The Jerusalem Post's Journalistic Malpractice

18 Aug 2026 by Sufian M′Barki

Journalists have a responsibility to their readers and to ontological, epistemological, and ethical principles. They must engage in honest reporting of incidents that accurately portrays every party involved, the chronological order of events, and genuine violations that have occurred.

Analyzing the context of IDF soldiers using a washable marker to label Arab Jihadists who have been detained for planning a terrorist attack, I was unable to uncover any serious violations of the IDF's Purity of Arms and Ethical Code of Conduct.

Using markers on prisoners of war is standard practice. Moreover, even medical staff label victims of mass casualties with markers. Nothing about this is unusual or unethical. While IDF commanders may have apologized in front of media representatives, they have done so because marker labeling is not standard practice in similar Judea-Samaria-related IDF operations, not because of any individual wrongdoing.

The moral inversion of the situation is grotesque. The Jerusalem Post focuses entirely on the fact Arab terrorists were labeled with a washable marker as if they have had these labels permanently tattooed on them, and yet they bury the true context - counterterrorism - within several paragraphs of vague moral alignment theater as a mere footnote.

Terrorists have crossed a moral event horizon. Treating them as human beings worthy of dignity is pornographic in its audacity. It caters to the naïve illusion that no matter how demonic your actions, you can be absolved from consequences, and are capable of a romanticized "change of heart." In other words:

• The IDF has done nothing wrong.
• The commanders had nothing to apologize for.
• The Jerusalem Post has been engaging in journalistic malpractice regularly.

Weasel Terminology as a Manipulation Tactic

You will notice that The Jerusalem Post's writers are very careful in how they frame their narrative in order to comply with Israeli editorial laws superficially.

Analyzing the Claims

"The IDF has come under scrutiny for its actions in Kusra, near Nablus. (...) The military will present a plan to transfer West Bank civilian enforcement to the police. Critics say the plan violates international law."

The Jerusalem Post does not clarify who has performed said scrutiny, who the critics are, and for what reason they believe international law is being violated. In reality, the IDF is under constant scrutiny - because the definition of "scrutiny" is a focused, detailed inspection of something. Antizionists constantly scrutinize the IDF. That does not make any of their spiel morally nor logically sound.

Deliberately omitting the parties exercising said scrutiny is called Using Weasel Words. It is done to purposefully smuggle a specific conclusion into the reader's mind, with the intent to easily reject criticism by employing a rhetorical trap called Plausible Deniability: "Well, we simply reported what is being said; we never said we agree with the claim!"

That is not honest reporting. When bringing up external parties "scrutinizing the IDF," these parties must be clearly defined:

1. Who are the critics?
2. Which specific article, treaty, or statute is alleged to be violated?
3. What is the exact legal text, and does the action meet the statutory definition of a violation?

Without these crucial details, the claim is meaningless performative hedging coming from a news outlet that refuses to take a concrete stand in the name of vague pop culture research "values," and its abstract, pseudo-intellectual definition of "unbiased reporting."

Floating, anonymous "critics" adore invoking "International Law" as an aesthetic trinket because it sounds very serious. It's a pure dopamine hit for all minds that are obsessed with the aesthetic of intellectual rigor, so employing the big words as decoration for an already outrageous article is even more damning.

Sovereignty isn't promised to everyone without any regard for what they do. If a governing body fails to protect its own people - or even worse, terrorizes them, and poses a threat to other states in the region, or even the entire world - then under this same "International Law," this body voids its sovereignty.

The Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad - they are a foreign invader in Judea-Samaria and in Azzah. They are illegally occupying indigenous Israeli territories which was only ever "granted" as a ransom. Pointing a gun at someone's forehead to steal a chunk of their land is not an act of charity, nor is it a nice, sanitized, and safe "negotiation." Likewise, signing some "peace treaties" with Jordan and Egypt, because they would otherwise not cease their mindless terrorism, is not diplomacy.

Even worse, the PA directly and unapologetically fund antisemitic terrorism via their Pay-for-Slay framework. In other words, the governing body illegally occupying these territories has not only violated Israel's sovereignty, but has clearly presented a complete lack of desire to prevent antisemitic terrorism. The PA, therefore, forfeit any right to "law enforcement" within Israel's indigenous territories.

Furthermore, transferring law enforcement tasks to the Israeli police instead of constantly engaging the Israeli military is significantly more practical for the safety of Israeli citizens.

An analogical equivalent is evaluating which team to send for a forest fire. Instead of engaging the military, the fire department has better equipment, and far shorter permission acquirement delays.

If anything, these disembodied "critics" are inadvertently making the disastrous implication that it is far better for Israelis, as well as Judea-Samarian Jews, for the IDF to deal with slower mission approval regulations and the logistical difficulty of deploying a military unit from an already overwhelmed army, instead of sending Israeli police officers faster.

Sufian M'Barki

serious politics analysis israel antisemitism journalism westerncult logic