WSJ editor sparks backlash over claim IDF gave Hamas ‘safe haven' in Gaza
The comment came in the wake of Israel's first evacuation notice issued to residents of Deir Al-Balah, in central Gaza, since the war began on Oct. 7, 2023.
In a post on X, Kaufman wrote: 'For 21 months, Israel has essentially allowed Hamas a safe haven inside Gaza. That's no way to fight a war, but Israel believed hostages were held in this area, and minimizing risk to them has always taken priority.'
The remarks were widely condemned for appearing to overlook the scale of destruction in Gaza, where over 70 percent of buildings have been damaged or destroyed, and humanitarian agencies warn of looming famine due to Israel's blockade of aid.
The Palestinian death toll is nearing 60,000, about half of them women and children, according to Gaza health authorities, fueling global outrage over Israel's ongoing military campaign.
'If Hamas is kept safe, then who are the tens of thousands they have been killing?' one user responded online.
Pro-Palestinian group Writers Against the War in Gaza — which recently published a report criticizing The New York Times for alleged links between its senior staff and pro-Israel lobbying groups — said Kaufman's post reflects the WSJ's 'zero journalistic standards.' The group accused the outlet of allowing 'literal state stenography for Israel with no consequences.'
Does the Wall Street Journal have zero journalistic standards anymore, or are Editorial Board members allowed to do literal state stenography for Israel with no consequences? https://t.co/o7pUwMhJOO
— Writers Against the War on Gaza (@wawog_now) July 20, 2025
Kaufman has faced growing criticism over what some see as his consistent alignment with Israeli policy.
Following Hamas' deadly Oct. 7 attack and Israel's subsequent military response, he has voiced support for the Israeli government's actions and denounced pro-Palestinian activism.
Earlier in July, Kaufman sparked further backlash over an article promoting a so-called peace plan involving a Palestinian sheikh and a proposal to have Hebron break away from the Palestinian Authority, effectively sidestepping any future Palestinian statehood.
Palestinian activist Issa Amro described the piece as a 'dangerous fabrication' and criticized Kaufman for 'shockingly poor journalism or deliberate misinformation.' Kan's Palestinian affairs correspondent Elior Levy dismissed it as nonsense.
'Words come cheap, and these recycled statements have led to nothing (in the past),' Levy wrote on X. 'I advise The Wall Street Journal to focus more on Wall Street and less on Hebron.'
Over the weekend, the WSJ found itself at the centre of the news after US President Donald Trump sued media magnate Rupert Murdoch and the journal for at least $10 billion over publication of a bombshell article on his friendship with the infamous alleged sex trafficker of underage girls, Jeffrey Epstein.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
4 hours ago
- Arab News
Yemen's Houthis threaten to target ships linked to firms dealing with Israeli ports
Yemen's Houthis said on Sunday they would target any ships belonging to companies that do business with Israeli ports, regardless of their nationalities, as part of what they called the fourth phase of their military operations against Israel. In a televised statement, the Houthis' military spokesperson warned that ships would be attacked if companies ignored their warnings, regardless of their destination. 'The Yemeni Armed Forces call on all countries, if they want to avoid this escalation, to pressure the enemy to halt its aggression and lift the blockade on the Gaza Strip,' he added. Since Israel's war in Gaza began in October 2023, the Iran-aligned Houthis have been attacking ships they deem as bound or linked to Israel in what they say are acts of solidarity with Palestinians. In May, the US announced a surprise deal with the Houthis where it agreed to stop a bombing campaign against them in return for an end to shipping attacks, though the Houthis said the deal did not include sparing Israel.
Arab News
6 hours ago
- Arab News
Israel's daily pauses fall short of easing Gaza suffering: UK
LONDON, GAZA: Israel's decision on Sunday to pause military operations for 10 hours a day in parts of Gaza and allow new aid corridors falls short of what is needed to alleviate suffering in the enclave, Britain's Foreign Secretary David Lammy said. Lammy said in a statement that Israel's announcement was 'essential but long overdue,' and that access to aid must now be urgently accelerated over the coming hours and days. 'This announcement alone cannot alleviate the needs of those desperately suffering in Gaza,' Lammy said. 'We need a ceasefire that can end the war, for hostages to be released and aid to enter Gaza by land unhindered.' Lammy said that access to aid must now be urgently accelerated over the coming hours and days. The Israeli military said the 'tactical pause' in Gaza City, Deir Al-Balah and Muwasi, three areas with large populations, would increase humanitarian aid entering the territory. The pause runs from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. daily until further notice. Jordan said it carried out three airdrops over Gaza, including one in cooperation with the UAE, dropping 25 tonnes of food and supplies on several locations. 'Whichever path we choose, we will have to continue to allow the entry of minimal humanitarian supplies,' Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement. Despite the annouoncement of temporary pauses, Israeli strikes killed at least 38 Palestinians from late Saturday into Sunday, including 23 seeking aid. An airstrike on a Gaza City apartment killed a woman and her four children. Another strike killed four people, including a boy, his mother and grandfather, in the eastern Zaytoun neighborhood. US President Donald Trump said Israel would have to make a decision on next steps in Gaza, adding that he did not know what would happen after moves by Israel to pull out of ceasefire and hostage-release negotiations with the Hamas militant group. Trump underscored the importance of securing the release of hostages held by Hamas in Gaza, saying they had suddenly 'hardened' up on the issue. 'They don't want to give them back, and so Israel is going to have to make a decision,' Trump told reporters at the start of a meeting with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at his golf property in Turnberry, Scotland. Two Israeli soldiers were killed in combat in southern Gaza on Sunday, the military said, a day after confirming another soldier had died of wounds sustained last week. The two soldiers, aged 20 and 22, served in the Golani Infantry Brigade's 51st Battalion. Israeli military sources said they were killed when their armored vehicle exploded in the city of Khan Yunis.
Arab News
6 hours ago
- Arab News
Starmer has chance to right a historical wrong
Feverish debate over recent months has centered on whether the UK and France will recognize the state of Palestine. French President Emmanuel Macron said in February that recognition was 'not a taboo.' France and Saudi Arabia were due to hold a conference on the two-state solution in New York in June, but it was delayed by Israel's aggression against Iran. Instead, it is being held this week. But the UK's position has been far from clear? Will Prime Minister Keir Starmer agree to join in or will he delay? No country in the world has more of a history of grappling with the issue of Palestine than Britain. It was, after all, the author of the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which it pledged support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. It did not mention a second state in that declaration. London had to grapple with this as the mandatory power all the way up to 1947, when it handed the issue over to the newly formed UN to resolve. In November of that year, the UN General Assembly voted for partition. The UK abstained on that resolution. However, its exit from Palestine was one of the low points of its Middle Eastern colonial era. It made little or no attempt to thwart the war that started even before its troops had left. Palestinians argue that, given all this, Britain has a particular historic responsibility toward Palestine. It should, many argue, be in the vanguard of pushing for the creation of that second state. It was not until the Venice Declaration of 1980 that European powers including the UK committed to acknowledging the Palestinian right to self-government. Even after that, it was many years before Britain had any formal relationship with the Palestine Liberation Organization as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Successive governments acted merely as backing vocalists to the US position on most aspects of the Palestinian question. With the Oslo Accords of 1993, the expectation that a peace process would lead to a Palestinian state grew. Britain and other donor states invested heavily in this option and aid to the fledgling Palestinian Authority grew as a result. It was all under the rubric that this would lead to a two-state solution, a secure Israel side by side with a state of Palestine based on the 1967 borders. The Palestinian leadership shifted its strategy after the Second Intifada to pushing for recognition. The UNGA approved the de facto recognition of the sovereign state of Palestine in 2012 and the state of Palestine also started applying for membership of international institutions, including the International Criminal Court. In 2014, the UK government's position was outlined by then-Foreign Secretary William Hague, who said that London 'reserves the right to recognize a Palestinian state bilaterally at the moment of our choosing and when it can best help bring about peace.' On Oct. 13, 2014, a debate took place in the House of Commons with a votable motion: 'That this House believes that the government should recognize the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel.' The result of the vote was 274 to 12, a majority of 262 in favor of recognition. This was not binding on the government of the time but was a clear signal of parliamentary opinion. The low number of opponents to the motion indicated that few politicians were willing to oppose it in public. Significantly, this motion was backed by the leader of the Labour Party at the time, Ed Miliband. He said that recognition was 'right, just, fair and in line with the values' of his party. This tied Labour to supporting recognition. Contrary to widespread belief, it was not his pro-Palestinian successor, Jeremy Corbyn, who first made this move. Keir Starmer inherited this stance when he became Labour leader after the election defeat in 2019. But he made a significant change in Labour's position prior to the 2024 election. The manifesto committed the party to recognizing a Palestinian state, but only as part of a peace process. It stated: 'We are committed to recognizing a Palestinian state as a contribution to a renewed peace process which results in a two-state solution with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.' The lack of clarity was deliberate. The decision on timing would be in the hands of the prime minister. As Israel's genocide has progressed, pressure has grown on European governments, including the UK, to get tough with Tel Aviv. Chris Doyle Debate endured as to whether these positions meant that Israel had veto power. Linking recognition to the state of a peace process, when the official Israel government policy was not to enter into negotiations, meant this was, in effect, exactly the case. Everything changed after Oct. 7, 2023. As Israel's genocide has progressed, pressure has grown on European governments, including the UK, to get tough with Tel Aviv. This has included a drive to recognize Palestine. In May 2024, Ireland, Norway and Spain recognized Palestine. Israel withdrew its ambassadors from those states. Larger European states such as the UK rejected the opportunity to join this move. This brings us to the present. Faced with Macron's announcement that France will recognize a Palestinian state in September, the focus returns to Starmer. He is facing considerable pressure to make the move immediately. Cabinet ministers are reported to have lobbied Starmer on recognition. They include Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper. Foreign Secretary David Lammy is also likely to have been backing this move. Now, 221 members of Parliament from nine parties have written to Starmer expressing their support for such a move. More than 130 of these are his own Labour MPs. Others are backing this letter even now. London Mayor Sadiq Khan announced his support, as did the leader of Labour in Scotland, Anas Sarwar. The Financial Times quoted a senior Labour official as stating: 'The block on this is Keir himself as well as his senior advisers. They want to stay close to the US.' Public opinion is more supportive of recognition than opposed. Recent polls indicate a large number of 'don't knows' but, in a June survey, 64 percent of Labour voters said they believe that the UK should recognize Palestine. Only 2 percent of these voters opposed any recognition. This highlights that Starmer would have the backing of the base of his political party if he were to go ahead. What is holding Starmer back? The obvious answer is the US. Starmer is desperately keen to stay on constructive terms with American President Donald Trump. He will pick his battles with him — and it is unlikely one will be over the recognition of Palestine. There is also the issue of the hangover of the Corbyn era, when the Labour Party was swamped by accusations of antisemitism and lost considerable support within the British Jewish community. Starmer and his circle do not wish to relive that experience. Some argue that it is also Starmer's strongly held personal belief. Two arguments seem to hold sway in 10 Downing Street. Firstly, that recognition would not bring peace any closer. The second is the Israeli line that this rewards Hamas and its atrocities. The counterargument is that, far from rewarding Hamas, it is the Palestinian national movement that would be boosted. Is Starmer's position reversible? He has made U-turns on significant domestic policy, so it is possible. One argument is that if Starmer does not do this jointly with France, then in what circumstances would he do it? France would offer diplomatic cover and encourage other states to do the same. On the other hand, Starmer is in many ways already treating Palestine as a state in all but name. Back in May, he met with PA Prime Minister Mohammed Mustafa in Downing Street with both flags on display as if Mustafa was head of a state government. Would UK recognition even matter? Israel seems to think so, as does the US. This explains their forthright condemnation of any state that recognizes Palestine. Supporters of the move believe that this matters too. It would mean official recognition — decades too late perhaps — that Palestinians do have a right to self-determination, that they have national rights and that, just like Israelis, they have a right to a state of their own. Acquiring statehood would also have legal benefits for Palestinians. Any UK recognition would be largely symbolic. However, if the UK were to recognize Palestine, it would be recognizing a state under occupation. That matters because it demonstrates that this 58-year-old Israeli occupation has to end — and the failure to do so must have consequences.
