1/8 These headlines tell you everything the media doesn’t want you to notice.
AP and the BBC aren't just reporting what happened; they’re quietly framing how you’re supposed to understand it.
Look closely. ⬇️
2/8 AP says Israel claims, “often with little evidence,” that UNRWA staff are tied to Hamas.
That line does a lot of work by quietly telling readers not to believe what comes next.
Except the evidence exists. And it always has.
3/8 The BBC doesn't just report here, but adjudicate sovereignty.
By declaring “occupied East Jerusalem” as fact in the headline, the BBC isn’t describing a dispute.
It’s unilaterally drawing the borders of another country’s capital.
4/8 UNRWA is not a normal refugee agency. It is the only UN body that exists solely for Palestinians, while every other refugee population on earth is handled by a single agency.
And it is the only one that:
🚩Passes refugee status down generations
🚩Defines “refugee” as permanent
🚩Has no mandate to resolve displacement
That isn't humanitarianism. It’s institutionalised dependency.
5/8 Media reports say Israel merely “claims” UNRWA is infiltrated.
But this isn’t abstract.
It isn’t theoretical.
It’s documented.
The speaker: an UNRWA employee. He describes infiltrating Israel and holding Israeli captives.
This is what the media calls “little evidence.” ⬇
7/8 UNRWA benefits from what we call the humanitarian halo effect.
Journalists suspend skepticism. Evidence is minimized.
Terror infiltration becomes allegations.
Take this claim, reported uncritically: that UNRWA leased the land from Jordan since 1952, even though Jordan claims no sovereignty there, and all water and electricity in Jerusalem are provided by Israeli authorities.
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.