The Israel–Hamas war, triggered by Hamas’s attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023, and the subsequent Israeli military response in Gaza, has deepened the moral divide between Jewish and Muslim communities. The war, which has claimed many Israeli and Gazan lives, has intensified political tensions, media narratives, and religious rhetoric, making dialogue increasingly fragile. While the traditional principles and formats of interfaith dialogue remain useful, there is a need for renewal. This paper argues that interfaith engagement must evolve to embrace ideological and sociopolitical diversity while fostering spaces that accept diverse and conflicting political stances. Addressing the moral scrutiny each community applies to the other is essential for rebuilding trust. Sustainable engagement of Jewish–Muslim dialogue requires an honest admission of the deep tensions that now linger in Jewish and Muslim leadership and communities in a post-October 7th world, along with recalibrated interfaith activities that move beyond symbolic gestures toward meaningful, trust-driven dialogue rooted in the lived realities of affected communities.

Introduction

Jewish–Muslim interfaith dialogue is not a new phenomenon. Historically, Jewish–Muslim relations have been characterized by periods of intellectual, cultural, and social exchange, as well as times of conflict and division. Since the advent of Islam, Jews and Muslims have coexisted across various regions, contributing to shared heritage and traditions. However, fault lines have also emerged, shaped by theological divergences and political upheavals.

In the modern era, the emotionally charged Israeli–Palestinian conflict has profoundly impacted Jewish–Muslim relations, particularly since the Holocaust, the rise of the Zionist movement, the subsequent creation of the State of Israel, and the emergence of Palestinian nationalism. The development of Zionism as a political movement advocating for Jewish self-determination led to increased tensions with Arab populations, culminating in deep political and territorial disputes.^[1] These historical and geopolitical developments have shaped Jewish–Muslim relations in the diaspora, where discussions of identity, belonging, and religious affiliation are often inseparable from Middle Eastern geopolitics. As a result, interfaith engagement is conditioned upon political disclaimers, disassociation, or apologies rather than fostering community-based exchanges, people-to-people relations, and deeper interreligious and intercultural understanding.

At the same time, Jewish–Muslim dialogue remains a much more recent and fragile phenomenon compared to Jewish–Christian dialogue.^[2] The latter developed in response to centuries of theological contention, persecution, and entrenched antisemitism—particularly from the 10th century onward—necessitating sustained efforts at reconciliation over time. In contrast, Jewish–Muslim relations were historically marked by long periods of coexistence and intellectual, cultural, and social exchange across various geographies, particularly during the Islamic Golden Age in regions like Andalusia and the Ottoman Empire. As such, the urgency for structured Jewish–Muslim engagement did not arise in the same way. It is largely in the 20th century, amid the rise of political Zionism, the creation of the State of Israel, and the Arab–Israeli conflict, that Jewish–Muslim interfaith dialogue began to take shape as a distinct and necessary field. While it lacks the institutional history and theological frameworks of Jewish–Christian dialogue, interfaith initiatives within diaspora communities have steadily grown, seeking to nurture long-lasting friendships and address tensions linked to the evolving geopolitical landscape.

These dialogues occur across diverse Jewish and Muslim communities, encompassing Jewish people of different ethnic and national identities as well as non-Arab Muslims from various parts of the world. However, Jewish–Muslim interfaith dialogue remains in a nascent stage. It is often highly performative, focused on optics, and emphasizes symbolic coexistence rather than deep, transformative engagement. This performativity creates a visual narrative of Jewish–Muslim solidarity, yet interfaith relations remain vulnerable to geopolitical crises, community divisions, media narratives, and external pressures.

It is within this context that Jewish–Muslim dialogue has struggled in the post-October 7 world amid the ongoing Israel–Hamas war. The war has intensified political and communal divisions, making it increasingly difficult for Jewish and Muslim participants to engage without being perceived as taking a political stance or betraying community loyalties. In this climate, the fragility of Jewish–Muslim dialogue is further exposed, raising urgent questions about its sustainability and future trajectory.

This paper examines the strain placed on Jewish–Muslim interfaith dialogue following the events of October 7, 2023, identifying the core problem as a deepening moral divide between the two communities. Conflicting media narratives, ideological echo chambers, and the use of religious rhetoric in political discourse reinforce this divide. The war has intensified preexisting tensions, making it increasingly difficult for Jewish and Muslim communities to engage in dialogue without the weight of political disclaimers, disassociation, or moral scrutiny. As a result, Jewish–Muslim dialogue can no longer continue as it has in the past; it must now confront the lived realities of communities that have endured more than a year of the Israel–Hamas war.

This paper attempts a broad-stroke analysis of the global impact on Jewish–Muslim relations, acknowledging the generalizations involved. The analysis is informed by my engagement with Jewish and Muslim communities from Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, India, Israel, Palestine, and with individuals from Jordan, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. While I have attempted to present a range of diverse examples to reflect different perspectives, these are not intended to be comprehensive or representative of all contexts. I am aware of and experienced with exceptions across different communities; however, these specific cases are not the focus of this study. Instead, the paper seeks to provide a foundational understanding of the challenges facing interfaith dialogue in a post-October 7 world, particularly the points of division and contention, and the urgent need to rethink its approach. It directs attention toward preliminary considerations that religious leaders, peacebuilders, and interfaith dialogue practitioners must reflect upon as they navigate this new landscape.

Impact of the Israel–Hamas War: The Moral Divide Between Jewish and Muslim Diaspora Communities

While Jewish and Muslim communities are familiar with the tensions that arise whenever the Israel–Palestine conflict escalates, the scale of Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, and the Israeli government’s military response in Gaza were unprecedented. The intensity of the war immediately strained interfaith relations and heightened prejudice, with mutual moral scrutiny creating a deep rift that has made meaningful dialogue nearly impossible.

From the first day of the war, many Jewish people questioned why their Muslim friends did not openly condemn Hamas. While they expected universal condemnation of the attack, the perceived silence of Muslim communities was unsettling. This concern stems from the impression that Hamas’s violent extremism is framed as an Islamic cause—particularly given that Hamas had code-named the attack “Operation Al-Aqsa Flood”—and, therefore, something Muslims worldwide would relate to or sympathize with. Given the brutality of the October 7 attacks—including the killing of civilians, hostage-taking, and acts of terror against families, women, and children—many Jewish individuals felt a moral expectation that these atrocities should be explicitly denounced. When such condemnations did not come as they had hoped, Jewish communities felt betrayed, interpreting the silence or hesitancy as justification, indifference, or tacit approval of Hamas’s actions. This frustration has been mirrored in international diplomatic settings, where some governments, such as the United Kingdom, have expressed disappointment over the lack of unequivocal condemnation of Hamas’s actions—arguing that doing so should not be seen as controversial.^[3]

There is also a widespread perception that Muslims prioritize the Palestinian cause over other crises that have affected larger number of Muslims, such as conflicts in Yemen, Sudan, or Syria. For instance, protesters in Indonesia and Malaysia gathered in large numbers to express support for Palestine and protest the looming Israeli ground offensive against Gaza—mobilizations not seen in other humanitarian crises involving Muslim populations.^[4]

The perception that the Muslim world has remained silent on the atrocities of October 7 is largely inaccurate. While large-scale mobilization in support of Palestine has dominated public imagery, Muslim countries and leaders have issued explicit condemnations of the attacks.^[5] The Global Imams Council, for example, released a statement in 2024 condemning in the strongest possible terms the barbaric actions of Hamas, including the execution of hostages. In 2023, the Mufti of Singapore, Dr. Nazirudin Mohd Nasir, sent a letter of condolence to the Chief Rabbi of Singapore, expressing grief over the violence and solidarity with the Jewish community. In response, Chief Rabbi Mordechai Abergel expressed that he was encouraged by the Mufti’s gesture.^[6] In Gaza, a respected Islamic scholar issued a legal ruling (fatwa) explicitly denouncing the October 7 attack by Hamas on Israel. I am also aware, through my dialogues in Singapore and the United Arab Emirates, of Muslim participants in interfaith spaces who personally reached out to their Jewish counterparts to condemn the attacks and express solidarity in the aftermath of October 7.

Yet, some of these voices face resistance within their own communities. In one conversation, the author observed how Imam Mohammad Tawhidi of the Global Imams Council was dismissed by some Muslims as being a “sell-out,” reflecting how certain condemnations are viewed with suspicion or as compromising solidarity with the Palestinian cause. I have also faced online criticism for interviews and public statements in which I have expressed my understanding of Jewish and Israeli communities in the aftermath of October 7. At the same time, my views supporting Palestinian dignity and statehood, opposing war, and calling for international law and diplomacy have mostly gone unnoticed or unacknowledged.

Conversely, many Muslims viewed the Israeli military’s response—including the destruction of homes, hospitals, and safe zones with high Palestinian civilian casualties—as equally indefensible. Just as Jewish communities were frustrated by the lack of condemnation of Hamas’s violence, Muslims were similarly disillusioned by Jewish individuals and institutions not explicitly criticizing the Israeli government’s actions, which have been alleged as war crimes under international law. For Muslims, the lack of or weak Jewish outcry against Israel’s actions, including carpet bombing, mass displacement, and the loss of thousands of innocent lives, felt like moral inconsistency—an implicit acceptance of Palestinian suffering as collateral damage.

While organizations such as Jewish Voice for Peace and Breaking the Silence—including former Israeli soldiers—have been consistently critical of the Israeli government, I have observed in a dialogue with a diaspora Jew a sentiment that reflects broader discomfort within parts of the Jewish community: “They are not Jewish and do not speak for us.” This reaction reflects widespread objections to these groups among Jews in various parts of the world who, in the wake of October 7, perceive existential threats not only to Israel but also to Jewish safety globally. For these individuals, such public criticism is often seen as disloyal or dangerously dismissive of their fear and grief.

These initial moral divides were only the beginning. They gave rise to further questions, as differing reactions to subsequent tragedies deepened the rift further. The contrasting responses to the deaths of innocent people in Rafah, Majdal Shams, Lebanon, and among Gazan families, as well as the killing of hostages, only reinforce how each community generally saw the conflict through a fundamentally different moral lens.

Based on my own discussions with Jewish and Muslim communities, these tensions have made dialogue especially challenging. Some participants do not appreciate any comparison between the Israeli government and a non-state armed group engaging in acts of terror. In contrast, others insist that discussions cannot overlook the power imbalance between an occupying state and an oppressed population. These contrasting perspectives make it difficult to find common ground, as the very framing of the war becomes a point of contention.

Mutual moral scrutiny has led to judgments of each other’s ethical compass, where both communities perceive the other’s responses—or lack thereof—as proof of selective morality. This deepening moral divide has significantly eroded trust and deterred interfaith dialogue. Moreover, there has been little guidance on how to navigate these deeply sensitive conversations, leaving individuals and communities to grapple with the complexities of moral and political tensions on their own. As a result, communities have drifted further apart, making reconciliation increasingly difficult.

Conflicting Media Narratives and Binary Echo Chambers

Media narratives and the echo chambers they create have exacerbated the moral divide between Jewish and Muslim communities. Information about the war is filtered through community identity, loyalty, social pressure to conform, historical traumas, political perspectives, and ideological biases. These factors shape how each side interprets events, reinforcing binary narratives that demand absolute alignment—where supporting one side is often perceived as rejecting the other. As a result, conflicting media coverage has deepened political divisions and made mutual empathy increasingly tricky.

From the outset of the war, the reporting of Hamas’s attack and Israel’s response revealed a sharp divide in how each community engages with media narratives. One of the earliest controversies surrounded Israel’s claims that Hamas committed crimes against women and children. A Reuters report in October 2023 described how Israel had shown US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and NATO defense ministers graphic images of dead children and civilians. Blinken confirmed seeing photos and videos of a baby riddled with bullets, soldiers beheaded, and young people burned alive.^[7] In December 2023, a BBC report stated that it had seen and heard evidence of rape, sexual violence, and the mutilation of women during the October 7 Hamas attacks.^[8]

However, Arab and Muslim media presented a different perspective. Qatari news outlet Al-Jazeera reported that the White House later retracted President Joe Biden’s claim that he had seen pictures of beheaded children.^[9] Middle East Eye cited Israeli journalist Oren Ziv, who stated there was no evidence to support claims that Hamas had beheaded babies.^[10] Al Jazeera’s senior political analyst, Marwan Bishara, acknowledged that Hamas had violated international law in its October 7 attack on Israeli civilians, calling it a terrorist act; however, he rejected claims that Hamas had beheaded children or committed rape.^[11] Meanwhile, a January 2024 Guardian report confirmed that atrocities by Hamas had been well-documented, citing police testimonies, witness interviews, and video footage that corroborated at least six cases of sexual assault alongside other reported crimes.^[12] This fragmented and inconsistent media coverage demonstrates how different sources shape public perceptions of the killings, deaths, and attacks on civilians.

Similarly, disputes over the civilian death toll in Gaza illustrate how media narratives contribute to entrenched divisions. The Israeli news site i24 cited a study by the Henry Jackson Society, which argued that casualty numbers from Gaza were inflated and that figures provided by Hamas-controlled health authorities were unreliable.^[13] Meanwhile, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz contradicted this claim, stating that Gaza’s casualty figures had been verified by multiple international organizations, governments, and media outlets, with broad consensus on their credibility.^[14] A study published by The Lancet suggested that the actual Palestinian death toll could be significantly higher than reported.^[15] In contrast, a report by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy questioned the methodology used to collect the data and the distinction between combatants and non-combatants.^[16]

A review of widely read media platforms and research studies from different sources reveals that the moral divide is ultimately rooted in a fundamental question of credibility: Who is telling the truth? Social media has further inflamed this divide, with online debates devolving into disputes over competing versions of reality. Jewish and Muslim communities increasingly exist in binary echo chambers—where one either aligns with Palestinian sources and views Israeli reports as deceptive or misleading or trusts Israeli narratives while dismissing Palestinian reports as fabricated or distorted. The media they consume shapes their understanding of the war, reinforcing divisions and making it increasingly difficult to find common ground.

Religious Rhetoric and the Theological Battleground

Religious discourse has permeated digital and religious spheres, where faith leaders increasingly engage in online debates, using religious texts and theological arguments to justify or challenge positions on the war. This trend has turned the conflict into a theological battleground, with religious and political leaders interpreting and weaponizing scripture in public arenas. For instance, Shaykh Dr. Yasir Qadhi, an American Muslim scholar, responded online to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, an Orthodox Jewish rabbi, critiquing the rabbi’s interpretation of the Qur’an and accusing him of misrepresenting Islamic beliefs.^[17] This highlights how scriptural contestation has become a key part of the conflict in political forums and digital platforms.

Beyond online debates, sermons and public statements have shaped religious communities’ perceptions of the war. In New York, a guest imam’s sermon calling for the destruction of Zionist Jews heightened fears among Jewish communities.^[18] Meanwhile, in St. Louis, Rabbi Jeffrey Abraham’s claim that there were no innocent civilians in Gaza divided his synagogue, with some congregants demanding an apology while others supported his stance.^[19]

These interventions have not only deepened divisions between Jews and Muslims but also fractured discourse within their respective communities. Nabila Mounib, a Moroccan politician, expressed concerns over restrictions on imams addressing the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in sermons, particularly regarding the use of religious concepts such as jihad. She publicly criticized these limitations, arguing that religious leaders should be allowed to freely discuss Palestinian struggles.^[20]

Similarly, in London, Rabbi Jonathan Wittenberg’s call for restraint in Israel’s military invasion of Rafah sparked mixed reactions, drawing support from peace advocates but criticism from hardliners.^[21] Meanwhile, Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, a British Orthodox rabbi, condemned journalist Peter Beinart’s suggestion that Purim should prompt reflection on Israel’s actions in Gaza. Mirvis viewed this framing as a misrepresentation of Jewish history and an unfair portrayal of the holiday as a symbol of vengeance.^[22] In a public statement delivered in March 2025, former Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad described Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide. He framed the violence as a moral test for the Muslim world, urging Muslim nations to collectively halt the killings and uphold Palestinian rights.^[23]

Social media has further amplified religious rhetoric, intertwining it with unrelated geopolitical struggles. Earlier this year, a widely shared post on Islamic social media platforms such as Islam Channel claimed that during a Friday sermon streamed on the YouTube channel of the Usuli Institute, UCLA Professor of Law Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl alleged that Indian Hindu nationalists are volunteering to fight alongside the Israeli army in Gaza, driven by a desire for the “joy of killing Muslims.”^[24] This extensive circulation has contributed to transposing the Israel–Hamas war onto Hindu–Muslim tensions in India, highlighting how divisive narratives escalate interfaith and intercommunal conflicts beyond their original contexts.

As debates over the war unfold across religious, political, and social spheres, the conflict is being fought not only on the battlefield but also in pulpits, social media feeds, and religious circles worldwide. The infusion of religious rhetoric has deeply influenced the discourse, reinforced ideological divides, and made interfaith engagement increasingly fraught.

Renewal of Jewish–Muslim Dialogue in Post-October 7 Context

The fractures in Jewish–Muslim relations following October 7 underscore the urgent need to bridge the deep moral divide that media narratives, echo chambers, and religious rhetoric have intensified. The moral scrutiny each community applies to the other—questioning the sincerity of condemnations, ethical consistency, and historical grievances—has challenged meaningful engagement. Addressing this divide must be the central focus of interreligious dialogue, shifting from broad symbolic gestures to targeted efforts that heal this moral rift and restore trust. Without directly confronting these tensions, any attempt at dialogue risks remaining superficial and ineffective, only to be tested by growing prejudice anchored in evolving narratives.

However, it is crucial to recognize that the fundamental principles of genuine interfaith dialogue—empathy, active listening, non-judgment, and open engagement—remain unchanged. The existing formats of interreligious dialogue are not at fault; the challenge lies in the resources, frameworks, and support structures that facilitate these dialogues. In a post-October 7 world, these must be redeveloped and adapted to address the heightened sensitivities and moral complexities now shaping Jewish–Muslim relations.

Jewish–Muslim communities must also support individuals in navigating political stances by fostering environments where people can express their views while gaining insight into the sentiments of others. Dialogue should not dictate political positions or impose moral judgments but rather guide participants in understanding the emotions, histories, and moral frameworks that shape differing perspectives. While it may not always be possible to reconcile these different truths, disagreements over political stances and reactions must not deter interfaith engagement. Instead, interfaith spaces should cultivate the ability to engage across differences without reinforcing division or moral exclusion. This begins with religious leaders and interfaith dialogue facilitators who must be better equipped to navigate the evolving landscape of interfaith engagement.

Religious leaders must take the lead in acknowledging multiple truths and reframing religious rhetoric weaponized in the conflict. They should engage in conflict transformation training, develop ethical consistency in public statements, and create theological spaces that challenge dehumanization. While there are existing examples of religious leaders engaging in this work, there is a pressing need to review these efforts in light of the unique challenges that have emerged in the post-October 7 world. Such initiatives have to operate without fears of propaganda, threats to Israel’s right to self-determination and security, or normalization that compromises Palestinian heritage, identity, and statehood. Religious leaders who can navigate these complexities will be crucial in countering divisive narratives and fostering spaces for reconciliation.

In addition to religious leadership, interfaith dialogue facilitators must adopt a nuanced, calibrated approach that brings Jewish and Muslim communities together while acknowledging the diverse experiences, emotions, and internal differences within each group. Jewish and Muslim communities are not monolithic; they encompass various perspectives, political orientations, and personal histories. Skilled facilitators must navigate this complexity carefully by engaging with Jewish and Muslim communities within their local contexts and understanding their exposure, experiences, and expectations before developing the arena for dialogue. Facilitators must balance one-to-one engagements and bilateral models, gradually building toward intergroup interactions that feel safe and familiar. By tailoring dialogue structures to the specific realities of each community, facilitators can create a foundation of trust and shared understanding, ensuring that interfaith engagement is productive and sustainable.

Conclusion: From Fractured Distance to Sustainable Dialogue

The events following October 7 have deepened polarization between Jewish and Muslim communities, exposing a moral divide reinforced by political tensions, media narratives, and religious rhetoric. While these communities are not the only ones affected by the war, it would be naïve to overlook the particular strain on their relations. Meaningful interfaith engagement cannot begin without first acknowledging these tensions and the lived realities of those directly impacted.

Genuine dialogue requires confronting difficult truths and recognizing specific grievances. This process must also account for the diversity within each community—whether Arab Muslims, Asian Muslims, or diaspora Jews from different backgrounds, including progressive and Orthodox Jews. Political disagreements should not become insurmountable barriers; interfaith spaces must facilitate difficult yet constructive conversations without reinforcing division.

To move beyond fragile coexistence, religious leaders must reframe rhetoric, engage in conflict transformation, and counter dehumanization. At the same time, interfaith facilitators must adopt a nuanced approach, creating environments that foster trust and open exchange. They must help the participants navigate critical moral questions together.

Sustainable dialogue requires localized, long-term efforts that extend beyond crisis response, cultivating deep and resilient relationships. By addressing these fractures with honesty and commitment, interfaith engagement can evolve into a transformative process capable of bridging divides and laying the groundwork for meaningful Jewish-Muslim collaboration in the future.

[1] Atif Khalil, “Jewish-Muslim Relations, Globalization, and the Judeo-Islamic Legacy,” Journal of Religion & Society 17 (2015), https://hdl.handle.net/10133/5314.

[2] Edward Kessler, “Jewish–Muslim Dialogue in Light of Jewish–Christian Relations,” Theology 114, no. 1 (2011): 23–31, https://doi.org/10.1177/0040571×10387342.

[3] UK Government, “Condemning Hamas Terrorism Should Not Be Controversial: UK at the UN General Assembly,” Gov.uk, October 27, 2023, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/condemning-hamas-terrorism-should-not-be-controversial-uk-at-the-un-general-assembly.

[4] Arlina Arshad, “Indonesians Join Peaceful Rally in Solidarity with Palestine,” Straits Times, November 5,2023, https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/indonesians-join-peaceful-rally-in-solidarity-with-palestine; Sebastian Strangio, “Malaysian PM Leads Large Pro-Palestine Rally in Kuala Lumpur,” The Diplomat, October 25, 2023, https://thediplomat.com/2023/10/malaysian-pm-leads-large-pro-palestine-rally-in-kuala-kumpur/.

[5] UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “The UAE Extends Condolences to All Victims of the Recent Crisis and Stresses the Importance of Protecting Civilian Lives,” October 8, 2023, https://www.mofa.gov.ae/en/mediahub/news/2023/10/8/8-10-2023-uae-population; BBC News, “Israel-Gaza War: The Middle Eastern Countries That Have Condemned Hamas,” October 22, 2023, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67177684.

[6] Aqil Hamzah, “S’pore Mufti and Chief Rabbi Exchange Letters, Reiterate Importance of Unity as Israel-Hamas War Rages On,” Straits Times, October 27, 2023, https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/s-pore-mufti-and-chief-rabbi-exchange-letters-reiterate-importance-of-unity-as-israel-hamas-war-rages-on.

[7] John Davison, John, Humeyra Pamuk, and Sabine Siebold, “NATO Ministers Shown Horrific Video of Hamas Attack,” Reuters, October 13, 2023, https://www.reuters.com/world/nato-ministers-shown-horrific-video-hamas-attack-2023-10-12/.

[8] Lucy Williamson, “Israel-Gaza War: Evidence of Hamas Sexual Violence on 7 October,” BBC News, December 6, 2023, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67629181.

[9] Al Jazeera, “White House Walks Back Biden’s Claim He Saw Children Beheaded by Hamas,” October 12, 2023, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/12/white-house-walks-back-bidens-claim-he-saw-children-beheaded-by-hamas.

[10] Middle East Eye, “Israeli Journalist: No Evidence Hamas Beheading Babies,” October 11, 2023, https://www.middleeasteye.net/live-update/israeli-journalist-no-evidence-hamas-beheading-babies.

[11] Al Jazeera, “Hamas Issues a Statement Rejecting Allegations That It Committed Crimes Against Women and Children,” YouTube video, October 12, 2023, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RovEtt36Kqs .

[12] “Evidence Points to Systematic Use of Rape by Hamas in 7 October Attacks,” The Guardian, January 18, 2024, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/18/evidence-points-to-systematic-use-of-rape-by-hamas-in-7-october-attacks.

[13] i24 News, “Reported Gazan Deaths Completely Unreliable: Study,” December 15, 2024, https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel-at-war/artc-reported-gazan-deaths-completely-unreliable-study.

[14] Nir Hasson, “The Death Toll in Gaza Is Bad Even Compared to the Wars in Ukraine, Iraq, and Myanmar,” Haaretz, August 14, 2024, https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/2024-08-14/ty-article-magazine/.premium/the-death-toll-in-gaza-is-bad-even-compared-to-the-wars-in-ukraine-iraq-and-myanmar/00000191-50c6-d6a2-a7dd-d1decf340000.

[15] Rasha Khatib, Martin McKee, and Salim Yusuf, “Counting the Dead in Gaza: Difficult but Essential,” The Lancet 404, no. 10449 (2024): 237–238, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01169-3.

[16] Gabriel Epstein, “Gaza Fatality Data Has Become Completely Unreliable,” Washington Institute for Near East Policy, March 26, 2024, https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/gaza-fatality-data-has-become-completely-unreliable.

[17] Yasir Qadhi, “Shaykh Dr. Yasir Qadhi’s Response to Rabbi Shmuley,” Facebook, March 11, 2024, https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1193357812150087&set=a.311681660317711.

[18] Ronny Reyes, “Pro-Hamas Imam Calls on Allah to ‘Destroy the Zionist Jews,’” New York Post, August 19, 2024, https://nypost.com/2024/08/19/us-news/pro-hamas-imam-calls-on-allah-to-destroy-the-zionist-jews/.

[19] Louis Keene, “St. Louis Rabbi’s Facebook Post Questioning Innocent Civilians in Gaza Sparks Outrage.” The Forward, February 27, 2025, https://forward.com/news/699997/st-louis-rabbi-facebook-post-innocent-civilians-gaza/.

[20] Sam Metz, “Morocco Limits Preaching About War in the Middle East That Invokes Jihad,” The Associated Press (AP), November 9, 2024, https://apnews.com/article/ccf6f7867859a5180583c00a8137265b.

[21] Jackie Hajdenberg, “UN Chief Calls for ‘a True Ceasefire,’ as Jewish Groups Express Disappointment,” Jerusalem Post, February 14, 2024,  https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/article-786838.

[22] Michelle Rosenberg, “Chief Rabbi Condemns Guardian Column on Purim as Hateful Invective,” Jewish News, March 14, 2025, https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/chief-rabbi-condemns-guardian-column-on-purim-as-hateful-invective/; Peter Beinart, “As Jews Celebrate Purim, Let Us End the Slaughter in Gaza Committed in Our Name,” The Guardian, March 11, 2024, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/11/jews-gaza-palestine-israel-purim.

[23] Mahathir Mohamad, “Message for Gaza,” Perdana Global Peace Foundation, March 21, 2025, https://perdana4peace.org/v2/message-for-gaza-by-tun-dr-mahathir-mohamad/.

[24] Islam Channel, “In a Friday Sermon Streamed Live on the YouTube Channel of the Usuli Institute Earlier This Year, UCLA Professor of Law Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl Mentioned…” Facebook, September 10, 2024, https://www.facebook.com/islamchanneluk/posts/in-a-friday-sermon-streamed-live-on-the-youtube-channel-of-the-usuli-institute-e/949052127255605/.