Category: war

“This is a circus”: The unmitigated bullying from Piers Morgan

June 6, 2025 • 10:30 am

Some time ago I was on the Piers Morgan “Uncensored” show for half an hour, talking about why biological sex is binary (see my post about this here). I now realize how fortunate I was, because I knew in advance that Morgan agreed with me and I didn’t face what Natasha Hausdorff faces below (and many other guests have also faced): unmitigated, rude, and arrogant bullying, as well as constant interruptions. (My solo appearance was followed by a panel of three discussants, and at least one of those people faced Morgan’s opprobrium.)

In the show below (the bullying starts at the beginning and ends at about an hour in, followed by an interview with Ahmed Alnaouq, who, it’s claimed (see below) is from a family of Hamas terrorists. But let’s concentrate on the main guest/target Natasha Hausdorff, someone I deeply admire. She’s a British barrister specializing in international law and also the legal head of the UK lawyers For Israel.  She keeps her cool even under the hottest fire, and you can’t get much hotter than this kind of rude interrogation by Morgan.  There is no debate, no speech, that Hausdorff will refuse to participate in, even if she knows she’ll be subject to booing and hatred, for she feels that she must get the message out about the world’s misconceptions about Israel (e.g., the “apartheid state” and “genocide” canards).  I’ve rarely seen someone so brave on the platform.

Here she tries to give her opinions to both Piers Morgan and libertarian/comedian Dave Smith, but hardly gets a chance to speak. I don’t recommend that you watch the entire first hour, but do dip into it. I recommend, for example, watching the segments beginning at 17:45, 24:35, 27:30, 38:00, and 41:30 (Hausdorff gets two short, uninterrupted spaces to respond, eloquently, at 46:48 and 53:45).  Note that she never interrupts either Smith or Morgan, but listens politely. She is not afforded the same consideration.

Note as well that neither Smith nor Morgan levels any criticisms at Hamas, save for one brief offhand remark by Morgan. Especially notable is the complete dearth of admission by the two men that civilian deaths certainly from Hamas using Gazans as human shields, nor do they offer any approbation for IDF’s care not to kill civilians.

Now if you are anti-Israel you will be taking Pierce’s self-admitted “objective” evaluation of the situation, but I will mention two issues, one of which is dealt with below.

First, Hausdorff is asked several times to admit that Israel has nuclear weapons. Many of us believe they do, but in fact Israel has never admitted it has nuclear weapons (a good strategy if you don’t!), and for a lawyer to say otherwise is simply not on.

Second, Morgan repeatedly brings up the issue of why Israel doesn’t allow foreign reporters into Gaza. In fact it has: Douglas Murray has been several times. Of course, as Morgan says, he was “embedded with the IDF” but if I’m not wrong other journalists from organizations like Reuters have been allowed into Gaza, or at least into Lebanon. But see the article by Sheri Oz below.

And if you’re anti-Israel, you may find support in the words of Morgan and Smith. From me: Kudos to Hausdorff for withstanding Morgan’s verbal cannonade.

 

Here’s a post from Global Disconnect that dissects the segment above, include Morgan’s bullying, his ignorance of the data relevant to the Hamas/Gaza war, and, at the end, the background of guest Ahmed Alnaouq. Click the headline to read.

A few excerpts:

Piers Morgan couldn’t help himself. In his latest so-called debate between comedian Dave Smith and international lawyer Natasha Hausdorff. The so-called “debate: was a staggering display of contempt for both basic debate etiquette and respect for the woman and legal expert he invited to his show. At one point, Piers even sneered that “numbers aren’t her strong point,” a cheap, sexist jab suggesting she’s somehow stupid. In reality, the one who showed no grasp of numbers, facts, logic or any journalistic integrity was him.

. . . Since numbers “aren’t Piers’ thing”, I’m going to help him out: he interrupted Natasha Hausdorff 103 times. Her longest uninterrupted statement lasted 38 seconds, and she generally wasn’t allowed to string five words together before being cut off. Dave Smith spoke uninterrupted nearly every time he had the floor. Piers only interjected 3 times: the first so Piers could clarify his own viewpoint, the second was to agree with Dave, and the third was to pivot back to attacking Natasha. Dave’s longest uninterrupted monologue rolled on for over three minutes. How do you like those numbers, Piers?

. . . Piers Morgan has relentlessly pushed the same false narrative that Israel is starving Gazans or attacking civilians on their way to get food. Let’s start with the most basic and shameless lie—a display not only of journalistic failure, but of a complete lack of integrity as a human being. Israel is not targeting civilians around food distribution points, and that’s not an opinion—it’s documented fact. Hamas itself has admitted to executing people in Gaza. There’s drone and CCTV footage as evidence, even the BBC and The Washington Post—initially eager to repeat Hamas propaganda—retracted their reporting. And yet, Piers Morgan still claims “there is no evidence” that Israel wasn’t responsible. That’s not ignorance—it’s deliberate deception.

. . . To answer the question Piers Morgan so desperately—and theatrically—asks in order to revive the oldest blood libel: that “Jews like to kill children”—only now aimed at the Jew among the nations, Israel. Piers Morgan theatrically performs his “outrage” over Israel not counting the number of children it supposedly “kills,” implying either a deliberate targeting or a cold disregard for their lives—yet not even his own army in any war has ever tracked civilian casualties, let alone child casualties separately, but somehow he demands of Israel what he’s never asked of any other military in any conflict, including wars his own country and brother fought.

. . . As of two days ago, Hamas claims 54,400 total deaths in Gaza, while the IDF estimates around 30,000 were Hamas and militant fighters. That leaves roughly 24,400 civilian deaths if both figures are accepted—giving Piers Morgan the simple math he challenged Natasha on: a combatant-to-civilian ratio of about 1.2:1. That’s already unusually precise warfare, but it gets sharper. Hamas itself admits natural deaths are included in its total, and over the 20-month period, about 8,500 people died of age, illness, or accidents. Excluding those, the adjusted ratio is 1.9:1—meaning 1.9 combatants killed for every 1 civilian. For context, UN and Red Cross data say the global wartime average is 9 civilians for every 1 combatant. So what exactly is Piers screaming about? Is Piers Morgan really that bad at basic math, or is his hatred for Israel so deep it overrides any pretense of journalism or objectivity from the start?

There are more data dealing with the libel that Israel is targeting children in Gaza (at one point he asks Hausdorff how many people she has killed!), but you can read the article for yourself. Just one more quote:

Piers Morgan’s “get out jail” free card is ignorance about the facts on the ground, he loves repeating the falsehood that Israel has banned international media—yet I’m not on the ground, I am not even a journalist and I’m still able to provide basic facts. Piers, Google is your friends—try using it. The truth is, Israel follows the same wartime media protocols as every modern military. No warzone offers unrestricted press access; journalists operate under controlled, coordinated entry by the military in charge, whether it’s in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else. If Piers truly wants to report from Gaza, he can apply and follow protocol, just like any other journalist in any other war.

Now, to take up the last issue, here’s a post from the Israel Diaries Substack (click to read):

So the accusation arises over and over – such as in comments to some of my articles on Substack: Why won’t Israel allow foreign reporters into Gaza?

It’s a fair question. It sounds fair.

Let us see what you think, dear readers. Below, I present two alternative theories that may explain why Israel is not letting foreign reporters into Gaza. Each theory has a number of explanatory items. Mark the item you think most likely stands behind the reason why Israel does not let foreign reporters into Gaza.

Before you answer, consider the following:

Where would the journalists even stay?

War correspondents typically lodge in hotels. Are any still operating in Gaza? If yes, fine — reporting might be feasible. If not, the only option would be to embed with one of three entities:

  1. The IDF
  2. Hamas
  3. A still-active NGO, such as UNRWA — which, given what we now know, is effectively a Hamas affiliate.

Now, weigh the following two theories. Each has a list of possible explanations. Below each list is a multiple choice questionnaire on which you can vote for the explanation that seems most plausible to you.

Theory 1 is “The Journalist as Liability,” and theory two is “It’s a cover-up (or something more sinister),” implying that Israel has something to hide.  The article gives arguments on both sides, and readers (not many at this point) have voted, I’ll let you read the short piece for yourself.

Finally, and I haven’t seen this ever before, Hausdorff herself has taken to the news—the pages of the Spectato—to give a post facto analysis of her appearance with Morgan. Click below to read:

A couple of excerpts from the archived version. She begins with her exchange with Morgan about whether a family of children parented by two doctors was really killed in an Israeli strike. The exchange simply shows that, given Hamas’s history of false reports, Hausdorff is reserving judgement (as am I) until the matter is properly investigated.

Being interrupted and harangued, or even having my volume turned down or line cut, is not a new experience for me in “interviews”. It has always been a clear indication that the individuals involved in this unprofessional conduct were out of their depth and at a loss as to how to engage with the evidence I had presented. Nor, indeed, am I the only one experiencing such treatment. Any individual who does not subscribe to the virulently anti-Israel agenda, and who is asked to comment on broadcast media, will have experienced similar playground antics. It is demonstrative of a catastrophic failure by the media to do its job and an abject absence of journalistic integrity.

The pathetic display this week by Piers Morgan demonstrates that he is a significant part of the problem of disinformation about this conflict. Morgan should be well aware that there have been repeated stories emerging from Gaza which have subsequently been debunked only after they spread around the world. The predictable result has been the poisoning of many minds against Israel, on the basis of fabrications and blood libels. My simple entreaty was that the matter should not be prejudged, especially where fake AI generated images had been deployed to support it. Cue frenzied outrage and bile from Morgan.

Defence of fake images in pursuit of a “good story” is, of course, old ground for Morgan. He was dismissed from his role as editor of the Daily Mirror in 2004, following the publication of photographs that purportedly showed British soldiers abusing Iraqi detainees in Abu Ghraib. The images were later determined to be staged and not taken in Iraq. Morgan stood by their publication and refused to issue an apology on the basis there was no firm evidence that they were fake, though the newspaper did, acknowledging that it had been the victim of a “calculated and malicious hoax” and expressing deep regret for the reputational damage caused to the British Army. Morgan’s defence of his decision to publish those fake pictures stemmed from his opposition to the Iraq war in a disgraceful example of “the ends justify the means”.

Did he learn anything from that shameful incident? The way I was treated on Uncensored suggests not. At least when Morgan was in the employ of a national newspaper, he could be held accountable. But this no longer appears to be the case. He is now free to shout down his guests without consequence.

The problem doesn’t stop with Morgan. The unfair way in which Israel is presented in the Western media, and the refusal to treat Hamas’s claims with scepticism, misleads the public. It increases the threat of violence to Jews around the world, but also, crucially, props up and encourages Hamas, thereby prolonging the war and the suffering of Israelis and Palestinians alike.

After all this—the shouting and rudeness and inability to discuss evidence—I ask myself, “If I had it to do over again, would I still have gone on Piers Morgan’s show to discuss the binary nature of sex? And ;my answer is, “Yes, certainly.” For one thing, I knew that he agreed with me, and so expected little haranguing and rudeness. (I’m not sure that, were I Hausdorff, I would have the guts.)  Mainly, though, it was important for me to speak the biological truth as I knew it, and to relate how that prompted the FFRF’s act of censorship.

h/t: Malgorzata

Natasha Hausdorff stands up to a hostile M. P. panel of British inquisitors

April 25, 2025 • 11:20 am

This is one of the most amazing performances of someone under fire I’ve ever seen, and even though the video was long for me (45 minutes), I watched the whole thing, mesmerized as well as stunned by how well the “victim” answered questions coolly and eloquently.

In one corner: Natasha Hausdorff, British barrister (lawyer) with an expertise in international law. She’s also Jewish and the legal director of UK Lawyers for Israel. Her credentials are impeccable:

A graduate of Oxford University and Tel Aviv University, Hausdorff practised with the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, and clerked for the chief justice of the Israeli Supreme Court. She was a former fellow at Columbia Law School in the National Security Law Program. She is also the legal director of the NGO UKLFI Charitable Trust.

In all the other corners (it’s a hendecagon, with 11 corners) are the hostile opponents: the members of the UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, chaired by Dame Emily Thornberry.  This interview grilling was part of the Committee “conducting an inquiry into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, asking ‘how the UK and its allies can help to achieve a ceasefire and lasting end to the war in Gaza and Lebanon’.”

Remember that the UK government, though nominally supporting Israel, refused to sell arms to the Jewish state. But here, its members are basically asking Hausdorff to defend every action of Israel. And she basically does.  The hostility of the committee towards Israel seems ubiquitous (Hausdorff was one of several experts, including Palestinians, but I was unable to find any YouTube videos of Palestinians testifying at this hearing.)  What is amazing about Hausdorff is that she not only doesn’t lose her cool despite the clearly anti-Israel inquisitors, but always has the facts at her fingertips. And when she doesn’t know something, she says so.

I highly recommend that you watch this video, if for no other reason that to see a stupendous performance. But you will also hear how someone who’s pro-Israel deals with canards and misconceptions about the war. Or listen to just fifteen minutes.

After watching this, Malgorzata (who called it to my attention) said, “Natasha Hausdorff is a force of nature and a world class treasure.” I agree; Hausdorff is one of my rare heroes.

“A Day of American Infamy”

March 1, 2025 • 1:18 pm

by Greg Mayer

As someone interested in history, I am both interested and wary when analogies are drawn among different periods and events in history, especially applying the past to the present day. And, as another prelude, I should note that I have said here before at WEIT that Bret Stephens is wrong about most things. But when he’s right, he’s right, and he’s right about yesterday’s cringe-inducing display of depravity by the erstwhile leaders of the free world, the President and Vice President of the United States. [JAC: You can find Stephens’s piece archived here.] I found Stephens’ historical analogy to the pre-Pearl Harbor meeting between Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, which led to the Atlantic Charter, whose principles include that there should be “no aggrandizement, territorial or other” and that “sovereign rights and self-government [shall be] restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them”, very clarifying. Money quote:

If Roosevelt had told Churchill to sue for peace on any terms with Adolf Hitler and to fork over Britain’s coal reserves to the United States in exchange for no American security guarantees, it might have approximated what Trump did to Zelensky.

Four dead hostages, including the Bibas family, handed over to Israel by Hamas

February 20, 2025 • 6:30 am

The inevitable happened this morning: Hamas turned over four dead bodies of Israeli hostages, encased in black boxes. And, contrary to my expectations, there was a ceremony, with posters blaming the deaths on Netanyahu and the Red Cross there signing documents.  The bodies included the Bibas family (Shiri Bibas and her two children. four-year-old Ariel and 9-month old Kfir) and Oded Lifshitz, identified by Matti Friedman in the Free Press as “a grandfather, journalist and peace activist who was 83 when he was kidnapped from the same kibbutz, Nir Oz.”

To get those bodies back, Israel had to release 100 Palestinian prisoners, including a Gazan woman who had held hostages in her flat.

Here is a video of the turnover of the bodies, taken as a live feed. It’s quite long but you can scroll through it. Start at the beginning:

A couple of photos from Sheri Oz’s article in Israel Diaries.  First, a poster hanging over the coffins, reading “The War Criminal Netanyahu & His Nazi Army Killed Them with Missiles from Zionist Warplanes.”  Of course they blame the deaths on the IDF. There’s a picture of a ghoulish Netanyahu with blood-dripping fangs looming over the dead hostages.  We did not know the identity of the dead hostages until about two days ago.

The Red Cross signing documents.  What kind of documents do they need? The Red Cross has behaved shamefully during all this time, even refusing to bring needed medications to the hostages:

Hamas carrying a coffin:

Lots of spectators came to see the show, with some bringing their children:

From Matti Friedman’s article, “The family that never came home.”  He is angry and sees this as a symbol of Israel’s failure to achieve the goals of this war:

No captives have focused public sentiment like the Bibas children, the youngest Israeli hostages. Footage from October 7 showed a terrified Shiri Bibas cradling a baby and a toddler as they were taken at gunpoint from their home. The two redheads quickly became symbols of the 250 Israelis taken hostage—icons not just of the inhumanity of the Palestinians who kidnapped and murdered civilians and celebrated this barbarism as a victory, but of the unthinkable weakness of the Israeli state that allowed this to happen.

After their capture, the Israeli military said Shiri and the children were in the hands of a small and previously unknown Gazan faction. Video footage showed the children’s father, Yarden, covered in blood on the back of a motorcycle, surrounded by dozens of men as he was taken away separately. He survived 15 months in captivity and was recently returned as part of the current ceasefire deal.

Later, another video surfaced showing Shiri and the children being herded into Gaza by a half-dozen men. This was the last glimpse of them.

Perhaps the oddest aspect of the grief in Israel on Thursday is that the fate of Shiri, Ariel, and Kfir has largely been understood since late 2023. Hamas announced early in the war that the three were dead, killed by an Israeli airstrike. Given the intensity of fire in the early stage of the war and the fact that the military didn’t know where Palestinian fighters were hiding hostages, it seemed possible. And the deaths seemed even more probable when, in November 2023, Hamas returned Israeli mothers and children in exchange for Palestinian prisoners, and the Bibas family wasn’t among them.

. . .But Hamas has produced false information about other hostages as a form of psychological warfare, including a report that Daniella Gilboa was killed in an Israeli airstrike. (She was just released alive.) And while Israeli intelligence was able to ascertain the death of other hostages in captivity, there was no confirmation about the fate of Shiri, Ariel and Kfir.

And so Israelis retained hope that the Bibas family would somehow come back alive. The reluctance to accept the worst was less about logic than about their deaths simply being too unbearable to believe—and so simply wouldn’t be believed until we had no other choice. That moment arrived on Thursday morning.

After the war began on October 7, 2023, the Israeli government stated that its goals were the elimination of the Hamas threat and the return of all the hostages. Today, as armed terrorists held a macabre ceremony with the coffins of four Israelis who were kidnapped alive, it was impossible to argue that either goal had been achieved.

I have nothing to add.  The “ceremony” instantiates the evil that is Hamas.

The NYT still slants its news against Israel

January 26, 2025 • 9:30 am

While perusing the Bad Gray Lady this morning, I saw two headlines that, in light of what I knew about events in Gaza and Lebanon, looked dubious. Sure enough, the headlines and the news below them gave a distorted view of the situation. Here’s the first one (click to read, or find article archived here):

Note first the order of events: Israel blacks Gazans from north while accusing Hamas of a cease-fire breach.  The order of events should have been reversed, with the headline saying “Israel accuses Hamas of Cease-Fire Breach, blocks Gazans from North.” That may seem a trivial difference , but I’ve seen too many headlines with Israel identified first as the perp, with the stated reasons for their actions given second.

But the lack of explanation for what’s happening is much more important. The real situation is that Israel and Hamas agreed to a cease-fire in which all civilian hostages were to be released first, and, yesterday at noon Israeli time, Hamas was also to provide Israel with a complete list of the hostages they had or knew about, specifying whether they were living or dead.  Hamas did neither; they are still not releasing one civilian woman (she was held by Palestinian Islamic Jihad, but Hamas is a partner organization and could easily have arranged for the woman’s release). The four women released yesterday were in the IDF. The NYT notes this further down:

The office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said that it would not allow Gazans to head north “until the release of the civilian Arbel Yehud has been arranged,” leaving the timing of the troop withdrawal and the residents’ return unclear.

And here’s another violation described by the Jerusalem Post:

Hamas has not yet provided Israel with the list revealing the status of the hostages held in Gaza captivity, which it was obligated to provide by Saturday under the ceasefire agreement.

According to a Walla report citing Israeli officials, the list was expected to include details on how many of the hostages remaining in Hamas captivity are still alive and how many are deceased.

An Israeli official reportedly said that failure to provide the list by the end of the day would be another violation of the agreement by Hamas.

Hamas could not explain either of these violations of the agreement. It’s clear that they are toying with Israel and playing psychological games that of course are deeply injurious to the hostages’ friends and families. This is why Israel did not withdraw from northern Gaza or allow residents to return home. (Note that Israel still has not fired on bullet.) The “blocking” is Israel’s nonviolent response to the actions of Hamas, the party that first violated the cease-fire.

I don’t think this bodes well for a continuing peace in the region, which, at any rate, I don’t think will be permanent so long as Hamas runs Gaza.

Here is the second headline about doings further north. Click to read, or find it archived here:

And an excerpt (bolding is mine)

At least 15 people were killed and more than 80 injured by Israeli forces on Sunday in southern Lebanon, Lebanese officials said, as the 60-day deadline for both Hezbollah and Israel to withdraw from the south expired and thousands of Lebanese displaced by the war poured onto roads leading south back to their homes.

The agreement, which was signed in November and halted the deadliest war in decades between the two sides, stipulated that both Hezbollah and Israel withdraw, while the Lebanese Army and U.N. peacekeepers would be deployed in force to secure the area. Negotiators had hoped the cease-fire deal would become permanent, returning a measure of calm to a turbulent region.

But as the deadline passed on Sunday, a very different scenario was taking shape.

Israeli forces remained in parts of southern Lebanon in violation of the cease-fire agreement, stoking fears of a sustained Israeli occupation and renewed hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah. Israeli officials warned Lebanese not to return to their homes in many towns and villages in the south.

“In the near future, we will continue to inform you about the places to which you can return,” Avichai Adraee, the Arabic spokesman of the Israeli military, posted on social media on Sunday morning. “Until further notice, all previously published instructions remain in effect.”

Lebanon’s Health Ministry said that those killed and injured on Sunday morning had been trying to enter their villages along the border when they were attacked by Israeli forces. Residents of some southern towns had called for their neighbors to gather early Sunday morning and head to their homes in a convoy, despite the warnings from Israel. The Lebanese military said it was accompanying civilians returning to several border towns to try to ensure their safety. The military said in a statement that a Lebanese soldier was among those killed by Israeli fire.

What is not explained: What Israel and Lebanon agreed to was that Israel would occupy the region between their northern border with Lebanon and the Litani River, and then would withdraw back into Israel after the Lebanese Army (note: there is one, and it’s not Hezbollah), in concert with the UN army forces of UNIFIL, would destroy all of Hezbollah’s weapons and facilities between the border with Israel and the Litani River. Until then, villages in that area would be evacuated (Israeli villages south of the border with Lebanon have also been evacuated, displacing 80,000 people).

Of course UNIFIL and the Lebanese Army have done little or nothing, and Hezbollah, despite the agreement, will not withdraw north of the Litani River; armed Hezbollah fighters remain in the forbidden region while UNIFIL and the Lebanese Army does bupkes.  The Israelis fired on a group of people marching back to their homes in violation of the agreement, accompanied by armed people; this was perceived as a threat [see below].

At any rate the bolded text above implies that Israel was violating the cease-fire agreement while Lebanon adhered to it. That is a falsehood. Lebanon first violated the cease-fire agreement big-time, and in response Israel did not withdraw.

From the Times of Israel:

The Lebanese health ministry said 15 people had been killed, including a Lebanese soldier, and some 83 had been wounded by IDF fire in southern Lebanon since the morning.

The crowds appeared to be largely made up of Hezbollah supporters. Hezbollah’s al-Manar television, broadcasting from several locations in the south, showed footage of residents moving toward villages in defiance of Israeli orders, some holding the terror group’s flag and images of Hezbollah fighters killed in the war, as well as slain Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah.

An Israeli military official told reporters that hundreds of Lebanese, among them Hezbollah operatives, tried to reach villages in southern Lebanon while carrying out “provocations.”

The official said the military had prepared for civilians attempting to reach the border villages at the end of the 60-day truce, despite its warnings.

The IDF said it opened fire on suspects who approached troops still deployed in southern Lebanon and who posed an “imminent threat.” Troops also detained several suspects, according to the military.

Here, from Wikimedia, is a map showing the Litani River and the area south of it before one gets to the Israeli border (dark grey line). That is the region that was subject to the truce agreement.

******

In both cases above, Gaza and then Lebanon violated a cease-fire agreement with Israel, and Israel did not violate that agreement–until the terrorists (and the UN and Lebanon) violated the agreement.  Yet somehow the NYT makes Israel look responsible here rather than terrorists violating a cease-fire agreement. Such is mainstream journalism. In Gaza, for instance, if Hamas would just let the Israelis go as agreed, the cease-fire would be obeyed by Israel, which already has released the hundreds of Palestinian terrorists from Israeli jails per the agreement.

Israeli hostages reportedly held at United Nations “humanitarian” camp as well as hospital in northern Gaza

January 24, 2025 • 11:00 am

Do we really need the UN any more?  For a long time I’ve felt that some parts of it, including UNRWA and the International Court of Justice, both with their obsession against Israel, should be deep-sixed (UNRWA is the only UN refugee agency tasked with “refugees” in one area, and several countries, including the US, have defunded it). Seriously, how much good does the UN really do?

If you need more evidence that parts of the UN are actually complicit in terrorism, have a look at the allegations of the three young Israeli women just released by Hamas.  Yep, they said they were held in a UNRWA-run “humanitarian camp”.  The article below also discusses claims that other hostages were held in Gazan hospitals, hospitals that were raided by the IDF to the loud objections of the rest of the world.  If you think the UNRWA people who ran the camp were totally unaware of the fact that it contained Israeli hostages, well, . . . . . that’s not the way it works in Gaza.

Click below. I’ll give an excerpt from each source (indented). The first is from the think tank FDD, which describes itself as nonpartisan but Wikipedia calls “neoconservative” and was founded as pro-Israeli. But it’s no matter: the three allegations below have appeared on several sites as well.

  • Israeli Hostages Held in UN camp: The three female Israeli hostages released last weekend following the ceasefire in Gaza revealed on January 21 that they were incarcerated in a refugee camp operated by UNRWA — the United Nations agency catering exclusively to the descendants of Palestinian refugees — for part of their time in Hamas captivity, according to Israel’s Channel 13 network. Details as to which of the eight camps run by UNRWA in Gaza were used have not been made available. Following the October 7, 2023, atrocities committed by Hamas in Israel, in which several UNRWA employees participated, Israel accused the agency of actively colluding with the Iran-backed terrorist organization, passing legislation last October barring it from operating in the Jewish state.

  • Trump Halts UNRWA Funding: Newly inaugurated President Donald Trump halted U.S. funding for UNRWA via an executive order on his first day in office on January 20. Elise Stefanik, Trump’s nominee for U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, strongly criticized UNRWA and labeled the United Nations a “den of antisemitism” during her Senate confirmation hearing on January 21.

  • Hamas Kept Hostages in Hospitals: According to an exclusive report from Fox News Digital, Hamas terrorists captured by Israel confessed that Israeli hostages had been imprisoned in the Kamal Adwan Hospital in northern Gaza at different times during their ordeal. Anas Muhammad Faiz al-Sharif, one of the terrorists in Israeli custody, was quoted as describing the hospital — which was raided by IDF troops on December 28, resulting in the arrest of more than 200 terrorists — as “a safe haven for them because the [Israeli] military cannot directly target it.”

From the Jewish News Service (again, click to read). Note that the UN knows of these allegations and are taking them seriously (see video below).

An excerpt:

Reports that freed Israeli hostages had been held in U.N. shelters in the Gaza Strip amount to “a very serious allegation,” Farhan Haq, deputy spokesman for U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, told JNS on Wednesday.

“We call on those who have information on this to share it formally with UNRWA or other parts of the United Nations so that we can investigate it further,” Haq told JNS at the global body’s press conference in New York.

Romi Gonen, Emily Damari and Doron Steinbrecher, who were released on Sunday, said Hamas had held them in U.N. camps that the global body created during the war to protect Gazan civilians and to provide them with food and water.

It wasn’t clear from public records and reporting in which camps they were held, when and for how long. Israeli intelligence, taken from captured Hamas terrorists, assessed that several Israeli hostages were held at the Kamal Adwan Hospital in northern Gaza, Fox News reported.

These are different hostages from the ones released the other day (four more will be released tomorrow), but of course when the IDF raided that hospital because of reports that Hamas was there, they were excoriated for raiding a hospital. The director of the hospital, now in an Israel jail, was a colonel in Hamas, tons of weapons were found, and several captured Palestinian terrorists admitted that the hospital held hostages at one time.

This, of course, needs to be investigated, as the UN official (Farhan Haq, Deputy Spokesperson for the Secretary-General), says in the video below, but I wouldn’t lightly dismiss the allegations of all three recently-released women hostages that they were held in a UN camp. This video starts at the time when Haq is questioned about the hostages (22:45), and you need listen for only a couple of minutes.

And here’s a report (perhaps a bit superfluous) from Israeli “citizen spokeswoman” Ruth Wasserman Lande, discussing the hostages’ claim of being in an UNRWA,  The sensible thing is to simply dissolve UNRWA, which is, as Lande says, “a Hamas front”, and fold its mission into the existing single UN organization that deals with refugees.

Natasha Hausdorff and the hope for peace

January 22, 2025 • 12:45 pm

Natasha Hausdorff, barrister and legal director of UK Lawyers for Israel, discussed the prospects for peace between Israel and Palestine—I don’t say Hamas, because I don’t think either Natasha or I think there will ever be peace between Israel and Hamas—with Julia Hartley-Brewer on Talk TV yesterday.  In this seven-minute conversation, Hausdorff believes that the chances for peace, while not solid, have been increased with the new administration.  Trump may do (and is doing) a passel of crazy things, but most friends of Israel think he offers a more salubrious future for the Jewish state than did the Biden administration.  The Forward agrees, though it notes that Rubio’s support for Israel has by no means been sycophantic or 100%.  But it’s surely better than Anthony “There’s a Red Line Around Rafah” Blinken.