make your own movie.”

Israeli officials are debating what punitive measures they can take against the pair. The film has successfully united Israelis in anger. I would wager the hopes of the filmmakers to have their movie screened here would be met with a national temperature colder than the Arctic tundra.

Perhaps they need to binge watch season 5 of Fauda.

About the writer:

Rolene Marks is a journalist and commentator on Middle East affairs, co-founder of Lay of the Land and the National Spokesperson for the South African Zionist Federation.

HOW DO WE COMPARE?

Comparing Jewish Engagement across the Anglo Diaspora

By Reviva Hasson

For many South African Jews, the question often comes up: how do we compare?

Whether thinking about emigration, family abroad, or simply the state of Jewish life globally, we instinctively measure ourselves against communities in other countries. Anecdotal experiences from friends and family provide one perspective, but another avenue offering a more objective, broader birds-eye view approach is a comparison based on survey data.

The Jewish Community Survey of South Africa (JCSSA) is the largest survey of South African Jews. It was conducted in 2019 by the Kaplan Centre for Jewish Studies, based at the University of Cape Town, in collaboration with the London based Institute for Jewish Policy Research. Similar Jewish population surveys have been run across the Anglo world in similar periods which creates the unique opportunity to be able to compare Jewish populations, – in the United States Pew2020, the United Kingdom NJCS 2022, Australia Gen17 2017, and Canada SJC 2018.

A comparison with these four countries is not arbitrary. South Africa shares important features with other Anglo communities based on a common language and cultural heritage rooted in British institutions. Moreover as 70% of South Africa’s Jewish emigrants have moved to these four countries, the comparison is also personal.

Countries can be compared on many different variables. In terms of the size of the Jewish population, America has the largest population outside of Israel with some 6.5 million Jews, Canada has 400 000 Jews, the UK 312 000 and Australia 117 000. South Africa ranks 11^th in world Jewry with 52 300 Jews. This article however focuses on Jewish life – how Jews express their Jewish identity through relationships, beliefs, practices, and values.

In the analysis that follows the comparison is grouped into four themes:

sociocultural engagement
religious engagement,
connection to Israel, and
the value placed on different elements of Jewish identity.

Of course, splitting Jewish life into different categories is artificial and any behaviour can be experienced in multifaceted ways, however for the purpose of this article it is useful to think about Jewish identity taking expression through different avenues.

SOCIOCULTURAL ENGAGEMENT

This theme explores the social and communal dimensions of Jewish life, including friendship networks, family traditions, charitable giving, and participation in activities that connect Jews to one another. While a Passover seder is rooted in religious ritual, it’s also a powerful expression of culture, bringing multiple generations together around a shared tradition. Similarly, the synagogue is a house of prayer, but it is also one of the primary spaces where community takes form.

In the figures that follow South Africa is shown by the black bar with the percentage of the community that answered in the affirmative to each measure. When interpreting the results it’s important to appreciate that the percentage who did not answer “yes” mainly include those that said “no” but also includes other responses like “some/sometimes” and “don’t know” or “Prefer not to say”. Where there are missing bars for a certain country it’s because that question was not asked in the relevant survey.

Figure 1 shows that 57% of South African Jews are members of a synagogue, similar to the UK and Canada but below Australia where almost 80% of the community are members. 71% of South African report having mostly Jewish friends and 81% attend or host a Passover seder every year – both of which are comparable to Australia. 88% of South Africans made a financial donation to a Jewish charity in the past year, similar to the UK.

Intermarriage rates measure the proportion of marriages in a given timeframe that are between Jews and non-Jews, here South Africa exhibits the lowest rates with intermarriage at 17%. by contrast in America the rate is close to 60%

Taken together, the data suggest that South African Jewry exhibits strong levels of sociocultural Jewish engagement by Anglo-diaspora standards.

RELIGIOUS ENGAGEMENT

Religious engagement indicators examined in Figure 2 below include both measures of practical observance and expressions of belief.

South Africa performs among the strongest communities and leads in areas such as belief in God (78%), lighting Shabbat candles (52%) and fasting on Yom Kippur (76%). Significantly lower proportions of the community keep kosher (33%) and view halacha (Jewish law) as central to being Jewish (26%).

It’s interesting to observe that while only 21% of South African Jews indicated in the JCSSA that they are Shomer Shabbat (data not shown here) – a marker for religious Orthodox observance, the above data reveal significantly higher levels of participation across other religious life indicators. This suggests that religious engagement in South Africa extends beyond a small observant minority.

CONNECTION TO ISRAEL

A third dimension of Jewish engagement is connection to Israel, which for many Jews serves as an important expression of their Jewish identity, serving as a homeland and the centre of Jewish peoplehood.

Connection to Israel is an area in which South African Jewry stands out (Figure 3). 66% of South African express a strong attachment to Israel, and when those who report being “moderately” attached are included, 90% express a positive connection. Significantly higher than elsewhere in the Anglo world.

The vast majority (89%) have visited Israel at least once and many have visited multiple times, a figure matched by Australia and the United Kingdom. By comparison, fewer than half of American Jews have visited Israel.

The one area where South Africa performs relatively poorly in terms of its Israel engagement profile is Hebrew literacy where only 24% report being able to speak Hebrew quite well, far below Canada’s 40%. The proportion in South Africa who can read Hebrew is higher (54%)

WHAT MATTERS MOST TO JEWISH IDENTITY

Figure 4 shifts the focus from behaviour to attitudes, examining the proportion of respondents who rated various elements of Jewish identity as being “very important” to their personal sense of Jewish identity. The exact same question was asked in the UK and Australia surveys hence our comparison is limited to these three countries.

Figure 4. Elements of Jewish Identity. The percentage that responded that this element was “very important” to their Jewish identity

Note. Q. How important or unimportant are each of the following to your own sense of Jewish Identity? This graph only shows the percentage that answered, “very important”. The other options included: important, unimportant, don’t know and prefer not to say.

South Africa however stands out. In all but one of the thirteen statements, South African Jews are more likely to select “very important” than their Australian and British counterparts. Moreover, in five areas South Africa stands out particularly strongly compared to the UK and Australia: moral and ethical behaviour (85%), remembering the Holocaust (81%), donating money to charity (55%), belief in God (53%) and payer (36%).

A SUCCESS STORY WITH CAVEATS

Taken together, the findings reveal a community that compares remarkably well with its counterparts across the Anglo-Jewish world. The South African Jewish population consistently ranks among the most engaged across multiple dimensions of Jewish life. Moreover, the high levels of importance attached to many elements of Jewish identity suggest that this engagement is not merely behavioural, but underpinned by strongly held values, beliefs, and sense of Jewish peoplehood. Overall, South Africa emerges as the strongest performing of the major English-speaking Jewish communities, with Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom occupying a middle position, while the United States ranks lowest overall. This is a particularly striking finding. Despite its relatively small size, South African Jewry emerges as one of the most engaged Jewish communities in the Anglo diaspora, consistently punching above its demographic weight.

These affirming findings about SA Jewry should be viewed alongside several important qualifications. South African Jewry is not a single homogenous community, and important differences exist across the geographical landscape. Across almost every measure from religious belief and practice to sociocultural expressions, connections and belonging, Johannesburg Jewry emerges as the most engaged Jewish centre in the country. Cape Town and Durban exhibit significantly lower levels of Jewish engagement in most areas. The national picture therefore conceals significant regional variation.

Moreover, South African Jewish life is not static. Tracking specific forms of Jewish engagement across historical surveys reveals diverging trends. On the one hand, there has been a gradual increase in Orthodox observance. The proportion of Jews who keep shabbat has risen from 9% in 1974 to 21% in 2019. This is mirrored in the data on Jewish strands of identity where a quarter of South African Jews have switched to a more religious Jewish strand of identity than the one they were raised in.

On the other hand, there is a parallel trend away from Jewish engagement. Intermarriage rates have increased such that in the 1970s 7% of all marriages occurring were interfaith unions, while in the most recent period (2015-2019) this has increased to 19%. Similarly, several markers that were historically near universal such as attending Passover seders, fasting on Yom Kippur, and lighting Shabbat candles, have declined in recent decades.

Why South African Jewry compares so strongly with its counterparts abroad is ultimately a question that warrants further study. However, several domestic factors likely play an important role, these include: exceptionally high rates of Jewish day school attendance – 75% of school-aged Jewish children currently attend Jewish schools, the highest in the Anglo world; relatively low incidence of intermarriage, strong communal institutions, and the dense social networks characteristic of a small and geographically concentrated Jewish population. Scholars have also pointed to broader historical and social influences, including the community’s largely Lithuanian heritage, the role of Orthodox outreach movements, and aspects of South Africa’s unique social and political history that may have reinforced communal cohesion.

Comparisons such as these do not tell us every dimension of a Jewish community. They do, however, provide empirical validation for something that many South African Jews have long felt intuitively: that there is something distinctive about both the breadth and strength of Jewish life in South Africa. Claims about the vitality of Jewish life in South Africa are not merely anecdotal; they are supported by a substantial body of evidence spanning religious practice, social connectedness, Israel attachment and the importance attached to many elements of Jewish identity. This broad-based pattern of Jewish engagement is perhaps one of the defining characteristics of contemporary South African Jewry.

To dive deeper into this fascinating set of findings based on the SA Jewish Community Survey, please join Midrasha Melton’s 2-part Online course with Reviva herself – Monday evenings, October 19 and 26 from 19H15-20H15 SAST.

To register/More Info: www.meltoncapetown.org or Lauren Snitcher at lauren@snitcher.org

See flyer above for details.

https://csirt.uct.ac.za/report-incident

Feature picture: Cape Town’s Old Synagogue, the first synagogue built in South Africa in 1863, which since 2000 has housed the South African Jewish Museum. (Photo: Ariadne Van Zandbergen/Alamy).

About the writer:

Reviva Hasson is a social scientist at the Kaplan Centre for Jewish Studies at UCT. In 2019 she coordinated the nationwide survey of the South African Jewish population.

THE FORGOTTEN CHILDREN

In a world of celebrities clamouring for fauxmanitarian shots for social media to shore up credentials, who speaks for Israeli children?

By Rolene Marks

On the train to Tel Aviv a few days ago, I watched a mother with her little girl travelling to their destination. The little girl, decked out in her princess dress and sneakers, armed with a backpack full of colouring books which she was busy with, happily chatted to her smiling mother and waved at the passing trains. I felt tears prickle behind my eyes. I looked at the innocent, pure child and the tears that threatened to spill out my eyes were indicative of an all too familiar emotion.

Why do people want to harm our children?

Why is the world silent when our children are harmed?

Ariel Bibas should have celebrated his 7^th birthday this year. His mother, Shiri, and father, Yarden would have made a beautiful party for him on Kibbutz Nir Oz. All the children would have come to celebrate. In our minds eye, we can see Ariel who loved Batman and his dog Tonto, celebrating with the joy he had lived with in his all-too short life. We can hear the infectious giggle of his baby brother, Kfir, with his broad grin and matching red hair. It was a dream we hoped for.

**Not to Be**. The ‘gingy’ Bibas kids, Ariel and Kfir, kidnapped from their home on kibbutz Nir Oz were brutally murdered in Gaza with their mother, Shiri.

Ariel never got to celebrate his birthday. Instead, Ariel, along with his baby brother Kfir and their parents were kidnapped from their home on 7 October. Shiri the lioness and her flame haired cubs, were separated from Yarden. They were murdered in captivity, their remains returned in a grotesque spectacle of horror. Kfir and Ariel and many others whose lives and innocence were stolen that day.

There are the children like Avigail Idan, who was just three years old when she was taken hostage that day, or Emily Hand whose devastated father told CNN death would have almost been preferable to her kidnapping, knowing the monsters who took her.

**Wrenched from her Bed**. Avigail Idan was abducted from kibbutz Kfar Aza at the age of 3 during the 2023 October 7 attacks and released after 50 days in captivity. Her parents were both murdered during the Kfar Aza massacre.

There are the children who in the last three years have lost friends, parents, siblings, grandparents and loved ones to war. I think of Avigail’s siblings, Michael (9) and Amalia (6), who hid in a cupboard in the safe room of their home in Kibbutz Kfar Aza, their mother’s body on the floor in front of them, their father’s outside. They hid for hours, thinking their little sister had also been murdered.

**Barbarism in the Bedroom**. While celebrities focus on the suffering in Gaza, they ignore the massacres in Israel as evident in this blood-soaked child’s bed in Kibbutz Kfar Aza in the aftermath of the Hamas assault on Israel on October 7. (Photo: PMs Office)

I think of the countless children traumatized by missiles, loss, sirens and everything else that they have endured over the last 3 years. I think of the children forced to flee their homes and all that was familiar in both the north and south of Israel, becoming internal refugees in their own country.

**Kidnapping Kids**. Seized on kibbutz Be’eri on October 7^th while at a sleepover at a friend’s house, Irish-Israeli girl Emily Hand (9) is seen here reunited with her father Thomas after being held captive by Hamas in Gaza for 50 days.

These are the children the world has forgotten.

If you are a celebrity/former royal worth your “humanitarian” credentials, one of the first things that you do, is ensure that you land your high-paying self on site of the nearest global tragedy – preferably a war zone. Bonus points if the war zone involves an ability to blame Israel. Going to the border with Gaza means hitting pay dirt – and you can wear your best Prada bucket hat and Jolie-esque like humanitarian outfit.

Of course, no visit to a war zone is complete without a camera crew to document your concern from every possible angle – especially the most flattering.

Earlier this year, former (are they still royal? Who can keep up?!) Royals, Harry and Meghan graced Jordan with their presence, courtesy of the World Health Organization. Suitably attired in this season’s Chanel pumps, Meghan managed to contort her face into looking concerned and emotional for the cameras. Whipping back the covers of a hospital bed, cameras captured a child who had lost a leg as a result of the war. Conveniently excluded from the messaging is that the particular NGO employed staff who posted pro-Hamas content. It felt so exploitive of the child’s private pain. Naturally they failed to pop over the border to visit with Israeli survivors of 7 October, former child hostages or the children of soldiers, given that Harry is patron of the Invictus Games which supports wounded veterans. Israel is a member of Invictus.

**Contrived Concern**. Harry and Meghan took a 2-day humanitarian trip to Jordan (seen here) in February 2026 at the invitation of the World Health Organization to focus on displaced persons and medical relief but failed or neglected to include Israel in their itinerary to engage with victims of a massacre. (Photo: Aaron Chown/PA Images/Getty Images)

I must be very clear – there is absolutely nothing wrong – and it is very important and admirable to care about the children of Gaza. We all should. The human cost of war is devastating and as an Israeli, I don’t want to see my neighbours suffer. The hideous reality of war is that children, the most vulnerable, are killed and every single death is a tragedy where words just simply fail. I do have to wonder where these newly minted child advocates were when Hamas was forcing children to become soldiers, a clear violation of international convention on child soldiers, or when they were mercilessly used as labour to dig tunnels. I wonder where these paragons of virtue signaling were when children are taught to hate and kill Jews in their schools and at summer camps. It is not something that they can deny – it is more than evident in the public domain through textbooks, media and proud photos of young Gazans in camouflage being taught to leopard crawl through obstacles and fire weapons.

It is not alternative education – it is child abuse.

Where were the voices of the glitterati when Hamas leaders openly boasted about their human shield strategy, wanting as high as possible casualty rates among children? Silent.

We all should be concerned for the children of Gaza – they deserve a better future.

What is missing from global concern is Israeli children. There are also children in Israel who have suffered tremendously. Who speaks for them? There has been a very conspicuous silence and lack of concern for their trauma, safety and loss.

In the media-friendly performative activism of the many, an important voice has been drowned out. Erased. Ignored. Deliberately.

There has been no visit from Angelina Jolie, the paragon of humanitarian work with refugees, to the communities that were evacuated from both the south and the north of Israel following Hezbollah’s firing on communities close to the border with Lebanon. Israel had over 250,000 internal refugees, many of them children who had lost loved ones, their homes and their foundations – but Ange ‘forgot’ to visit them. She still hasn’t met with our profoundly traumatized children.

From upon their platforms at awards shows and on social media networks, the talented and sanctimonious have preached (while wearing their pins celebrating the lynching of two IDF officers) and signaled their virtue about the horrors of war – but said nothing when our children were sitting in captivity. I don’t recall anyone expressing their horror about the murder of Ariel and Kfir Bibas – and the grotesque parading of their coffins in front of a baying mob in Gaza that included children. Suffer the innocents. We will never forget how the morally deficient tore down the posters of kidnapped Israeli children in cities all over the world.

Many took to their social media in what I can only describe is a carefully orchestrated campaign (by who, we have yet to find out) to share the exact same graphic about the impending death of 14,000 Gazan children. In May 2025, Tom Fletcher, the UN’s under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs, claimed on BBC Radio 4’s “Today” show:

“There are 14,000 babies that will die in the next 48 hours unless we can reach them. I want to save as many as these 14,000 babies as we can in the next 48 hours.”

Needless to say, it never happened.

Neither did the apologies from the entertainment industry who all suspiciously shared the same graphic at the same time. Strange, that. There was no apology for the parading of Palestinian children with congenital disease who were readily exploited to push the mass famine narrative – or expressed outrage for the condition that Israeli children starved, beaten and harmed in unspeakable fashions in captivity suffered. No apology for Eitan Yahalomi who was one of the many child captives whose experience was made public, “First, he was beaten, then they put him alone in a cell with bars and he was left alone for 16 days in the custody of armed men from Hamas,” said his mother, Bat-Sheva.

**Reunited with Mom**. Seen here being hugged by his mother after his release, 12-year-old Eitan Yahalomi had been kidnapped from Nir Oz with his father Ohad (later murdered in captivity) and held hostage in Gaza for 52 days where he was forced to watch videos of the 7 October atrocities. (Photo: Israeli Defense Forces/Reuters)

The signalers of virtue and naturally women’s rights were missing in action when the reports of sexual violence committed against children were made public in all of their devastating details. Me too – unless you are an Israeli child.

Nobody seemed too concerned when missiles rained down from Hezbollah on to the communities of the north of Israel. There was no mention of the 12 Druze children, murdered by a Hezbollah rocket as it slammed into them on a sunny Saturday afternoon as they played football (soccer). We thought one little boy was hiding or missing – but he took the impact of the missile and there was nothing left of him.

What about these angels?

From the pulpits of pomposity, the noble and sanctimonious have said nothing about the ballistic missiles and drones that rained terror over Israel, courtesy of the Islamic regime who unlike Israel, did not target military installations. They targeted civilian centres.

Israel’s children have endured the unthinkable these last three years. No toddler should have the words for “sirens”, “hostage” or “fallen” in their lexicon. Acknowledging their suffering does not negate the suffering of Gazan children. Instead, it should motivate all of us to fight for a better world for all of them – but when it comes to speaking up for our children, who else if not we?

Do not let them be forgotten.

Category: International Relations

THE CHILDREN HAD NAMES

Like this:

ON THE WAY TO GAZA

Like this:

NAVI PILLAY AND THE HEDGEHOG TRAP

Like this:

THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE OFFENSIVE

Like this:

WORD HAS IT

Like this:

SAUDI ARABIA’S SECRET JEWISH MISTRESS

Like this:

PRETORIA’S HOUSE OF CARDS AT THE HAGUE

Like this:

A FAILURE OF A FILM

Like this:

HOW DO WE COMPARE?

SOCIOCULTURAL ENGAGEMENT

A SUCCESS STORY WITH CAVEATS

Like this:

THE FORGOTTEN CHILDREN

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

SOCIOCULTURAL ENGAGEMENT

A SUCCESS STORY WITH CAVEATS

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: