As of October 5, 2026, Iran has not issued an unconditional surrender or signed a formal capitulation to the United States comparable to Germany’s surrender in 1945 or Japan’s surrender in 1945. A ceasefire and negotiated settlement process currently prevails wherein both sides governments and military forces despite the major military destruction the Mullahs of Iran have not formally surrendered to the US.
Bye Bye UN-united kingdom.
Jonah Goldberg: While the world is on fire, the media are still obsessed with Israel. Contrast TYT – that lady moos like Mad Cow Maddow during Trump 1.0
No one likes to think they’re being hysterical. And nothing makes hysterical people angrier than being described as such. So, let me offer my apologies in advance for what follows.
Jeremy Musighi, an independent researcher, recently released a study analyzing 14.7 million news articles published across 65 languages over the last decade. He found that, in 2024, news outlets published “ more than twice as many stories about Israel as about all 48 countries of sub-Saharan Africa combined .” Given that many countries focus on Israel to distract from their own problems, that’s not that shocking. But Musighi also found that, “On American cable news, Israel was the most-mentioned country — ahead of Iran, Russia, Ukraine, China. On the BBC’s news channel, 1 in every 17 broadcast minutes mentioned Israel.”
One might argue that given Israel’s recent actions, it earned such coverage. But Israel gets wildly disproportionate coverage in peacetime too. In 2019, long before the war in Gaza, “ 1 of every 112 news articles on Earth — from all the world’s outlets minus Israel’s — was primarily about Israel. 1.8 million international articles mentioned it.” Now, I have reservations about Musighi’s methodology, given how media outlets recycle and syndicate content. But rather than wade into the statistics, for argument’s sake let’s just cut all of his findings in half. That would still be hard to defend rationally.
Also, this says nothing of the quality of the reporting . If it was objective, the quantity wouldn’t matter much. But a sizable portion is objectively anti-Israel, often taking Hamas’ claims at face value. When Hamas shrieked that Gaza was on the brink of famine, the Western press breathlessly repeated the claim, which was utterly false . In a recent interview on Taqarrab , an Arab-language podcast, acclaimed photo “journalist” Motaz Azaiza admitted that he refused to publish images of Hamas abuses — to protect the abusers . The New York Times’ Nick Kristoff launched weeks of coverage with the claim that Israelis train dogs to rape Palestinians. American media covered the controversy over Macklemore’s criticisms of Israel like a free speech martyr.
In fairness, a lot of coverage is driven by news, like when the United Nations condemns Israel, which it has done 187 times since 2015 — nearly six times more often than it has condemned Russia, and 17 times more often than Iran or North Korea. Founded in 1948, modern Israel is middle-aged as countries go.
Look at a list of 195 countries in order of their founding date and Israel ranks somewhere between the 85th- and 90th-oldest (if we acknowledge biblical Israel, then it’s the fourth-oldest nation in the world). And yet many talk about Israel as if it’s a sort of recent mistake, easily remedied, like outgoing mail that hasn’t been picked up yet. Israel is only slightly older than modern Tibet, which was, according to the Chinese government, “liberated” in 1951. Many Tibetans use the term “occupied.”
We don’t hear much about “occupied Tibet” from people fixated on the evils of occupation. Nor do we hear about China’s system of apartheid — another charge casually hurled at Israel. Nor do we hear about China’s genocidal policies toward the Muslim minority Uyghur population in Xinjiang. The charge of cultural genocide is irrefutable, but there’s also strong evidence of more literal genocide thanks to the regime’s violent and coercive reproduction policies, slashing birthrates in half.
Nor do we hear much about China’s policy of settler-colonialism in Tibet and Xinjiang, where Han Chinese are incentivized to migrate as part of the regime’s policy of “ sinicization .” I think China’s pretty powerful, but criticizing Israel, according to the popular online streamer Hasan Piker (who will not condemn China), is “ speaking truth to power .”
To that end, we hear a lot about Israel’s occupation, settler-colonization and genocide. We don’t have the space to contend with all of these charges, so for the sake of brevity and reasonableness let’s concede, for now, the first two. Besides, it’s the false genocide charge that fuels anti-Israel obsessions more than any other. The claim is more than 40 years old. And yet, since the founding of Israel, the Palestinian population has grown more than fivefold.
When you hear that Israeli genocide proves Israelis are the “new Nazis” keep in mind that the Holocaust killed 2 out of every 3 European Jews . A new documentary, “Naza,” that purports to prove that Israel is committing genocide bases its claim on the fact that Israel goes to great lengths to track collateral damage. Never mind that there’s no such thing as collateral damage when you intend genocide. It should take the average reader five minutes to read this column. When “Naza” debuted at the Venice Film Festival this month, the audience’s standing ovation lasted five times as long. That, I’m sorry to tell you, is a sign of hysteria.
Jonah Goldberg is a national columnist. ©2026 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
What are the implications of Israel getting wildly disproportionate coverage in peacetime? How does the quality of reporting on Israel compare to its quantity? What are some other countries that have been accused of apartheid or genocide, similar to Israel?
https://jewishonliner.org/p/data-analysis-of-147-million-news-articles-finds-outsized-global-focus-on-israel
“The UN says so” is not a sufficient legal analysis. This example serves the false logic of “Appeal to Authority”. Attempts to pigeon hole, post the illegal Jordanian nationalization “West Bank”, as a “geographic term” used “internationally” fails to weight the bias of UN SC Resolution 2334 on par with UN GA Resolution 3379.
The UN has a long history of anti-Israel activities. Hence the language “West Bank” hardly qualifies as an accurate “geographic term”. Wars and Treaties trump UN chatter-box revisionist history. The ICC and ICJ. Their decisions may assert jurisdiction under their own constitutive instruments, but that does not automatically prove that they can override Oslo’s allocation of authority, treat Gaza as under unified Palestinian control, or transform a diplomatic designation into uncontested sovereignty. Those conclusions require a separate and explicit legal argument—and remain open to substantial criticism.
Germany’s 1941 invasion destroyed the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact as a functioning nonaggression arrangement, regardless of the formal language used to describe its termination. SALT ceased to function as a respected arms-control framework once the parties no longer treated its restraints as politically operative. Trump’s withdrawal reflected a rejection of Obama’s Iran policy, regardless of whether the JCPOA was technically classified as a treaty.
The parties’ conduct, interests, and subsequent events determine whether Oslo remains a functioning political framework. An international court cannot preserve, revive, or transform Oslo by treating it as though it were an abstract instrument detached from the parties’ actual consent and conduct. Hamas did not sign Oslo, took control of Gaza from the PA, and does not accept Oslo’s framework. Treating “Palestine” as a unified actor with uninterrupted authority over Gaza risks confusing a diplomatic label with an actual governing and treaty relationship.
An agreement loses authority when the parties’ strategic interests and conduct show that they no longer accept it as controlling. Arafat launched the 2nd Intifada in 2000, this decision fundamentally breached the Oslo Accords as did his failure to amend the PA Charter as he formally agreed to do when signing the Oslo Accords. UN Resolutions Chapter VI or Chapter VII do not have more authority than treaties signed between allies. The UN compares to the recent terrorist attempt to slaughter Israelis during the recent 2026 Sukkot Chag, which had it succeeded might have shattered the Abraham Accords and made the UN 2 State Solution dictate to Israel – the only game in town.
The UN can use only the powers actually given to it by the UN Charter. Those powers do not, merely because they come from the UN, automatically cancel, rewrite, or override the Oslo agreements. Anyone making that argument must show exactly which Charter power is being used, why the relevant UN body has authority over the issue, and how that power legally interacts with the parties’ existing treaty obligations. Saying “the UN has authority” – a bogus argument. The claim must identify the particular organ—such as the Security Council, General Assembly, or another body—and the specific Charter provision that allegedly grants the power.
Propaganda rhetoric of the UN – Occupied West Bank Territories – presumes Judea and Samaria as false based upon the language of UN SC 2334. The revisionist history pretends akin to Arafat’s rhetoric that the Palestinian people trace their roots back to the Boat-People Philistines from the Greek Islands! Never in all recorded Human history an Arab Palestinian State. Refusal by UN bodies to call a spade a spade – Yechuda and Samaria prove a bias conclusion rather than an objective recommendation.
General Assembly recognition of Palestine and British most recent boycott of Israeli private industry in Judea & Samaria prove political bias. That Israel has only responded to London and not EU countries who likewise seek to dictate a two State “Final Solution” compares to the vision of Jewish refugees treatment during the Middle Ages. The latter ‘low hanging fruit’, so too Britain after Brexit.
Even if a UN organ has some Charter-based authority, the claimant must explain why that authority applies to the parties and how it legally affects their treaty obligations. Employment of UN Charter-based authority arguments almost 100 years after the fact compares to Xtian gospel claims of Messiah man/God over 1000 years after the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. The latter example throughout history defined through hate arousing Christ killer rhetoric. Never once did the Goyim NT ever raise the issue: How does the Torah itself define the mitzva of Moshiach? As such both the earlier NT propaganda and the UN Charter propaganda used to promote anti-Israel hatred. Appeals to UN authority do not, by themselves, establish that the Oslo agreements have been changed or overridden. That conclusion requires a specific Charter power, proper jurisdiction, and a legally reasoned explanation of how the power affects the parties’ treaty obligations.
