In a world where the discourse on gender equality often rings hollow, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) stands as a beacon of what true inclusion can achieve. From its inception in 1948, the IDF has been a unique institution, mandating military service for both men and women. Over the decades, it has not only integrated women into its ranks but entrusted them with roles that challenge conventions and push boundaries. The women of the IDF exemplify courage, tenacity, and a profound commitment to the defence of their nation—a nation that, perhaps more than any other, understands the necessity of strength.

The role of women in the IDF is not a recent development, nor is it a tokenistic gesture to modern sensibilities. During the War of Independence, women fought alongside men, their contributions instrumental in ensuring the survival of the fledgling state. This legacy was formalised with the Equal Rights Law of 1951, ensuring women’s inclusion in Israel’s military apparatus. Yet inclusion was never the end goal; women in the IDF have continually sought to prove their worth, not through words but through action.

Today, women constitute approximately 40% of the IDF’s active personnel. Their roles span the breadth of military service, from elite combat units to strategic intelligence operations. This is not a nod to equality for equality’s sake, but a recognition of their indispensable value in a country where every citizen shares in the burden of defence.

For years, combat roles were seen as the preserve of men. That changed in 2000 when the Alice Miller case opened the gates for women to serve in combat positions. This landmark moment was not merely a legal victory; it was a demonstration of merit prevailing over tradition. Since then, women have joined units like the Caracal Battalion, operating along the volatile Egyptian border, and the Bardelas Battalion, specialising in desert warfare. Others have entered the most elite ranks, including the Israeli Air Force, where female pilots and navigators have become critical assets in operational theatres.

These women endure the same gruelling training and harsh conditions as their male counterparts, and they meet these challenges with the same determination. Their inclusion has not diluted the IDF’s combat readiness; it has strengthened it. The sight of women holding the line in some of the most dangerous environments serves as a reminder that defence is not a matter of gender but of resolve.

The contribution of women to the IDF extends far beyond the frontlines. From commanding battalions to directing military policy, women have risen to positions of leadership and influence. Orna Barbivai, the first female major general in IDF history, exemplified this when she was appointed head of the Personnel Directorate in 2011. Her tenure underscored the fact that leadership in the IDF is determined by capability, not convention.

In intelligence, women have played a pivotal role in securing Israel’s technological and strategic edge. Units like the renowned Unit 8200, the backbone of Israel’s cyber intelligence operations, are a testament to the critical importance of diversity in defence. The contributions of women in these roles are as indispensable as those on the battlefield, proving that modern warfare requires skillsets as varied as the challenges it faces.

The influence of IDF service extends well beyond military confines. For many women, the IDF is not only a duty but a crucible, forging skills and resilience that serve them throughout their lives. Veterans have gone on to become leaders in politics, technology, and business, their experiences in the IDF shaping their approach to leadership and problem-solving.

However, this journey is not without its challenges. The physical demands of service, combined with societal pressures, place unique burdens on women in uniform. Yet the IDF continues to adapt, striving to create an environment where women can excel without compromise. These challenges are met not with complaint but with resolve, a testament to the calibre of the women who serve.

The women of the IDF are not merely participants in a system; they are its backbone, its innovators, and its leaders. They embody the values of determination, capability, and resilience that define the State of Israel. Their service is not an experiment in inclusion but a proof of its success. In a world where gender equality often feels like a hollow slogan, the IDF demonstrates that true equality is achieved through opportunity and merit.

As their roles continue to evolve, the women of the IDF serve as an enduring reminder that the defence of a nation is strengthened by the diversity of its defenders. They stand as a model not just for Israel but for the world, proving that strength is not determined by gender but by the will to stand firm, serve, and protect.

At We Believe in Israel (WBII), we are compelled to address a troubling instance of biased reporting by Sky News’ diplomatic editor, Dominic Waghorn. In his recent commentary, Mr. Waghorn criticised Israel’s defensive operations in Syria and astonishingly cast Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)—a proscribed terrorist organisation under UK law—in a light that could be interpreted as sympathetic, even describing it as a potential "new revolutionary government."

This portrayal is not only factually baseless but also morally indefensible. HTS is a jihadist organisation rooted in extremist ideology and responsible for innumerable atrocities. To describe such a group in terms that confer legitimacy is an affront to the victims of its violence and to those working to counter extremism.

Israel’s actions in Syria, which Mr. Waghorn so readily criticised, are not acts of aggression. These defensive measures are carefully calculated to prevent advanced weaponry from falling into the hands of Iranian proxies and extremist factions like HTS. Such operations are crucial, not just for Israel’s security but for the broader stability of the Middle East.

It is concerning that Mr. Waghorn’s comments failed to reflect this context. By omitting the reality of the threats posed by HTS and Iranian-backed militias, his remarks risk misleading audiences about the complexities of the conflict. More disturbingly, they imply an equivalence between Israel’s legitimate defensive actions and the agendas of extremist actors who pose a grave threat to regional stability.

The media wields enormous influence in shaping public perception and discourse. With this power comes a responsibility to ensure that reporting is accurate, balanced, and reflective of the facts. Mr. Waghorn’s framing of HTS as a "revolutionary government" and his criticism of Israel represent a failure to uphold these principles.

Let us be clear: HTS is not a government. It is a terrorist organisation recognised as such under UK law. It seeks not liberation but the imposition of a brutal and regressive regime. For Sky News to allow a senior journalist to portray HTS in such terms is both irresponsible and dangerous.

What We Call For

WBII has called on Sky News to take immediate action to address this serious lapse:

1. Clarification and Correction:
   Sky News must clarify whether Mr. Waghorn’s comments represent the organisation’s official stance or a personal misstep. If the latter, a formal correction and apology are essential.

2. Reinforcement of Editorial Standards:
   As a respected news organisation, Sky News must ensure that its reporting meets the highest standards of accuracy and impartiality, particularly on issues as sensitive as the Middle East.

3. Acknowledgement of Bias:
   Sky News must explicitly recognise the error in portraying HTS as anything other than a proscribed terrorist organisation. This is not a matter of interpretation but of fundamental journalistic integrity.

Misrepresentation of this kind has serious consequences. It not only distorts public understanding of a complex conflict but also undermines efforts to combat terrorism and protect innocent lives. Israel’s actions in Syria are not only justified but necessary in the face of existential threats. Failing to convey this reality is a disservice to viewers and a betrayal of journalistic ethics.

Sky News owes it to its audience—and to its reputation as a trusted source of information—to address this issue decisively. Journalism must be rooted in truth and fairness, particularly when covering regions as volatile and misunderstood as the Middle East.

At WBII, we will continue to call out bias and advocate for honest, informed reporting on Israel. The stakes are too high for anything less. We urge Sky News to reflect on its role in shaping public understanding and to take corrective steps to ensure that its coverage is both accurate and impartial.

The fight against extremism and misinformation demands nothing less.

The situation along Israel’s northern border is a grim encapsulation of the Middle East’s enduring volatility. With the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, a theatre of fractured power has emerged in Syria, bringing with it the usual cast of regional malignancies. Iran and its proxies, emboldened and entrenched, are attempting to expand their foothold; jihadist factions, opportunistic as ever, are rising from the ashes. Amidst this chaos, the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) and the Israel Air Force (IAF) have acted decisively, engaging in incursions and airstrikes to protect Israel’s borders and security interests. These actions, it must be said, are not the result of Israeli provocation but rather the inevitable response to a neighbourly inferno that threatens to engulf everything in its path.

Israel’s decision to act decisively in Syria is neither arbitrary nor avoidable. The fall of the Assad regime has not simply created a void; it has invited the worst kind of actors to fill it. On one hand, there are Iranian-backed militias and Hezbollah fighters, seeking to use southern Syria as a staging ground for operations against Israel. On the other, jihadist groups like Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a rebranded offshoot of al-Qaeda, have seized strategic positions and, in their usual fashion, made their ambitions explicit: they are not merely interested in Syria but have openly declared their intent to "liberate" Jerusalem. For Israel, such rhetoric cannot be ignored; for any nation taking its own survival seriously, such threats would demand pre-emptive action.

The IDF has responded by conducting ground incursions into southern Syria to establish buffer zones and prevent these hostile forces from embedding themselves near the Golan Heights. This is not imperial adventurism but a necessity born of geography and geopolitics. Israel is a small country surrounded by adversaries who dream of its destruction. To allow these forces to mass on its northern frontier would be an act of suicidal negligence.

The Precision of the IAF

If the IDF’s ground operations represent the defensive bulwark, the IAF’s air operations are the scalpel. Over recent weeks, the IAF has launched strikes on weapons convoys, missile depots, and the command centres of Iranian-backed militias deep within Syria. These are not crude bombardments but meticulously planned operations aimed at degrading the enemy’s capabilities without unnecessary collateral damage. The targets are chosen carefully—those that directly support Iran’s wider strategy of regional destabilisation.

Iran’s ambitions in Syria are no secret, and since HTS made clear that the road of Jihad would go through Jerusalem, Israel has every reason to neutralise what is left of syria;’s military capabilities.

The Islamic Republic has long sought to build a land corridor stretching from Tehran to Beirut, connecting its forces and proxies across Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Syria, then, is not merely a battlefield; it is the linchpin of Iran’s grand strategy, and now that of ISIS - aka HTS.

By striking at Assad’s former assets and preventing the establishment of new supply lines, the IAF is doing more than defending Israel. It is striking a blow against a regional hegemon whose ambitions threaten not just Israel but the stability of the Middle East as a whole.

The Broader Context

The collapse of the Assad regime has implications far beyond Israel’s borders. Syria’s disintegration has created opportunities for malign actors to consolidate power, all while the international community dithers. Iran has seized the chaos to strengthen its proxies, and jihadist groups have exploited the vacuum to expand their reach. Yet amidst this chaos, the actions of the IDF and IAF stand as a rare display of clarity and purpose.

Critics, particularly in Europe, may wring their hands at what they inevitably describe as Israeli “escalation.” Such criticisms, as is so often the case, fail to grasp the realities of the region. Israel does not have the luxury of waiting for attacks to come before acting; history has made that much abundantly clear. The incursions into Syria and the precision strikes by the IAF are not acts of aggression but measures of survival.

The instability along Israel’s northern border has also exposed the duplicity of certain regional actors. Jordan, often described in the West as a key ally and bastion of moderation, has played a more questionable role in recent years. While it has relied on Western aid and diplomatic support to maintain its fragile stability, the Hashemite Kingdom has simultaneously allowed the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots, including Hamas, to operate with relative impunity within its borders. This tacit tolerance has emboldened Islamist networks that now threaten to destabilise the region further.

As jihadist factions mass along its northern border, Jordan may soon find that its strategy of appeasement has been not just shortsighted but dangerously naive. For Israel, such ambivalence from a neighbour is yet another reason to act decisively. While Amman continues to hedge its bets, Israel is left to shoulder the burden of containing the chaos spilling over from Syria.

Britain’s Role

For Britain, the situation presents a moment of truth. Israel’s actions in Syria are not merely about protecting its own borders; they are part of a broader effort to counter the influence of Iran and the resurgence of jihadist extremism—both of which have direct implications for Western security. Britain, as a historic ally of Israel and a key player in the region, must stand unequivocally with the Jewish state in this moment of crisis.

To do so means more than offering diplomatic platitudes. Britain should support Israel’s defensive operations, recognising them as not just a necessity for Israel but a contribution to regional stability. The IDF’s and IAF’s efforts to dismantle Iranian networks and contain jihadist forces are, in effect, a front line in the broader struggle against the forces of extremism and chaos that threaten not only Israel but the West as a whole.

The disintegration of Syria and the rise of hostile actors along Israel’s border underscore a simple but often overlooked truth: Israel is not the source of instability in the Middle East but one of its few bulwarks against it. The IDF’s incursions and the IAF’s strikes are not the beginning of a conflict but the necessary continuation of a long-standing defence against those who would see the region plunged into even greater darkness.

For Britain and the wider West, the choice is clear. Support Israel in its efforts to maintain stability and counter malign actors, or risk seeing the region slip further into chaos. In this moment, as in so many before it, Israel’s fight is not just for its own survival but for the principles of order and security that the West claims to uphold. The time for wavering is over. Britain must act with the same clarity and purpose as Israel has shown, for the stakes are not just Israel’s—they are ours as well.

For more than 300 days, the soldiers of the 7056 Paratrooper Reserve Battalion have stood watch on and beyond the border of Lebanon. These men and women have answered their nation’s call with courage and resolve, shouldering the immense responsibility of safeguarding the country’s security. Their sacrifice is obvious, their bravery undeniable.

Yet, there is another story to tell—one that too often goes unnoticed. Behind each of these soldiers stands a family: mothers, fathers, spouses, children. These are the people who quietly endure the uncertainty, the worry, and the long months of separation. They are the silent backbone of our nation’s defence, providing the strength and support that allow our soldiers to do their duty without hesitation.

At We Believe in Israel (#WBII), we believe it is time to honour these families. Their sacrifices, though less visible, are no less significant. They are a critical part of the fabric that holds our nation together, and they deserve to be recognised.

To this end, we are raising funds for a special evening dedicated to these extraordinary families. This is not just about gratitude; it is about acknowledgment. It is about saying, “We see you. We value you. And we thank you.” It is a gesture of appreciation for the quiet resilience that so often goes unremarked.

The evening will be an opportunity to celebrate their strength and recognise the crucial role they play in our nation’s safety. It is a chance for these families to come together, to be reminded that their sacrifices matter, and to feel the gratitude of a nation that owes them so much.

But to make this happen, we need your support. Your generosity will help us provide a moment of respite and recognition for those who give so much, often without asking for anything in return. By contributing, you are standing with the families of the 7056 Paratrooper Reserve Battalion and showing them that their resilience does not go unnoticed.

In a world where the burdens of service are so often borne in silence, let us be loud in our gratitude. Let us remind these families that their sacrifices are not forgotten and that their strength inspires us all. Join us in making this evening a meaningful tribute to those who serve—not just on the frontlines, but at home as well.

DONATE

The accusation that Israel is an apartheid state is one of the most pernicious and unfounded charges levelled against the Jewish state. It has become a favoured refrain among activists and academics determined to delegitimise Israel on the global stage. Yet this claim collapses under even the most cursory examination. Pierre Rehov’s outstanding documentary dismantles this fiction, exposing the smear for what it is: a weaponised lie devoid of factual basis.

Apartheid is not an abstract term; it refers specifically to the system of institutionalised racial segregation and discrimination practised in South Africa until the early 1990s. Under apartheid, black South Africans were systematically stripped of their rights—denied political representation, confined to restricted areas, and treated as second-class citizens in every aspect of life.

To equate this grotesque system with Israel is not just misleading; it is a deliberate act of historical vandalism. In Israel, all citizens—Jewish, Arab, Christian, and others—enjoy equal rights under the law. Arab Israelis vote in elections, serve in the Knesset, and hold positions across society, from the judiciary to the medical profession. There is no policy or practice in Israel remotely comparable to apartheid South Africa.

Pierre Rehov’s documentary is a tour de force in exposing the intellectual dishonesty behind the apartheid accusation. Through interviews, evidence, and a careful dismantling of the rhetoric, Rehov lays bare the motivations and methods of those who propagate this falsehood. His film underscores several key points:

1. Equal Rights, Equal Opportunities: Arab Israelis live and work alongside their Jewish compatriots. They attend the same universities, vote in the same elections, and access the same public services. This is not apartheid—it is a democracy.

2. Security, Not Segregation: Measures such as checkpoints and barriers are not born of racial discrimination but are responses to decades of terrorism and violence. They are regrettable necessities, not ideological principles.

3. The Palestinian Authority's Role: Much of the hardship faced by Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza is a direct result of their own leadership, whether the corruption of the Palestinian Authority or the Islamist tyranny of Hamas. To blame Israel for the failures and abuses of these entities is to ignore reality.

Rehov also highlights the hypocrisy of those who cry apartheid while turning a blind eye to the treatment of Palestinians in Arab nations, where they are often denied citizenship, employment rights, and even basic dignity.

The apartheid accusation is not merely inaccurate; it is malicious. It is intended not to critique Israel’s policies but to delegitimise its very existence. It forms the basis of calls for boycotts, divestments, and sanctions, as well as the relentless campaign to paint Israel as a pariah state. Worse still, it trivialises the suffering of those who lived under actual apartheid, weaponising their trauma for political ends.

Pierre Rehov’s documentary is a timely and necessary intervention. It cuts through the noise of propaganda with clarity and evidence, defending Israel not out of blind loyalty but because the truth demands it. In a time when lies travel faster than ever, his work reminds us of the importance of standing against the tide of disinformation.

The charge of apartheid against Israel is not just a lie—it is a deeply cynical lie, designed to erode Israel’s legitimacy and perpetuate hostility. Rehov’s film is a call to arms for all those who value historical accuracy, intellectual integrity, and moral clarity. For anyone serious about understanding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is required viewing.

Ivan Berkowitz’s decision to withdraw a £315,000 donation from Cambridge University’s Trinity College has cast a stark light on the troubling state of British academia. Berkowitz, a philanthropist and son of Holocaust survivors, cited the institution’s disturbing inability to confront anti-Israel sentiment as his reason for pulling support. His action, though drastic, highlights a much larger issue: the profound moral decay that has gripped our universities, transforming them from bastions of free thought into arenas of ideological conformity and bias.

The events at Trinity College are emblematic. Earlier this year, Palestine Action activists vandalised a 1914 portrait of Lord Balfour, gleefully recording their act of cultural destruction for social media. Yet despite the evidence, Cambridge’s response has been lacklustre at best. The perpetrators remain unpunished, and the university’s silence signals not just apathy, but tacit complicity in the broader campaign to delegitimise Israel and its history.

This decay is not limited to acts of vandalism. Cambridge has entertained calls to divest from companies linked to Israel, bowing to the pressure of pro-Palestinian student groups. It has also allowed its Lauterpacht Centre for International Law to host panels featuring speakers known for their extreme anti-Israel rhetoric. What should be a space for rigorous debate and intellectual diversity has become a platform for one-sided narratives and, worse still, a playground for ideologues who reject the very principles upon which academic inquiry is founded.

This is not merely a failure of one university; it is a broader malaise infecting academia. Once proud to champion diversity, tolerance, and free speech, our institutions now seem all too willing to sacrifice these values at the altar of ideological conformity. Anti-Israel sentiment has become an acceptable prejudice, cloaked in the language of human rights but rooted in a denial of Jewish self-determination. Universities that should uphold reasoned debate have instead chosen to embrace an exclusionary narrative, one that negates the pluralism they claim to celebrate.

What makes this betrayal so galling is its speed and its hypocrisy. Only a few years ago, these institutions prided themselves on fostering open minds and protecting the vulnerable. Today, they tolerate—if not actively endorse—a climate where Jewish students and scholars feel alienated and under siege. They champion "diversity" but exclude the Jewish experience; they laud "tolerance" while condoning hostility; they praise "free speech" but silence dissenting views.

This decay is not merely intellectual—it is moral. To vilify one nation, to normalise its erasure, and to dismiss the experiences of its people is to betray the very essence of academia. Institutions like Cambridge were once the guardians of rigorous inquiry and ethical integrity. That they now indulge such biases reflects a profound collapse of purpose.

Berkowitz’s withdrawal of funding is not just a protest—it is an act of principle. His decision reminds us that universities, like all institutions, must be held accountable for their actions and their failures. If they cannot protect the values they profess to uphold, they risk becoming irrelevant, mere echo chambers for ideologues who undermine democracy and pluralism.

As we reflect on this decay, we must ask: What kind of society do we want academia to serve? One where bias masquerades as justice, or one where diversity of thought is genuinely celebrated? The answer will determine not only the future of our universities but the intellectual and moral fabric of our nation itself.

In recent days, troubling headlines have emerged, highlighting Labour MP Kim Johnson’s ties to CAGE, a group with a long and controversial record. Calls for the Labour Party to investigate these associations are not only appropriate but urgently necessary. CAGE’s promotion of extremist narratives and its alignment with groups that advocate violence raise profound concerns about the integrity of democratic debate in Britain and the ethical responsibility of our elected officials.

At the centre of this controversy is CAGE’s documented history of defending individuals and organisations that promote violence or extremism. Most recently, CAGE has openly expressed support for Palestine Action, an organisation known for its aggressive tactics targeting Israeli businesses and institutions. Palestine Action’s endorsement of violent methods is no secret; it actively calls for Israeli-linked organisations to be sabotaged or shut down. CAGE’s support for such a group should, on its own, disqualify it as a credible voice in any democratic society.

Yet, rather than distance herself from CAGE, Kim Johnson has amplified its message. Speaking at an event hosted by the group, she not only legitimised their platform but also implicitly endorsed their agenda by participating in a discussion whose tone and content ran counter to Labour’s commitment to tolerance and anti-extremism.

The issue here is not merely one of optics. When politicians associate themselves with groups like CAGE, they lend legitimacy to narratives that undermine democratic values and exacerbate societal divisions. CAGE has a long record of defending individuals involved in terrorism and promoting a worldview that is hostile to pluralism and democratic norms. To ignore this history is to turn a blind eye to the dangers of extremism dressed up as activism.

It is worth noting that this controversy arises amidst a broader climate in which antisemitic and anti-Israel rhetoric has become alarmingly normalised in parts of British politics. CAGE and its allies have consistently sought to blur the lines between legitimate criticism of Israel and outright antisemitism, using inflammatory language and supporting campaigns that vilify the Jewish state. This rhetoric not only stokes division but also serves to isolate Jewish communities in Britain.

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has made commendable efforts to root out antisemitism within his party and restore trust with the Jewish community. However, the case of Kim Johnson and her ties to CAGE poses a direct challenge to these efforts. If Labour is serious about maintaining its commitment to democratic values and standing against extremism, it must act decisively. Investigating Johnson’s actions and addressing the party’s association with groups like CAGE is not just a matter of optics; it is a moral imperative.

Britain’s political leaders have a duty to uphold the principles of tolerance, democracy, and respect. This includes rejecting any association with groups or ideologies that promote violence, division, or hatred. Labour now has an opportunity to demonstrate that it is serious about these principles. To do otherwise would be to allow extremism to gain a foothold in our institutions, undermining the very values that keep our democracy strong.

The events that unfolded at the Oxford Union during its recent debate should leave us all appalled. What should have been a serious examination of the motion, “This House Believes Israel is an Apartheid State Responsible for Genocide”, descended into chaos, harassment, and outright glorification of violence. For those who still naively believe that universities remain bastions of free thought, the night’s proceedings were a stark reminder of how far this ideal has fallen.

The Union, once the proud home of intellectual rigor, was anything but. Outside, protesters organised by Oxford Action for Palestine chanted the chilling refrain, “Zionists are not welcome in Oxford,” their cries filtering into the chamber. Inside, the atmosphere was described as “hostile and toxic,” with Jewish students reportedly too intimidated to attend. This was not a debate—it was a witch hunt, a spectacle designed not to explore ideas but to suppress them.

The speakers opposing the motion—barrister Natasha Hausdorff, broadcaster Jonathan Sacerdoti, Arab-Israeli journalist Yoseph Haddad, and former Hamas informant Mosab Hassan Yousef—faced relentless heckling and venomous abuse. Sacerdoti’s arguments were met with shouts of “lies,” and insults so vile that security had to remove a member of the audience. Yoseph Haddad, a former IDF commander who highlighted Israel’s coexistence among Jews, Arabs, and Christians, was drowned out by jeers and ultimately ejected.

But the most grotesque moment of the evening came from Miko Peled, speaking in favour of the motion, who described Hamas’s barbaric attacks on October 7 as “acts of heroism.” That such words could be spoken at Oxford, without immediate condemnation, is astonishing. Peled glorified one of the most horrific massacres of modern times—a day when civilians were butchered, raped, and abducted—and yet the chamber’s atmosphere allowed this abhorrent rhetoric to pass. Worse, it found support among some attendees.

More chilling still was the response to a question posed by Yoseph Haddad: If you knew about the plans for October 7 in advance, would you have reported them to prevent the massacre?Astonishingly, 75% of the participants indicated they would not. This staggering revelation lays bare the depth of moral rot festering on university campuses, where ideological fervour now supersedes basic human decency.

This was not the only display of anti-Israel hostility in Oxford that week. Just a day earlier, anti-Israel activists disrupted a lecture by Professor Daniel Chamovitz, President of Ben-Gurion University, at Oxford Brookes University. Protesters waving flags and chanting slogans turned what should have been a scholarly discussion into a scene of chaos, leaving elderly members of Oxford’s Jewish community “shellshocked.” The activists later boasted of their actions, declaring their intent to deny a platform to any “Zionist.”

This is the reality on campuses across the UK: intimidation, harassment, and the silencing of dissent. Those who profess to care about justice and inclusion are, in practice, the greatest enemies of free speech. They do not wish to debate; they wish to silence. They do not seek understanding; they seek to dominate.

What took place at Oxford Union was not just a failure of decorum or a one-off incident of bad behaviour. It was the culmination of years of unchecked bias, where anti-Zionism—often indistinguishable from antisemitism—has been allowed to flourish. Universities, which should be places of inquiry and dialogue, have instead become breeding grounds for intolerance.

The responsibility for this decline rests squarely with university administrations. By failing to stand up for free speech, by allowing protests to cross the line into intimidation, and by refusing to hold individuals accountable, they have enabled this toxic culture to thrive. If Jewish students or pro-Israel speakers feel they cannot participate in debates without fear for their safety, then the university has failed in its most basic duty.

At We Believe in Israel, we call on Oxford and other institutions to take decisive action. This means enforcing standards of civility, protecting all participants in debates, and refusing to capitulate to those who seek to silence opposing views. The principles of free speech and intellectual inquiry must not be sacrificed to the demands of ideological mobs.

What happened at Oxford Union was a disgrace. It was not just an affront to Jewish students and pro-Israel voices but to the very idea of a university as a place where ideas can be discussed and challenged. If institutions like Oxford cannot defend free speech and decency, they will not only lose their credibility but their purpose. It is time for universities to decide whether they will stand for freedom or succumb to the tyranny of the mob. Let us hope they choose wisely.

The recent resignations of BBC staff over union instructions to wear Palestinian colours are not just a troubling moment for the institution but a damning indictment of its deeply entrenched and long-standing anti-Zionist culture. For years, many have raised concerns about the BBC’s skewed reporting on Israel, yet this latest episode confirms something more insidious: an abandonment of impartiality in favour of blatant political posturing.

The directive from the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) to dress in Palestinian colours goes beyond inappropriate—it is a brazen endorsement of one side in one of the world’s most divisive conflicts. It is not the job of journalists to engage in activism, let alone to visibly signal allegiance to any political cause. Yet the fact that this directive was even issued—and that some within the BBC appear to have complied—speaks volumes about the toxic atmosphere surrounding Israel within the institution.

For years, critics have noted a pattern of biased coverage from the BBC. Stories about Israel are framed in ways that vilify the state while erasing the context of its security concerns. Terror attacks against Israeli civilians are downplayed or outright ignored, while Palestinian actions are presented as heroic struggles. The term “anti-Zionist” is wielded as a shield against accusations of antisemitism, yet the overlap is clear to anyone paying attention. The BBC, it seems, has long been complicit in this narrative, giving anti-Zionist views an unchallenged platform under the guise of balance.

What makes this latest incident particularly egregious is the coercive nature of the NUJ’s instructions. By mandating that journalists wear Palestinian colours, the union not only abandoned its own impartiality but pressured its members to conform to a political stance. For those tasked with reporting on this issue, such a directive is nothing short of professional sabotage. The BBC journalists who resigned deserve commendation for their integrity, but their departure highlights a troubling reality: those who stand for fairness are increasingly isolated in an institution that seems uninterested in upholding it.

The BBC’s anti-Zionist bias is not accidental. It is the product of a culture that has allowed political agendas to fester unchecked. From editorial decisions to the language used in reporting, the institution has consistently framed Israel as the aggressor and its detractors as victims. This is not journalism; it is advocacy. And it is advocacy that fuels hostility toward the Jewish state while emboldening those who seek its destruction.

The BBC has positioned itself as a bastion of impartiality, yet time and again it falls short of this standard when it comes to Israel. The resignations of these journalists are a rare moment of accountability, a spotlight on a culture that prioritises ideology over facts. This is not just a failure of individual judgment—it is institutional rot.

For viewers, the consequences are profound. The BBC’s reporting shapes public perceptions, and when those perceptions are built on bias and misinformation, the damage extends far beyond the newsroom. It perpetuates harmful stereotypes, normalises hostility toward Israel, and distorts the very nature of the conflict.

The NUJ’s directive and the BBC’s broader failings are not just problems of journalistic ethics; they are emblematic of a wider societal issue. Anti-Zionism has become an acceptable prejudice in certain circles, cloaked in the language of human rights and justice. Yet its selective outrage and disproportionate focus on Israel reveal its true nature.

At WBII, we have long fought against this bias, calling for fair and accurate reporting on Israel and its people. The BBC’s latest scandal confirms what we have always known: that the battle for impartiality in journalism is far from over. The resignations of a few principled individuals are a start, but real change will require a complete reckoning within the institution.

The BBC must be held to account. Its credibility, already tarnished, depends on it. And if it cannot reform itself, then it should no longer claim the mantle of impartiality. For now, its reporting on Israel remains a stain on its reputation and a disservice to its audience. It is time for the BBC to choose: impartiality or irrelevance. It cannot have both.

The story of Kfir Bibas ought to chill the blood of anyone with a shred of moral decency. A 10-month-old infant, torn from the sanctuary of his home on 7 October 2023, alongside his mother, Shiri, and elder brother, Ariel, and made a hostage by Hamas. It is not merely a tragedy but a testament to the depths of depravity that humanity is capable of reaching.

Kfir, a child far too young to comprehend the world into which he was born, now stands as a grotesque emblem of innocence defiled by malevolence. To consider the cold and calculated decision to abduct him is to confront the terrifying reality of terror as strategy. This was no collateral damage; this was an act of deliberate barbarism, designed to instil fear, to shock the conscience, and to weaponise vulnerability.

We live in an age awash with images of conflict, where the horrors of war often blur into a seamless cycle of tragedy on our screens. Yet the face of Kfir Bibas, a baby whose greatest worry should have been teething, cuts through this numbness. His image demands that we ask ourselves: how have we allowed such unmitigated savagery to take root and, worse, to be rationalised?

Let there be no equivocation about Hamas. They are not freedom fighters, nor are they misunderstood revolutionaries. They are the adherents of an ideology that glorifies death, that seeks out the defenceless as targets, and that cloaks its grotesque deeds in the language of liberation. Nor should we shy away from condemning the international complacency that enables such acts. Every morally ambiguous statement that invokes “both sides,” every mealy-mouthed appeal to “understanding root causes,” serves only to excuse those who kidnap infants and brutalise families.

The plight of the Bibas family is not an isolated act of cruelty; it is emblematic of a much larger failure. Kfir’s story forces us to confront the fact that the victims of terror are not mere statistics to be tallied in bureaucratic reports or academic studies. They are real people, each life extinguished or scarred by ideologies that revel in violence and oppression.

And what of the so-called civilised world? The governments and institutions that condemn with one hand while placating with the other? Their unwillingness to take a clear and decisive stance against such evils, their hesitancy to name them for what they are, renders them culpable—not in the commission of these acts but in their perpetuation through inaction.

Kfir Bibas’s name may never appear in history books. He will not be remembered as a leader, a writer, or a thinker. But his story—and his hauntingly innocent face—should serve as a moral reckoning. It forces us to ask whether we still have the courage to defend the values we profess to hold dear. If we cannot rise to meet this challenge, if we cannot confront and defeat such evil, then what hope remains—not just for Kfir but for any child, anywhere?