1/ Let’s talk about Zohran Mamdani – Democratic Socialist, BDS supporter, and NYC mayoral hopeful – and how @nytimes is running PR for him while gaslighting Jews with headlines like this. 👇
Small fact NYT skips?
60% of Jews say they’d feel less safe under Mamdani.
2/ The lies start early. NYT says BDS wants to “economically isolate” Israel.
What BDS leaders actually say: they want to end Israel as a Jewish state.
That’s not economic pressure. That’s eliminationism.
Also, are we meant to applaud Mamdani’s ignorance on apartheid?
3/ To back its case, NYT quotes… “Jews for Racial and Economic Justice” (JFREJ).
Cool name.
But after Hamas’s Oct 7 massacre, JFREJ rushed to condemn Israel – not Hamas – for “unimaginable” violence.
That’s their go-to Jewish voice.
4/ NYT went to a JFREJ event with “two dozen Jewish families.” They quoted:
🔹 A JFREJ activist
🔹A Mamdani campaigner
Both gush about how Mamdani isn’t antisemitic – just misunderstood.
Totally neutral reporting, right?
5/ No NYT puff piece for an anti-Israel candidate is complete without a quote from Jewish Voice for Peace – a fringe group that wants Israel dismantled and is barely even Jewish.
All to sell the line that Mamdani speaks for “the Jewish community.”
6/ Let’s be honest: @nytimes wants to endorse Mamdani.
But most Jews see through him.
So they’re working overtime to sanitize his record — just enough to keep the readers who haven’t unsubscribed yet.
Not journalism. Just damage control. honestreporting.com/live-from-new-…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/10 🧵
Did you know the recent Israel-NGO framework story is being covered very differently depending on the outlet?
Most headlines focus on "restrictions" and "limits on criticism."
But what's the actual policy trying to achieve – and why do some groups comply while others don't? Let's break down the facts calmly.
2/10
In late 2025, Israel rolled out a new registration/vetting system for humanitarian orgs in Gaza & West Bank.
Goal (per official statements): Prevent wartime infiltration by militants into aid groups.
Most organizations signed on quickly. A smaller number raised concerns.
Question: What would you consider reasonable safeguards in active conflict zones?
3/10
Israel reports ~85%+ compliance rate – meaning the vast majority of NGOs met the criteria without issue.
The rules target specific red flags like:
- Documented support for armed groups
- Denial of documented atrocities (e.g., Oct 7)
- Active promotion of boycotts/lawfare against Israel
- Coordination with designated enemy orgs
Not blanket "no criticism" – but focused security checks.
1/ It’s awards season… and while Hollywood hands out trophies for acting, we’re honoring the people who pretended to do journalism. Presenting: Dishonest Reporter of the Year 2025.
Let's find out the winners 👇
2/ 🏆 Winner: The BBC
No outlet worked harder this year to prove that “publicly funded” doesn’t mean “publicly accountable.” Truly a masterclass in bias, blunders & backpedaling. honestreporting.com/exposed-leaked…
3/ Remember that Gaza documentary narrated by… a Hamas minister’s teenage son? The one whose mom got paid? Yeah — that really happened. BBC: Bold. Brave. Or just… 🤦♂️
1/ Since Oct. 7, 2023, major media outlets have repeatedly reported casualty figures from the Hamas-run Ministry of Health (MoH) in Gaza as if they were independently verified facts -- with little to no skepticism.
Let's break down the distorted narratives. 🧵
2/ Headlines citing MoH death tolls were widely amplified without attribution to Hamas, allowing a terrorist org’s figures to become the dominant narrative in global reporting.
3/ This has resulted in repeated blood libels in media coverage -- blaming Israel for high civilian death tolls without critically examining the reliability of the source data.
1/ 🌍Are Israeli women living in a dystopian reality where, year by year, they are being stripped of their most basic rights?
No, because the data and imagery used by @CNN to support that narrative distort reality and mislead audiences. 🧵
2/ 📸 The cover image features a “Handmaid’s Tale”-style protest from nearly three years ago against legal reforms -- not a current reflection of women’s rights in Israel. Context matters.
3/ 📊 CNN relies on the Women Peace & Security Index (WPS Index) without questioning its methodology. The index blends unrelated indicators (e.g., cellphone use, conflict exposure), not a pure gender-rights measure.