Pushback on the the movie “NAZA”

September 25, 2026 • 9:30 am

About ten days ago I reported on the first public showing of the anti-Israel film “NAZA,” made by two Israelis. Its premise was the IDF had, during the Gaza war, engaged in the deliberate targeting of civilians using AI, not caring about how many civilians they killed and, in fact, killing as many as possible (the “genocide” trope). The movie apparently used information from 24 anonymous IDF sources, and showing of the movie has been highly restricted. In fact, I wasn’t sure whether it had been shown beyond the Venice Film Festival, where it got  not only a prize but a standing ovation that was 24½ minutes long: the longest in the history of the festival. Grok now tells me that it’s been shown at a festival in Bologna as well, and there are plans for a wider release. But most people haven’t seen it, including the IDF.  Some of its approbation comes from the fact that it was directed by two Israelis, who, of course, couldn’t possibly be showing stuff that was wrong or distorted.

Nevertheless, you can tell a lot about the movie’s premise from this short , 83-second trailer, which has English subtitles. And some of the film’s contents have leaked.

The premise is that there was an IDF program to deliberately kill civilians, whether directly or as “collateral damage” (the meaning of the word “Naza”), and in some strikes up to 500 Gazan civilians were killed.  The video by Natasha Hausdorff and the two articles in the Times of Israel below vigorously dispute this allegation, though you can dismiss them, if you wish, because those sources are either Israeli or sympathetic to Israel.  But before you join the Stalinesque-wave of applause for NAZA (remember from The Gulag Archipelago that the first person who stopped applauding for the Russian leader was arrested), hear them out.

The 26-minute take by Hausdorff, who hasn’t seen the movie, is based on what has been made public about the movie and its trailer. She clearly explains the rule of proportionality as obeyed by the IDF and the ways the IDF warned civilians of imminent attacks.  NAZA apparently ignores Hausdorff’s point: estimating “collateral damage” before a strike is a legal obligation, not a nefarious exercise. As she says:

“And what the filmmakers do is present the modeling of incidental harm to a lay audience as though it were some cold Israeli invention devised for the purpose of justifying slaughter. Well, it isn’t an Israeli invention—it’s the law. And it’s precisely intended  to minimize excessive harm to civilians. Pre-strike collateral damage estimation is the standard practice in every law-abiding Western military—that includes Americans and NATO forces. It’s the procedural tool that compels a commander to confront the presence of non-combatants before a weapon is ever released.”

She goes on to explain what kind of civilian assessment and damage do and do not constitute war crimes. As for the “death of 500 civilians” accusation in NAZA, it’s been strongly denied by the IDF; indeed, no attack was approved to eliminate a Hamas commander, however powerful he be, that would kill more than 100 civilians.  Hausdorff also denies that decisions about where and who are attacked by the IDF are made by machines rather than humans; here the IDF has already published its protocol, which involves three different groups of people.

As for the anonymous IDF souces, Hausdorff avers that, “From an evidential standpoint, these accounts are unverified in every respect that actually matters. We don’t know who these individuals are. We don’t know what roles they had. And we don’t know they are who the filmmakers say they are.” This means that neither Israel nor anybody else can establish whether the accounts are true.

Second, this Times of Israel by Sarit Zehavi (click to read) also casts strong doubt on the film’s premise, for Zehavi, who was willing to be interviewed but wasn’t asked, helped construct the very system of estimating civilian casualties. (She is a Lieutenant Colonel in the Israeli IDF reserve.) Click the headline to read.

An excerpt:

The creators of the recent documentary, “NAZA,” about “Naza” (a Hebrew military acronym for Nezek Agavi – collateral damage) did not have to work too hard to discover the truth.

They could have simply interviewed me. I would have stood in front of the camera, without hiding my identity, on the roof of my house nine kilometers (5.6 miles) from Lebanon, where we endured endless barrages of rockets, and explained the reality on the ground.

A little less than 20 years ago, I was one of the founders of the unit within the IDF that deals with warning populations on the other side of enemy lines and preserving civilian lives.

We built the processes that define how to issue evacuation warnings, and how to track evacuations. I was personally involved in formulating target approval processes and operational discussions.

If they had spoken with me, I would have explained that the chart shown at the beginning of the film’s promotional material is not a “killing chart,” but rather a planning chart for a target identified as being used by Hamas.

Its purpose is to determine whether to strike at all, who in the command echelon is authorized to approve the strike, with what munitions, and under what conditions. In stark contrast to the way it is presented in the promotional material, when the words “Naza 500 – collateral damage estimated at 500” appear in the approval process, it means that action must be taken to reduce the collateral damage.

There are a variety of ways to do this, such as issuing an evacuation warning, using precision munitions, or canceling the strike entirely. Noting the collateral damage on the target sheet does not signify an intention to kill civilians or commit “genocide”; it is intended, first and foremost, to prevent civilian deaths.

Our enemies, both Hamas and Hezbollah, deliberately place their rockets and headquarters in the heart of civilian areas, in tunnels under Beirut or in high-rise residential buildings in southern Lebanon. Hamas in Gaza does the same, operating in civilian areas and using children as human shields. They do this on the working assumption that if Israel strikes without warning, hundreds of civilians will be killed. That is exactly their goal. But Israel chooses differently: there are hundreds of soldiers and officers in the IDF whose sole role is protecting civilians in enemy territory. That is what they think about from the moment they wake up in the morning.

I would have expected a serious examination of this subject to include the perspective of former IDF personnel, like me, as well as serving soldiers and officers who are familiar with these procedures and could explain the professional meaning of collateral-damage assessments. Based on the promotional materials I have seen, that perspective is absent.

The promo for the film claims that the IDF “never checks the number of civilians killed.”

The truth is that checking the exact number of casualties in enemy territory in real time is a complex and nearly impossible task. This is exactly why the collateral damage assessment process takes into account factors such as the size of the structure and the estimated number of civilians routinely in its vicinity.

. . .According to IDF officials quoted in the Israeli media, the filmmakers did not seek the military’s response before the film was released, and the IDF learned of its claims through the media. The IDF spokesperson later publicly asked to view the full documentary in order to respond to its allegations. If the filmmakers, both of them investigative journalists, have declined to disclose their film or findings to the IDF, that would be contrary to basic journalistic ethics.

Without knowing more about the film’s anonymous sources, it is impossible to know what roles the interviewees held within the system, and whether their accounts, assuming they are authentic, are even relevant to understanding the chain of approvals and actions taken prior to striking a target.

The promotional materials released so far present the story from a very narrow angle: they rely on anonymous sources whose level of involvement, rank, and understanding of the process are unclear, while completely omitting the experts who built these systems with one goal: preserving human life. There are such experts. I was one of them.

The article below by Omer Shem Tov is based on an op-ed he wrote in the Wall Street Journal. It’s not all that germane to the film but I’m throwing in the links here for information.

Shem Tov was a hostage kidnapped on October 7, and recounts the lengths Israel went to not to kill him by accident:

Shem Tov, who was kidnapped on October 7, 2023, from the Nova music festival near the Gaza border, recounted an instance when the mother of one of his captors received a phone call from the IDF warning her of an imminent airstrike.

“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,” he wrote. “There I was — kidnapped, starved and tortured by her son — while my army was trying to keep his mother alive.”

He said his captors in Gaza celebrated death and destruction on both sides: “For Hamas, destruction itself could be victory. As long as there was death on either side, Hamas could win.”

Shem Tov said that “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.”

. . The freed hostage suggested that Israel “paid a price” for its efforts to reduce civilian casualties: “They gave Hamas time. They exposed Israeli soldiers to greater danger. And they left hostages like me waiting longer.”

“If Israel had cared less about NAZA, perhaps I would have come home sooner,” he added. “Fewer Israeli soldiers might have died. Fewer hostages might have died. But more Palestinians would have.”

Shem Tov wrote that he is troubled by reports about the documentary film, which he notes that he also hasn’t seen in full.

“In Venice, the film received a standing ovation that lasted more than 24 minutes,” he said. “As a former hostage, those minutes felt like a shower of knives. Not because the film shows Palestinian suffering, which is real and deserves to be seen. What hurts is that the film, as it has been reported, doesn’t seem to see me.”

The former captive said that to the filmmakers, “perhaps I am NAZA too. Collateral damage. A Jewish hostage who could have been left to rot in a Hamas tunnel, or murdered alongside my friends at Nova, because fighting to free me, and to protect Israelis from the people who did this, is itself treated as morally suspect.”

The lengths that Israel went to to minimize Palestinian civilian casualties—the dropping of leaflets, the phone calls to civilians in buildings scheduled for bombing, the “knock on the door”—an innocuous bomb dropped whose noise would alert people to evacuate—and the announcement of “safe areas” for evacuation—all this has been announced publicly and not contested, even by the New York Times. And it gives the lie to the idea that the IDF wanted to kill as many Gazans as possible. If they really wanted to perpetrate a genocide, why the delivery of food and polio vaccine to Gaza? Why these warnings? Why no bombing of the West Bank? What army engaged in a war has ever taken these precautions? And now this film, which apparently stimulates huge approbation by Israel- and Jew-haters everywhere.

I never even thought much about anti-semitism before October 7 three years ago, but now that it’s apparently stimulated a huge outpouring of belief in Big Lies, like the Genocide Myth, I have no choice but to conclude that antisemitism is ubiquitous, and simply was repressed until the Hamas attack gave it an excuse to emerge.

No, it’s not all about Netanyahu (Israel will be hated no matter who becomes Prime Minister), and no, it’s not all about Zionism (“Zionist” has become a euphemism for “Jew”). It’s about hatred of Jews, pure and simple. As I’m a nonbelieving Jew and never banged on about antisemitism before October 7, I am confident in these conclusions. You will never find a purveyor of the Genocide Lie who will admit that they’re wrong, but the evidence shows they are wrong. And the makers of NAZA, and those who so fervently applaud that film, also perpetuate the Big Lie.  As does the British Government with its chowderheaded boycott of Jewish products in false hopes that it will bring about the impossible: a “two-state solution.” I agree with Bill Maher that those who spread the Genocide Lie are at the same time spreading antisemitism.

There are but 16 million Jews in the world, with about half of them in Israel, yet that tiny country, the only democracy in the Middle East, and a the only place where women, gays, and ethnic minorities have equal rights, seems to be the focus of the world’s damnation.  The explanation is clear.

Friday: Hili dialogue

September 25, 2026 • 6:45 am

Welcome to Friday, September 25, 2026, National One-Hit Wonder Day.  I can name many of these: “Louie Louie” by the Kingsmen,  “Brand New Key,” by Melanie, and “Teen Angel” by Mark Dinning (below). Wikipedia has a list of dozens of American one-hit wonders.  If you remember this, you’re old:

It’s also German Butterbrot Day, Love Note Day, National Bakery Day, National Cooking Day, National Crab Meat Newburg Day, National Lobster Day, National Quesadilla Day, and Save the Koala Day.

Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this day by consulting the September 26 Wikipedia page.

My eye is still wonky and it’s hard to function, so bear with me if posting is lighter for a while.

Da Nooz:

*A federal judge prevented Trump from banning CNN, Politico, and MS NOW from the White House press pool because they purveyed “fake news” (i.e., Trump didn’t like the way they covered him). Nevertheless, Trump defied the judge’s order at first, but was forced to obey it.

A federal judge ordered President Trump to temporarily lift a ban on White House access for CNN, MS NOW and Politico journalists, but the news organizations said some of their reporters were still denied entry hours after the ruling.

In a ruling early Thursday, Judge Timothy Kelly in Washington, D.C., said the removal of reporters’ press badges was likely done without “constitutionally adequate due process.”

Kelly, a Trump appointee, said that the president and other officials had offered “little to back up their asserted national security interest” for instituting the ban, and that Trump had instead focused on “the alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity” of the outlets’ reporting.

The temporary restraining order will be in place for 14 days while Kelly considers whether to extend it for the duration of the litigation, marking an early win for the news outlets in their latest clash with the Trump administration.

Media access for some reporters wasn’t immediately restored, however. Journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico were turned away when they tried to enter the White House early Thursday morning. Attorneys for the outlets told Kelly the administration was violating his overnight order and asked him to call an emergency hearing. The judge ordered the administration to reply by 12:30 p.m.

The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Bracing for a loss, Trump earlier in the week signaled he would appeal any order to reinstate the reporters’ credentials, although he said he “probably” would comply with the ruling.

Trump announced the ban in a social-media post Friday, citing what he described as unfair coverage of his administration, and said he would consider banning other outlets in the future. He didn’t point to a specific story for the decision at the time, saying it was “really just cumulative stories over the last two years” that he was “sick of.”

Note, though, that the NYT reports that Trump finally gave in, deciding to grant access to the three organizations yesterday afternoon.

*Over at the Free Press, Maya Sulkin reports that NYT shareholders have sued the paper for biased, antisemitic coverage.

Shareholders of The New York Times filed a lawsuit against the paper’s parent company on Wednesday morning, arguing the paper has failed to meet its obligation: to tell readers the truth and correct itself in a timely fashion when it doesn’t.

The suit, filed by the State Board of Administration of Florida (SBA) and the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) in New York County Supreme Court, asks a judge to force the Times board of directors to hand over internal records the company has refused to produce for four months, the majority of which pertain to the paper’s coverage of the Israel-Hamas war.

The suit includes the testimony from a whistleblower, a former Times employee who is Jewish and spent nearly a decade on the paper’s video desk. According to the suit, the whistleblower raised concerns about antisemitism and anti-Israel bias on her desk at least 15 separate times between 2019 and her March 2026 departure, using every channel the company makes available to employees, including her managers, the standards desk, and human resources.

In an exclusive interview with The Free Press, the whistleblower said, “The public deserves a better picture of how the Times manufactures the news when Jews or Israel are involved.” She asked to remain anonymous over concern for her family’s safety. She is not named in the suit.

The whistleblower noted in the suit that in the immediate aftermath of Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, staffers on the video desk spent weeks searching for evidence that Hamas did not use the tunnels beneath al-Shifa Hospital, even after the Israeli military released its own footage of the tunnels in November 2023. At the desk’s November 20, 2023, morning meeting, the whistleblower’s supervisor referred to them as “alleged tunnels,” the suit says.

“Alleged tunnels”. I’d laugh if that wasn’t so grotesquely stupid.  A few examples of the Times’s bias; you’ve already read of one:

In one of several meetings with Times management, the whistleblower spoke to human resources representative Chante Williams about the broader culture of anti-Israel bias on the video desk, to which Williams told her, “If you don’t like our values here, maybe you should go find a place whose values align with yours,” according to the suit.

I suppose the paper should give all potential employees a list: “These are our values that you’re expected to share.” More:

Since October 7, the Times has been plagued by allegations of anti-Israel bias in its coverage. Last week alone, the Times published three significant errors in its coverage of the region.

In a September 15 article, the Times referred to Sharif Labad, who was killed in a drone strike, as “a Civil Defense rescue service worker,” and made no mention of the fact that the Israel Defense Forces identified Labad as one of the members of the Hamas Nukhba force who invaded Israel on October 7. The story has not been updated.

The same day, an article on the Donald Trump administration’s decision to supply bombs to Israel ran with a photo caption misstating the weapons’ size as 40,000 pounds. The bombs actually weigh 2,000 pounds—a twentyfold overstatement.

The Times was also forced to issue an editors’ note on a story about NAZA, a documentary about Gaza, after the original piece stated that Israelis “still largely view themselves as the victims of Oct. 7.” The paper called that line an “editing error” that had “inadvertently suggested” the deaths of 1,200 people and the taking of 250 hostages were a matter of perception rather than fact.

So it goes. We know this much, but I wonder if the lawsuit will move forward.

*Stanford University admitted that it used AI to change both the ethnicity and appearance of students in an attempt to make its student body look more “equitable”. (h/t Callum)

Stanford University acknowledged this week that it used artificial intelligence to alter a promotional photo, swapping out a Latino student for an AI-generated Black woman and slimming down two of his classmates — the latest episode to raise questions about how universities market diversity, and one that lands amid mounting federal scrutiny of Stanford’s own record on race.

The doctored image was first flagged by the Stanford Review, an independent student publication, which published side-by-side comparisons showing Billy Ramirez and two classmates in a 2024 photo. When the image resurfaced on banners around campus this month, Mr. Ramirez had vanished, replaced by a woman of a different race and gender, while the two students beside him appeared visibly thinner than in the original shot.

Mr. Ramirez told the student paper the experience left him feeling silenced and erased from a representation that was supposed to include him.

Not only were Ramirez’s race and gender changed, but the two students to Ramirez’s right were distorted, making them appear visibly thinner.

While this incident is humorous and generated thousands of reactions on Fizz, it offers an unsurprising insight into Stanford’s and its bureaucracy’s persisting ideological and racial preferences.

While Stanford R&DE likely believed they were subtle enough for no one to notice, fortunately, our vigilant Stanford student body cannot be fooled. The Review will continue to monitor future advertising and actions from Stanford R&DE as they learn how to use generative AI.

Here’s the Stanford Review photo showing the original  (left) and AI-doctored representations (right)

The NYT note that this was their most shared article yesterday (what do you suppose that means?) and adds this:

Stanford acknowledged in a statement on Tuesday that it had used artificial intelligence to change the original image.

“Stanford’s A.I. policy is clear: The use of A.I. in producing or altering images of Stanford people, events, research, facilities or achievements is strictly prohibited,” the university said. “Both the alteration and lack of disclosure in this case violate that policy. We are working with Residential and Dining Enterprises to provide additional training and ensure proper review of all materials.”

Stanford removed the banners.

*And in more news about duplicity, I got this tweet from Luana (you’ll remember Rachel Dolezal as the white woman in Seatlle who claimed she was black, and got away with it for a while). When it came out that Dolezal was white, all hell broke loose, for you can identify as a woman if you’re a man, but under no circumstances are you to identify as black when you’re white. Read about the Rebecca Tuvel controversy.

From the NY Post:

A woke anti-Israel teacher and activist who claimed to be part black and Arab has been dubbed the “Palestinian Rachel Dolezal” after she was outed as being a white, Jewish woman who hid her privileged identity as she led antisemitic protests.

Hannah Gann, a Philadelphia teacher, was forced to confess she was a “white woman of significant privilege and wealth” after fellow lefty activists grew suspicious of her background and confronted her.

“I lied about my identity and have been lying for years. I have no Palestinian or Tunisian heritage,” she wrote in a self-aggrandizing apology on Instagram.

“I am a white woman of significant privilege and wealth. Anyone who supported me was manipulated and should not be judged as a result of their support for me,” she continued.

A staunch figure in far-left activist circles in Philly, Gann portrayed herself as a mixed-race woman with black and Palestinian heritage. In reality, she is white and Israeli, according to friends.

What can you say except she was a liar. And yet she may have been an even more powerful exponent of Palestine had she done it as a white Jewish woman, speaking “against the grain.” Now she has no credibility at all.

*Being depressed, I am in need of heartening news, and here’s just the ticket from The Washington Post (article archived here):

A recent quiet morning at a Florida marine research facility was interrupted by tapping at the back door.

A biologist walked over to investigate and found a brown pelican standing on the stoop and pecking at the glass with its long beak. It stood there patiently, as if waiting for help. A quick inspection revealed the pelican was injured.

Fishing line was wrapped around the pelican’s right wing, and a double-barbed treble hook was stuck in the wing, restricting the bird’s ability to fly. About a dozen cactus spines were lodged in its left foot.

When Annsli Hilton, a University of Miami research associate who works at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) research facility, heard the commotion, she figured someone had brought in the injured bird. She was shocked to hear the pelican came on its own to the lab in Panama City.

“I always kind of thought in my head — and liked to think that — animals would know to either come to me for help or to come to the lab for help,” Hilton said. “… But I never thought it would happen.”

Hilton said the pelican might have walked about a quarter-mile from a basin on St. Andrew Bay — where pelicans are common — to the NOAA laboratory.

Scientists at the facility study fish and sharks, but they quickly helped the pelican after discovering it on Sept. 8. One biologist picked up the pelican by its abdomen and held its beak, so researchers could treat it without hurting the bird or getting bitten themselves.

While another biologist held the pelican’s right wing, Hilton cut the roughly 6-foot-long fishing line with scissors. Her co-worker then snapped the fish hook with wire cutters. The hook’s small barb was still lodged in the pelican’s bone; Hilton carefully removed it with forceps.

She also removed the cactus spines, which she said the pelican probably picked up from cacti near the facility.

Hilton, 26, said she had never treated a pelican before but relied on techniques she uses while inserting tags into smalltooth sawfish, the fish she primarily studies. The pelican was calm throughout the procedure, which Hilton said took about five minutes but felt like an hour because of the unusual nature of the situation.

Her co-worker then carried the pelican to the basin, where the bird stretched and flapped its wings for a few minutes before flying away.

Here’s a news video, along with two other animal-rescue segments as lagniappe. I always wonder how animals know where to go to get help, or is that just an accident?

Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is her usual worried self:

Hili: I’m worried about the fate of the world.
Andrzej: Oh, that’ll keep you busy all day.

In Polish:

Hili: Martwię się o losy świata.
Ja: O, to masz zajęcie na cały dzień.

*******************

*An article in the Free Press by Masih (if you subscribe you can read it here).

From Luana; an old song with new lyrics:

Larry shows a freaky bit of video:

From Malcolm, a beautiful fountain:

Two from my feed. First, raccoons playing dead:

And ideologically revised theology:

And one I reposted from The Auschwitz Memorial:

A McCartney song sung by Mary Hopkin (Macca’s demo here):

The two-state delusion

September 24, 2026 • 9:30 am

As I reported recently, UK foreign secretary Ed Miliband (under Labour) announced that a new government’s policy would (if passed) include imposing sanctions on companies in the West Bank, but only Jewish ones.  I also quoted Miliband at length to show that he deemed this policy essential to effect the one thing he and Labour thought would end the enmity between Israel and Palestine: the vaunted TWO-STATE SOLUTION. A couple of quotes from the Secretary himself.

So Madame Deputy Speaker, there is a deeply painful contrast between our professed commitment to a two state solution, and the reality on the ground in Gaza and the West Bank.

. . . We should always be proud that it was a Labour government that took the historic step of recognising the State of Palestine.

What we seek today is to salvage the only course for peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians – the two state solution.

. . .Ethnic cleansing is defined by the UN as ‘a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.’

The British government agrees that there is ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in areas of the West Bank – perpetrated by settler terrorists.

To advance the two state solution, we also need viable and effective Palestinian governance.

So I urge the Palestinian Authority to accelerate reform and I urge Israel to lift its withholding of revenues that is financially crippling the provision of essential services in the West Bank.

The set of measures I have announced represents a clear message to the government of Israel, to the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, and to the world that we will not acquiesce in the destruction of the two state solution.

Now anybody who says something like this is a complete chowderhead on several fronts. First, as we see later in this post, neither Israel nor Palestine wants a two-state solution. Palestine has rejected one repeatedly: at least a half-dozen times, and often on favorable terms for Palestine That’s because the powers that be in Palestine want a one state solution: a state that would ostensibly harbor Jews and Palestinians, which is like wanting a state that would harbor both dynamite and matches. Such a state would eventually lead to the expulsion or mass death of Jews, which is what most Palestinians want.

Nor do Jews want such a state. They used to, when several times they offered one to Palestine, but after October 7 they realized that having a state run by promoters of terrorism right next to Israel, whether those terrorists be Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or the Palestinian Authority, would simply guarantee more attacks on Israel.  In fact Gaza was, in effect, a Palestinian state, and how well did that work out?

Finally, the “viable and effective Palestinian governance” that Miliband calls for simply does not exist. People have bruited about the Palestinian Authority, but anybody who knows anything about the PA knows that that organization is also a hotbed of terrorism that pays off Palestinians for killing Jews, and is also rejected by Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza in favor of the even more terroristic Hamas.

And so a new Pew Poll, as reported in the Times of Israel, shows that neither side thinks that a two-state solution is the solution to coexistence of Palestinians and Israelis. Ed Miliband, and other European countries who will sanction Israel in hopes of effecting that solution, are speaking from their nether orifices.

Click below to read the ToI article:

Quotes:

A large majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and a majority of Israelis say they do not believe Israel and an independent Palestinian state can coexist peacefully, according to a new Pew survey.

Just 17% of Israelis said they believed a path to peaceful coexistence could be found, compared with 56% who said it could not. Among Palestinians surveyed in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, 21% said coexistence was possible, while 68% said it was not.

The Israeli result is a low point in more than a decade of Pew polling on the issue. The share saying coexistence was possible had already fallen to its lowest level in 2025 and remained roughly unchanged in 2026.

The year 2026 was the first time that more than half of Israeli respondents explicitly said it was impossible.

Among Jewish Israelis, 16% said a two-state solution was possible, while 64% said it was not. Among Arab Israelis, 46% either said they did not know or declined to answer, while 23% said peaceful coexistence was possible and 26% said it was not.

Pew surveyed 1,001 people in Israel and 1,038 Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israeli interviews were conducted from April 5 to May 6, while Palestinian interviews took place from March 30 to April 28, in Hebrew and Arabic.

The fieldwork coincided with the Iran war, beginning while fighting was still underway and continuing after an initial ceasefire was declared on April 7. Gaza was not included because Pew said it was unable to conduct fieldwork there.

Click below to go to the Pew poll and article:

First, the data. Note that Israeli Arabs don’t really want to answer, perhaps because they fear being demonized if they think peaceful coexistence is possible. Overall, Palestinian adults in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are as pessimistic as are Israeli adults:

Now some wishful thinking:

Why do some Israelis and Palestinians think Israel and an independent Palestinian state can coexist peacefully?

Small shares of the populations in both Israel (17%) and the West Bank and East Jerusalem (21%) say a way can be found for Israel and an independent Palestinian state to coexist peacefully.

When asked why they think so, some Israelis and Palestinians offer similar reasons: Both see peace between two states as the inevitable conclusion to their conflict and acknowledge that a diplomatic peace process would bring about clearly-defined borders and independence from each other.

But there are also some differences in their open-ended responses. Palestinians tend to emphasize the benefits of peace, such as economic prosperity for both peoples, while Israelis explain that peace is possible under certain conditions, like increased trust or political will.

Among those who say peaceful coexistence is possible, an interest in peace is a common sentiment. Some say that they personally want peace or – in the words of one respondent – that “both sides want to live in peace.” And others see peace as an imperative, saying, “we must make an effort.”

In addition, some point to interpersonal relationships between the two sides as evidence that they can coexist. “Just as Arabs and Jews live in harmony in Jaffa, so it is possible between countries,” said one Jewish Israeli woman. And a Palestinian woman expressed similar reasoning, saying, “There are friendships between Arabs and Jews, and peace can be achieved.”

“We need to find the path to peace for the sake of our children and their children.”
Jewish man, 29, Israel

“We tried coexistence before and it was successful.”
Man, 27, West Bank/East Jerusalem

I wonder when that was.

“We complement each other in work, trade and security, so that we may live together.”
Woman, 18, West Bank/East Jerusalem

In the West Bank and East Jerusalem, some recalled periods of trust and cooperation in the past. “We used to coexist and could accept each other,” said one Palestinian man. “Previously, coexistence and peace existed, and peaceful coexistence is possible now, just as it was before,” said another.

Many Palestinians stress the economic benefits peace would bring. Peace is “the way to improve the economic situation of the Palestinians,” one Palestinian woman said. Others mention the economic interdependence between the two peoples: “We work for them, they need Palestinian labor,” said one Palestinian man, adding, “We share the same economy and the same currency that Israel uses.”

Palestinians are more likely than Israelis to explain, in their own words, that peace between two states can be achieved because they see it as a desirable outcome. This is the most common theme in the open-ended responses from people in the West Bank and East Jerusalem who say a two-state solution is possible.

This strikes me as a sentiment along the lines of “If wishes were horses, even beggars could ride.” Just because peace is desirable for some people doesn’t mean that it will come, simply because (in my view, of course), peace was never desirable for most Palestinians, and while it was desirable for many Israelis as well as for me, that desire vaporized on October 7.  So long as Hamas and the Palestinian Authority are in control of the Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank, there will never be peace, as both of those organizations are dedicated to extirpating Israel.  And there is as of yet no viable alternative. UNRWA, for example, has helped teach a generation of Palestinian children to hate Jews and love martyrdom. It is not until those children grow up and their own children are brought up under a different system—not something that seems likely—will there be hope for peace.

The figure below shows the waning confidence in a two-state solution over the past thirteen years. It’s fallen by about two-thirds among Israelis of all stripes!:

Finally, there’s a lot about why Israelis and Palestinians think they cannot coexist. Here are some of many reasons:

Why do most Israelis and Palestinians think peaceful coexistence is not possible?

Most Israelis and Palestinians say a two-state solution is not a viable option. Over half of the people surveyed in Israel (56%) and roughly seven-in-ten in the West Bank and East Jerusalem (68%) cannot see a way for Israel and an independent Palestinian state to coexist peacefully.

When asked to explain their answer, Israelis and Palestinians say coexistence is not possible because their differences are too great to overcome. People on both sides agree that they are enemies with competing belief systems who are fighting over the same land, and some also mention the violence between them, which has culminated in the most recent war. Small shares in both places accuse the other side of rejecting peace.

But there are points of disagreement about why they cannot coexist, in their own words. While Israelis explain that an independent Palestinian state would pose a threat to Israel, many Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem say coexistence is not an option while they live under Israeli control.

One of the top reasons that Israelis and Palestinians alike say peaceful coexistence is not possible is disagreement over the land.

Some think there is not enough land to split. For example, one Palestinian woman said that “Palestine cannot be divided into two states.” Another said that “there cannot be two peoples when there is no room for two peoples.” Israelis express similar sentiments – saying, for example, that “Israel does not have enough territory to divide into two states” or that “there is no land to establish a Palestinian state.”

In both places, there are people who believe they are the only rightful owners of the land. One Jewish Israeli woman said, “This is our land alone,” and another stated that “the Holy Land belongs only to the Jewish people and was given to them by God.” Similarly, some Palestinians say Israel “stole our land” and that “the homeland belongs to the Palestinians.”

They didn’t survey Gazans for obvious reasons, and the “under Israeli control” reason wouldn’t have as much force before October 7, 2023.  I have every reason to think that had Hamas (much less the PA) not controlled Gaza (they were voted in by its residents), the territory would now be a seaside tourist destination. Yes, Israel did maintain control over air, land, and sea crossings into and out of Gaza, but so did Egypt, and nobody blames that country for an “occupation” (Egypt also refused to let Palestinian refugees settle in their land after the October 7 war began). Those restrictions were, of course, largely due to terrorism, and yet Gazans were largely free to work in Israel as well as to use its transportation facilities to leave the area. And with few exceptions they could get treatment in Israeli hospitals.  It’s undeniable that Palestinian terrorism is the main reason that Israel has put restrictions on Gaza and the West Bank, and why Israeli enthusiasm for the West Bank has cooled.

Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ free speech

September 24, 2026 • 8:15 am

The latest Jesus and Mo strip, called “grail,” deals with a recent series of events in which John Cleese toured the UK, first showing the classic comedy film “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” which was then “followed by an uproarious conversation and audience Q&A with Cleese himself, where he’ll share behind-the-scenes stories, wit, and wisdom – assuming he remembers any of it.” The traveling show ended two days ago.

Muslims are objecting to the show, but not because of the movie, since the movie has not a word in it about Muhammed or Islam—it’s satirical about Christianity alone.  Apparently Muslims are objecting to what Cleese has said about Islam in recent years.  When I asked Grok  “What has John Cleese said about Muslims that has angered them”?  I got this response (with references, which I’ve omitted):

John Cleese has made a series of public comments—mostly on X in recent years, plus earlier interviews and tweets—criticizing aspects of Islamic doctrine, certain practices associated with some Muslim communities, and demographic/cultural changes in Britain. These have drawn accusations of Islamophobia from Muslim activists, publications like 5Pillars and Middle East Eye, and groups that have called for his events to be cancelled. He rejects the “Islamophobic” label, calling himself an “Islamosceptic” and arguing that criticizing a religion or culture is not the same as hating its adherents. He frequently contrasts this with the satirical treatment of Christianity in Monty Python’s Life of Brian.

Notable statements that prompted backlash include:

  • Claims that the Quran or Islamic teaching is “all about killing infidels,” acquiring power, and imposing Islam, and references to “Koranic demands to kill ‘infidels’” or beheading them. He has asked whether the “Islamic intention to kill all non-Muslims” or “beheading of infidels” has been dropped from the agenda
  • A 2026 post stating he particularly dislikes Islam because “it demands child marriage, female genital mutilation, the beating of wives, the killing of infidels, the unending promotion of the worst aspects of the male ego, and a complete refusal to contemplate multiculturalism.” He has listed similar practices (FGM, child marriage, wife-beating, stoning) as reasons he prefers other cultures.
  • “Like a bunch of five-year-olds, Muslims just want their own way, and will kill non-Muslims to achieve it.” He has also said some Muslims want “uniculturalism” rather than multiculturalism and show little respect for other traditions.
  • Warnings that replacing British/Christian-influenced values with Islamic ones would mean “this will not be Britain any more,” and questions about an “Islamic intent to take over the world.” He has described Muslim beliefs as “attacking British values.”
  • Older remarks (2011 and 2019) that London “is no longer an English city” or “not really an English city any more,” which some critics tied to immigration and multiculturalism; London Mayor Sadiq Khan and others called the comments out of touch or worse. Cleese said they were about cultural character (calmer, more polite, less money-oriented) rather than race.
  • Comments on free speech and satire: comics hold back from joking about Islam because they risk being killed (referencing Charlie Hebdo and similar cases); a “Life of Muhammad” equivalent to Life of Brian would be life-threatening; and “Islamophobia” is an incorrect term used to frame criticism as irrational fear or racism rather than cultural disagreement. In a 2015 interview he said Muslims living in the West have a right to be ridiculed like anyone else, but he would not mock the Prophet.

These remarks led to protests and a 2026 campaign by Birmingham activists (Deenified) to cancel a Holy Grail screening and Q&A, in which they called him a “hate preacher” spreading “dangerous misinformation” and creating hostility toward Muslims. Cleese responded that many “Islamic folk” have a good sense of humor and irony. He has consistently said he distinguishes ideas and specific doctrines/practices from individual people and notes that he faced no equivalent “Christophobic” label after mocking Christianity.

Here is a link to the kerfuffle in Birmingham about the show. A few words from a source, “Townhall,” that itself looks a bit biased.

Comedy legend John Cleese held his “John Cleese and the Holy Grail” show this weekend in Birmingham, but it was not without controversy. Islamist activists and content creators known as Deenified attacked Cleese prior to the event, saying he’s “not welcome” in Birmingham.

“John Cleese, we heard that you’re coming to Birmingham Town Hall to perform this so-called comedy show,” said one of the men.

“For years, you have used your platform to attack Islam, spreading dangerous misinformation and creating hostility towards Muslims,” said the other.

They’re proving Cleese correct, of course. Islam is a religion of death, of killing, of intimidation, and of destruction. It must be removed from the West if it cannot tolerate criticism and free thought.

A hostile tweet from Muslims, who of course have the right to object:

A response from my friend Melissa Chen:

And two responses from Cleese:

In my view, this is a free-speech issue, though Britain has no First Amendment and seems more willing than the U.S. to crack down on “hate speech”. Still, Cleese should have the right to say what he wants, and Muslims should have the right to object, though not to block access to his shows or try to get them canceled.

. . . and Mo’s response, which implies that he does want freedom of speech curbed when it comes to crtiticizing Islam. Cleese, of course, spent his career criticizing nearly everything.

Hili dialogue

September 24, 2026 • 6:45 am

As I’m not yet up to speed, today’s Hili dialogue will be limited to, yes, a Hili dialogue. But it’s a cute one:

Andrzej: What are you doing?
Hili: Tanning my belly.

In Polish:

Ja: Co ty robisz?|
Hili: Opalam brzuch.

There will be a more substantive post later today, and perhaps a full Hili tomrrow. We shall see.

Eye surgery and a complication

September 23, 2026 • 10:29 am

Well, my cataract surgery went okay save for one fairly serious complication: a suprachoroidal hemorrhage, characterized by Google search as this:

A suprachoroidal hemorrhage is a serious eye condition where blood pools in the space between the choroid (the middle layer of the eye containing blood vessels) and the slcera (the white outer wall of the eye). 
Causes and Risk Factors
  • Eye Surgery: It most often happens during or after eye operations like glaucoma or cataract surgery.

During the operation, which was quick, the doctor noticed that the pressure inside my eye increased.  That was serious, for if it stayed high and was untreated, it could permanently damage my vision. Immediately after I was discharged from the hospital, I was sent to the surgeon’s office where he joined me and did a gazillion things, including giving me multiple doses of eyedrops and pills, as well as POKING INTO MY EYEBALL WITH TWEEZERS to let the fluid out. It hurt!  It was so gross that my friend who accompanied me, the diehard neurobiologist Peggy Mason, had to leave the room.

Finally, the doctor noticed that I may have had blood inside my eye, so he sent me downstairs to a crack retinal specialist who verified that I had a localized suprachoroidal hemorrhage on the side of my eye. The bleeding had stopped and it was not in a critical area.  And I had none of the three signs that it might be serious: increasing pain, increasing eye pressure, and intrusion of the clotted blood into other layers of the eye. He was confident that the clotted blood would disappear (its presence as a liquid was apparently responsible for my increased eye pressure during the operation), and all would eventually be well. I see him again next Thursday, and am taking an armamentarium of pills and eyedrops to keep my eye pressure low (it was below normal this morning).

The upshot is that although my vision will eventually be that intended by this surgery, recovery will be slow. And the operation on my second eye is postponed until the first one heals fully.

I have to say that my surgeon/ophthamologist, one of the most highly regarded in Chicago, had never seen this happen before in his cataract surgeries, and he’s done a gazillion of them. It reminds me of my hernia surgery in days of yore: despite reparative surgery, my hernia recurred, something that the experienced surgeon had also never seen before (he didn’t put the mesh far enough to the side, so the bloody hernia snuck around it).  Yes, I’m a one-off, but not in a good way!

Blogging will resume when I feel better mentally and physically. I have a lot to say, and not about my eyes.

By the way, I was also unusual in that despite being doped up with two types of anesthesia, I remember everything that happened during surgery—something, I’m told, that is almost unique. I could feel them cutting into my eye, pulverizing my lens and sucking it out, and putting in the artificial lens. And yes, there was considerable pain at times.