Days after we revealed that 50% of the Palestinian deaths in 2022 were claimed by terror groups, the NYT asserts that there is a "rush by armed groups to claim those killed as martyrs," and that most were, in fact, civilians.
There's just one problem with that: it's not true.
Our research team discovered that at least 60% were shot as they attacked civilians or security forces with guns, explosives, Molotov cocktails, knives, rocks, and cars. An additional 29% died during violent riots.
The @nytimes simply omits this fact from its article.
It is also important to note that some two-thirds of all casualties occurred in #Jenin and #Nablus, two militant hotbeds competing for the title of Palestinian "terror capital."
On December 21st, we noted how the 𝘗𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 assault on Israelis is made out to look like an 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭𝘪 campaign of aggression.
It seems like The New York Times will continue to spread this libel in 2023.
.@Independent "takes a closer look at the history of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) and why it is controversial."
So let's take a closer look at how The Independent evidently finds the concept of Jews defending themselves against terrorists to be "controversial." 🧵
@Independent No mention of how the newly formed IDF fought to defend the nascent Jewish state against 5 Arab armies intent on wiping it out.
Just a hyperbolic claim that "hundreds of thousands of people were driven...into refugee camps."
@Independent The IDF "claims" to be facing terrorist organizations?
Just who does @Independent believe threatens Israelis? Or did October 7 simply not happen?
Israel struck Iran preemptively.
Was it legal under international law? Here's what the rules actually say 👇
International law doesn’t ban preemptive strikes, but it does make them hard to justify.
They must be a response to a real, immediate threat, not a guess or grudge.
The standard? A 19th-century case called the Caroline Affair.
It's still the gold standard for when preemptive force is legal.
Modern military lawyers use it like a checklist, and it’s hard to pass.
How the media manufactured a “genocide.”
Zach Goldberg breaks down how the world’s most serious crime became a political weapon—and how media outlets helped it happen. 🧵
Mentions of “genocide” in relation to Israel have exploded—far beyond how the media treated actual, recognized genocides in history.
In The New York Times, coverage linking Israel and genocide was:
➤ 9x higher than for Rwanda
➤ 6x higher than for Darfur
Let that sink in.
“Why hasn’t there been a Palestinian state?”
Let’s talk about the peace deals that could’ve made it happen—and why they were rejected.👇
1️⃣ 1947 – The UN Partition Plan
Palestinians were offered statehood with the most fertile land.
Arab leaders said no. Then 6 Arab states attacked Israel.
Israel survived.
2️⃣ 1967 – Khartoum Summit & UN Resolution 242
After the Six-Day War, the UN proposed land-for-peace.
The Arab League responded:
“No peace. No recognition. No negotiations.”
End of conversation.
📰 No casualties. No bullet wounds. No injuries. No massacres.
But that's not how the media reported it...🧵
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation's drone footage showed zero casualties, the IDF confirmed it, but media outlets still ran Hamas quotes as fact.
Why the influx of disinformation? Because Hamas is desperate to sabotage an aid system that bypasses its control, so it invented atrocities, and the media helped legitimize them.