It turns out that Nicholas Kristof’s negligence in reporting is not confined to Israel—it is a recurring pattern. Time and again, he falls prey to fraudsters and dubious sources, swallowing stories without properly verifying them, all in order to preserve the image of the “moral journalist,” the “champion of the downtrodden” exposing injustice. And the truth? What does it matter when readers are wiping away tears? Link in the first comment.

My reading recommendation for this week is one of the most important articles published so far on October 7 — if not the most important. My colleague Dr. Daniel Sobelman, an expert on strategy, Hamas, and Hezbollah, published an article in the journal Studies in Conflict and Terrorism titled The Strategic Origins of Hamas's October 7 Attack. Based on a treasure trove of original Hamas documents captured during the war, alongside other sources, the article describes in detail Hamas’s “Ring of Fire” strategy and the Axis of Resistance’s plan for the destruction of Israel, which became concrete after what Hamas perceived as its victory in Operation Guardian of the Walls. The article shows that, in Sinwar’s eyes, the destruction of Israel was not a distant vision for the future, but an immediate, feasible, and realistic plan. Israel, which believed it was deterring Hamas and Hezbollah, was in fact being deterred by them, restricting its own freedom of action while facing adversaries that were increasingly intervening in other arenas such as Jerusalem and the West Bank, where any wrong move could trigger a major escalation. Iran surrounded Israel with a “ring of fire” of proxies, foremost among them Hezbollah, while Hamas assumed an increasingly central role within this deadly array. By no later than 2021, a series of discussions had taken place between Sinwar and his counterparts in the Axis of Resistance regarding the implementation of the destruction plan. The Iranians were represented by Saeed Izadi, head of the Palestine branch in the Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guards. Sinwar presented several scenarios to his counterparts: the first was the destruction of Israel; the second was forcing Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and breaking its strength in a way that would accelerate emigration from the country and lead to its later destruction; and the third was a more limited war that would still inflict enormous damage on Israel. Hamas documents show that — according to Hamas’s own account — Nasrallah supported the first scenario (namely total destruction), but was more cautious regarding timing, apparently believing that the Axis of Resistance should wait several more years until it was fully prepared.In the end, Sinwar moved ahead of schedule and surprised his Axis counterparts with the October 7 attack. Within Hezbollah there were disagreements: many commanders wanted to enter the war with full force, which in my opinion would have caused Israel enormous and possibly irreversible damage. Nasrallah, however, was more cautious and believed the time was not yet ripe. Ultimately, Sinwar’s haste combined with Nasrallah’s caution saved Israel from a far worse scenario.The article also describes the testimony of Amit Saar, then head of Military Intelligence research, according to whom the real plan for Israel’s destruction — a deliberate, coordinated offensive by the entire Axis — was still about two years away in October 2023. In my view — and this does not appear in the article — had Sinwar waited, Israel would have been in a much worse position: the internal crisis would have deepened and, above all, the ground forces would have been cut back and further hollowed out. My personal assessment is that under such conditions, the destruction of Israel, even if carried out in stages, would have become a realistic possibility. Therefore — and here I am expressing my personal opinion and going beyond the scope of the article — Israel saved itself and its people from genocide on October 7 (a real genocide, like Rwanda, not the kind that “genocide scholars” write about today in the context of Gaza). In this context, the new Israeli doctrine of crushing genocidal threats on its borders is a matter of necessity. Once Israel faces enemies for whom, unlike the state adversaries of the past, the destruction of Israel is a top priority, deterrence is no longer possible. Such enemies can only be eradicated; otherwise they will continue building up their forces along the borders until they decide to strike in coordination. On October 7 we escaped that fate, at a terrible price, and awakened to the realities of the Middle East. Had we failed to do so, it is not certain we would have had another opportunity.A link to the article is in the first comment. P.S. Considerations such as the internal Israeli crisis, Al-Aqsa, Jerusalem, and similar issues were not the cause of Hamas’s attack, but they certainly influenced its timing and Hamas’s assessment of the IDF’s weakness. It should also be noted that here too Sinwar acted contrary to the assessments of his own intelligence officials, who argued that the IDF had not yet weakened sufficiently because of that crisis.

If you haven’t read enough rebuttals to the new blood libel by the New York Times about the “systematic rape of Palestinian prisoners,” along comes federal judge Roy Altman and tears Nicholas Kristof’s column to shreds — the way a strict judge dismantles testimony from the bench. In the article (link in the first comment), he discusses the absurdity of relying on anonymous testimony, something fundamentally contrary to any modern method of discovering the truth. Had Kristof provided identifying details — precise times, names of prisons, specific wings — it would have been possible, for example, to demand that Israel release the relevant surveillance footage and verify whether abuse had in fact occurred. Kristof does not do this.Moreover, it turns out that the one of the two witnesses Kristof identifies by name — a well-known Hamas inciter — complained to the Israeli courts about poor treatment in prison, yet did not mention rape or sexual abuse at all in real time. Nor is there evidence that any of the hundreds of Palestinian prisoners who filed complaints suffered consequences for doing so. In fact, even Kristof’s main witness, Sa’i, suffered no such repercussions. And that is in addition to the dogs — the dogs. It is depressing to see how a bizarre conspiracy theory that until now had been confined to the fringes of the internet has migrated into the mainstream press thanks to a negligent reporter who previously believed professional liars and even admitted it, and who today tried to score a few points through blood libels against Jews.