How Enlightenment Hostility Toward Islam Informs Modern Political Rhetoric

How Enlightenment Hostility Toward Islam Informs Modern Political Rhetoric

    Sunday, September 13, 2026   No comments

 The Genealogy of a Trope

When a prominent political figure, such as the Speaker of the House, asserts that "Iranians lie all the time because it is part of the religion," the statement is often dismissed by defenders as a mere rhetorical gaffe or an isolated expression of geopolitical frustration. However, to treat it as such is to ignore its deep historical resonance. This assertion is neither new nor fringe. Rather, it is the latest iteration of a deeply entrenched intellectual tradition that systematically constructs Muslims as inherently deceitful, morally alien, and intellectually stagnant. The genealogy of this rhetoric traces directly back to the European Enlightenment, an era that, despite its professed commitment to universal reason, actively codified hostility toward Islam into the foundations of modern Western philosophy.

The Precursor: Framing the "Impostor"

Before the high Enlightenment, the groundwork for this discourse was laid by figures like the English churchman Humphrey Prideaux (1648–1724). His 1697 biography, The True Nature of Imposture Fully Displayed in the Life of Mahomet, was highly influential in shaping subsequent European thought. Prideaux argued that Islam was not a legitimate revelation, but a divine punishment sent by God via a "deceitful, power-hungry warlord" to penalize Eastern Christians for their spiritual laziness. This established the foundational trope of the Muslim prophet as an intentional fraud, providing a template for Enlightenment thinkers to secularize and systematize this hostility under the guise of rational inquiry.

The Semantic Hollowing of Islamic Virtue

As the Enlightenment progressed, philosophers moved beyond mere theological dismissal to attack the very moral and political capacity of Islamic societies. Montesquieu, in his seminal 1748 work The Spirit of the Laws, systematized the idea that the Western concept of "honor" could not fundamentally exist or mean the same thing within Islamic societies. He categorized these societies under the umbrella of "political despotism," arguing that fear, rather than honor or virtue, was their governing principle.

David Hume took this moral alienation a step further, targeting the semantic validity of Islamic ethics. In his 1757 essay "Of the Standard of Taste," Hume argued that when Muslims spoke of virtues like justice, equity, and charity, they did not mean them in the way "civilized" people did. Specifically targeting the Quran (which he referred to as "the Alcoran") and the Prophet Muhammad, Hume wrote:

"The admirers and followers of the Alcoran insist on the excellent moral precepts interspersed through that wild and absurd performance. But it is to be supposed, that the Arabic words, which correspond to the English, equity, justice, temperance, meekness, charity, were such as, from the constant use of that tongue, must always be taken in a good sense... But would we know, whether the pretended prophet had really attained a just sentiment of morals? Let us attend to his narration."

For Hume, Islamic moral language was a hollow mimicry, devoid of the genuine ethical substance possessed by the "civilized" West.

The Assault on Reason and Character

This rhetorical strategy was amplified by the leading intellectual lights of the era. Denis Diderot (1713–1784), editor-in-chief of the Encyclopédie, labeled Muhammad as "the greatest enemy that human reason has ever known," accusing him of being a false prophet who manipulated Abrahamic traditions to rule through ignorance.  Diderot dismissed the Quran as an "absurd, obscure, and dishonest book," arguing that the absolute obedience it demanded fundamentally blinded its followers to progress, science, and rationality.

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) further racialized and philosophically dismissed the Muslim capacity for reason. In his anthropological and historical writings, Kant asserted that Muslims (specifically pointing to Arabs and Turks) lacked respect for the boundaries of knowledge, describing them as inherently too passionate, sensual, and irrational to develop true "autonomous thought." He characterized Islam as a "sublime" but ultimately counterfeit religion, driven by a false sense of superiority and the imagination of Muhammad rather than pure, rational moral duty.

The Trope of the Fanatic and Historical Stagnation

The literary and historical canon of the era cemented these ideas into enduring cultural tropes. Voltaire’s (1694–1778) 1741 play, Le Fanatisme, ou Mahomet le Prophète (Fanaticism, or Mahomet the Prophet), depicted Muhammad as a deceitful, ruthless, and self-serving hypocrite who used religious fervor to manipulate followers, assassinate political rivals, and satisfy personal lusts. While Voltaire later softened his stance in his 1756 Essai sur les mœurs—praising Islamic monotheism and legal tolerance as a vehicle to criticize Christianity—his initial framing had already solidified the trope of the Prophet as an "impostor" in the Western literary imagination.

Finally, G.W.F. Hegel (1770–1831) systematized these cultural hierarchies into a grand historical narrative. In his Lectures on the Philosophy of History, Hegel argued that Islam was characterized by a "fanaticism" of abstract oneness.  He claimed that because Islam envisions God as an absolute, undifferentiated unity, it is inherently unstable and destructive. Hegel famously asserted that after its initial explosive expansion, the Islamic world quickly burned itself out and sank into "intellectual torpor" and stagnation, rendering it entirely irrelevant to the forward march of human "Spirit" and civilization.

The Modern Echo of an Ancient Prejudice: US Offoicials Make Elightened Ignorance into State Declarations

In a stunning display of Islamophobic rhetoric, House Speaker Mike Johnson recently claimed that lying is "part of their religion" for some Iranians, a statement that advocacy groups like CAIR immediately condemned as "dangerous and bigoted". This religious bigotry emerges conveniently as the illegal war on Iran has drained an estimated $113.3 billion from American coffers in just 108 days—costs amounting to at least $1,200 per household. While families struggle with soaring gas prices and food costs directly tied to military escalation, the Speaker's broad-brush demonization of Muslims serves a calculated purpose: deflecting accountability for policies that have devastated working-class Americans. By framing an entire faith tradition as inherently deceitful, Johnson not only perpetuates the kind of anti-Muslim rhetoric that is finding "a growing foothold in GOP messaging", but also distracts from the very real deception being perpetrated on the American people—the lie that endless war serves their interests when it has only served to enrich the military-industrial complex at their expense.

When modern political leaders claim that deception is "part of the religion" of Iranians or Muslims broadly, they are not engaging in original geopolitical analysis. They are unknowingly—or perhaps knowingly—reciting a script written by Prideaux, Hume, Diderot, Kant, and Hegel.

Recognizing this genealogy is not an exercise in mere academic pedantry; it is a crucial tool for deconstructing modern Islamophobic rhetoric. It reveals that such statements are not fringe anomalies or harmless political hyperbole. Instead, they are the contemporary echoes of a continuous, systemic tradition of epistemic violence that strips Muslims of moral and intellectual agency. To effectively challenge and dismantle this rhetoric today, we must first acknowledge and confront the Enlightenment-era foundations upon which it was built.

Media Review: How America Views Abdul El-Sayed’s Senate Victory

Media Review: How America Views Abdul El-Sayed’s Senate Victory

    Wednesday, August 05, 2026   No comments

The American political landscape has just experienced a seismic tremor. Abdul El-Sayed’s recent victory in the fiercely contested Michigan Democratic Senate primary over establishment-backed Representative Haley Stevens is being widely interpreted across the United States as a watershed moment for the progressive movement. Analysts, media outlets, and political insiders are viewing his triumph not merely as a localized upset, but as a masterclass in modern populist insurgency and a profound crisis of faith in the traditional political establishment.

Perhaps the most dominant narrative surrounding El-Sayed’s victory is its framing as a stunning repudiation of corporate lobbying and dark money in American politics. The primary quickly evolved into a high-stakes proxy fight over the influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and other corporate PACs. The financial disparity was staggering; Stevens enjoyed an overwhelming financial advantage, with allied groups outspending El-Sayed by tens of millions of dollars—with some estimates suggesting outside spending ratios ranging from 10-to-1 to over 60-to-1.

For progressives and good-government advocates across the country, El-Sayed’s success is seen as a monumental loss for the lobbying-industrial complex. By refusing to accept corporate PAC money and making his opposition to their influence a central theme of his campaign, El-Sayed transformed the primary into a national referendum on the role of money in democracy. His victory has emboldened activists who argue that voters are increasingly rejecting candidates who rely on traditional institutional and financial gatekeepers.

Commentators are also using El-Sayed’s rise to reexamine the nature of American populism. While the past decade has seen anti-establishment sentiment heavily weaponized by right-wing figures like Donald Trump, El-Sayed represents an entirely different archetype. Far from an anti-intellectual outsider, El-Sayed is a highly educated professional holding both MD and PhD degrees from top Western institutions, backed by a dedicated record of public service as a state health official.

Progressive leaders, including Senator Bernie Sanders, have highlighted this dynamic, pointing out that the billionaire class and corporate elites are panicked by a candidate who successfully merges elite educational credentials with a fiery, anti-corporate populist message. To many observers, El-Sayed proves that the American left can harness anti-establishment fatigue just as effectively as the right, provided the candidate prioritizes authenticity and a willingness to challenge powerful interests over traditional political pedigree.

Intellectuals and academics are increasingly viewing El-Sayed's win as part of a broader strategy of "hacking" the two-party system. Rather than forming third parties, the progressive vanguard is successfully utilizing the existing Democratic infrastructure to push radical change. This victory is frequently discussed in tandem with other recent insurgent successes, such as Zohran Mamdani's historic election as New York City’s first Muslim mayor. Together, these victories underscore a shifting national electorate that is willing to bypass the traditional guard in favor of candidates who refuse to play by the old rules.

However, the reaction within the broader Democratic establishment and among moderate political analysts is heavily tinged with anxiety. While the progressive base is energized, centrist strategists are deeply concerned about El-Sayed’s "electability" in the November general election against Republican Mike Rogers. Michigan remains a crucial swing state, and moderate voices worry that El-Sayed’s uncompromising progressive platform—which includes staunch support for Medicare for All and wealth taxes—may alienate independent and moderate voters.

Early polling for the general election reflects a tight and uncertain race, with some surveys showing Rogers with a slight lead, while others suggest a dead heat. Consequently, the establishment view is one of cautious pragmatism: they acknowledge the energy and grassroots power El-Sayed has tapped into, but they remain skeptical that an insurgent candidate can survive the massive scrutiny of a Republican-dominated general election in a battleground state.

Ultimately, the election of Abdul El-Sayed is seen in the USA as a defining battle for the soul of the Democratic Party. To his supporters, he is the vanguard of a new political reality where authenticity trumps money. To his detractors, he is a risky gamble in a fragile political environment. Regardless of the outcome in November against Mike Rogers, El-Sayed’s primary victory has already rewritten the rules of modern campaigning, proving that the gatekeepers of the two-party system are far more vulnerable than they appear.

  

Media Review: Trump’s Forced Smiles Conceal Deep Anxiety as Rising Star Mamdani Threatens Political Narrative

Media Review: Trump’s Forced Smiles Conceal Deep Anxiety as Rising Star Mamdani Threatens Political Narrative

    Tuesday, November 25, 2025   No comments

In an apparent display of civility, former U.S. President Donald Trump met newly elected New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani in the Oval Office on November 21, 2025—two figures who, despite having branded each other in incendiary terms, posed for cameras with practiced composure. Yet beneath the handshakes and shared jokes, British journalist Michael Day argues in The Independent, lies a far more revealing story: Trump’s calm demeanor and wide, artificial smiles mask a profound unease—an anxiety rooted not just in personal pride, but in the existential threat Mamdani represents to the Republican Party’s political narrative.

Just weeks before the meeting, Trump had dismissed Mamdani as a “100% insane communist,” while Mamdani, an unapologetic democratic socialist, had once labeled Trump a “fascist.” Their ideological chasm could hardly be wider. Yet in Washington, the two avoided direct confrontation, instead exchanging platitudes about their mutual love for New York City and pledges to support its growth. To Day, this surface-level harmony is a carefully constructed illusion—“a mask worn for the cameras”—hiding a deeper tension.

At 34, Mamdani—a Muslim of Indian-Ugandan heritage—has achieved what many deemed improbable: defeating the politically entrenched Cuomo dynasty and capturing City Hall on a platform of bold progressive reform, including rent freezes, universal public services, and aggressive wealth redistribution. For Trump, a man who prides himself on winning and venerates winners, Mamdani’s meteoric rise is not merely impressive—it is unsettling. As Day notes, Trump himself acknowledged Mamdani had waged “an incredible race against very smart people,” a rare admission of respect tinged unmistakably with apprehension.

Why the anxiety? Mamdani’s success signals a new, viable path for the American left: a charismatic, digitally savvy, grassroots-driven socialism that resonates powerfully with younger, multiracial, and working-class voters—exactly the coalition the GOP has struggled to neutralize. His campaign, built around a laser-focused message of lowering the cost of living and leveraging innovative digital outreach, mobilized a broad coalition that defied traditional political expectations. To Trump, whose political dominance has long depended on framing Democrats as elitist, out-of-touch, or extremist, Mamdani’s authenticity and electoral potency disrupt that script. He is not a caricature Trump can easily ridicule—he is a winner, and that makes him dangerous.

Compounding Trump’s unease is a week of personal and political turbulence: although he recently secured massive Saudi investments, he was forced—amid renewed scrutiny of the Epstein case—to release previously withheld documents, a development that reportedly angered and unnerved him. In this fragile moment, Day suggests, Trump could not afford to appear weakened or reactive in front of Mamdani. Instead, he defaulted to deflection and dark humor. When a journalist asked whether he minded Mamdani calling him a fascist, Trump quipped, “I’ve been called worse than fascist”—a line that drew laughter but betrayed strategic evasion.

Yet the stakes extend far beyond Trump’s ego. Day warns that Mamdani’s ascent risks triggering a crisis of identity within the Democratic Party itself. While the progressive left celebrates his victory as vindication, the party’s moderate wing grows increasingly wary of his socialist agenda—fearing a backlash in swing districts and national elections. This internal rift was starkly illustrated the day before the White House meeting, when 86 House Democrats joined Republicans in passing a resolution condemning “the terror of socialism.” To Day, this was a profound misstep: targeting Mamdani-style progressivism, he argues, while ignoring the very real threat of a second Trump term, reveals a party at odds with its own future.

Ultimately, Day concludes, the cordial photo-op between Trump and Mamdani obscures a seismic political shift. Mamdani embodies a new generational energy—one that challenges both Republican hegemony and Democratic orthodoxy. His rise signals the emergence of a new political archetype: pragmatic yet radical, local yet nationally resonant, deeply ideological yet electorally effective.

As Trump watches this young mayor assume power in America’s largest city, he does so not just as a former president—but as a seasoned political predator keenly aware that the rules of the game may be changing. And for the first time in years, it’s not Trump setting the pace.

How serious is the killing of US citizen outside US? It depends on who does the killing

How serious is the killing of US citizen outside US? It depends on who does the killing

    Friday, September 06, 2024   No comments

When US citizens are killed by Muslims, US administrations exact bloody revenge swiftly and decisively, and the media always finds the way to explicitly name the persons who killed them and emphasize their being Muslim. But not when American citizens are killed by Israeli forces. The reaction to the recent killing of a US citizen by Israeli forces in West Bank is one example in a series of many including the killing of American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh and going back all the way to the gruesome killing of Rachel Corrie.

Here is how the media reported on the killing and how some Western officials, including UN officials reacted: generally, wanting the accused to investigate themselves.

US-Turkish activist Aysenur Ezgi Eygi, 26, was shot dead by Israel in the West Bank during settlement protest.

Social media users, including Scotland’s first minister, Hamza Yousaf, have criticized the BBC for not including the perpetrators of Eygi’s death in their headline.

The pattern of shielding the killer is clear; NPR reported on Israeli troops shooting of American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh in West Bank echo's BBC's:

Eygi was participating in a protest against illegal Israeli settlement expansion in the town of Beita, south of Nablus, the Palestinian Wafa agency reported.

An activist who was with Eygi at the time told Middle East Eye that she and other volunteers from the International Solidarity Movement had been attending the weekly demonstration at Beita.

"When she was shot, she was standing there doing absolutely nothing with one other woman - it was a deliberate shot because they shot from a very, very, very far distance," said the activist, who did not want to be identified.

US officials' reaction, mostly muted

The only voice in the US to demand serious action to address Israel's killing of a US citizen was US Senator Chris Van Hollen.

On Friday Van Hollen urged Biden administration to do more to hold Israel accountable for killing of American citizens.

"The Netanyahu Government - including racist extremist like Smotrich and Ben-Gvir - has fueled settler violence in the West Bank at the same time that it has announced new illegal settlements.

"The United States cannot turn a blind eye to these actions – including the killing of American citizens," Democrat senator said in a statement.

His remarks came after Turkish-American activist Aysenur Ezgi Eygi was shot dead by Israeli forces on Friday during a protest against illegal Israeli settlements in the town of Beita in the Nablus district of the occupied West Bank.

Van Hollen said the US has not received "satisfactory responses" from the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Government about the two other Americans killed in the West Bank since Oct. 7, adding the Biden administration has "not been doing enough" to pursue justice and accountability on their behalf.

"The Biden Administration must do more to hold the Netanyahu Government accountable and use American influence to demand the prosecution of those responsible for harm against American citizens.

"If the Netanyahu Government will not pursue justice for Americans, the U.S. Department of Justice must," he added.

When UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric was asked about the killing of American citizen Aysenur Ezgi Eygi by Israeli soldiers in the occupied West Bank, he replied, "We would want to see a full investigation of the circumstances, and that people should be held accountable. And again, civilians must be protected at all times."

A long history of bias

In the case of Corrie, even after 21 years, US media, including NPR, continue to deny her justice, using headlines that says, "the death" instead of the killing, and living the name of the actor who did the killing out.

...

Update:

On September 9, US President Joe Biden appeared to embrace Israel's explanation, which claimed that IDF killing of American activist in West Bank was accidental. 

Biden described the killing of a 26-year-old American citizen in the Israeli-occupied West Bank last week as an apparent accident, echoing the Israel government's description.

Israel has claimed that Aysenur Ezgi Eygi was "hit indirectly and unintentionally by IDF fire" on Friday. 

"We're finding more detail," Biden told reporters on the South Lawn of the White House Tuesday. "Apparently, it was an accident. It ricocheted off the ground and it – (she) got hit by accident, but we're working that out now."

On this Day in History, May 19, Malcolm X, an icon for resisting injustice by “any means necessary”, was born

On this Day in History, May 19, Malcolm X, an icon for resisting injustice by “any means necessary”, was born

    Monday, May 20, 2024   No comments

On May 19 of every year, many Americans celebrate “Malcolm Day,” the anniversary of his birth, to honor one of the most prominent defenders of black rights in the United States during the civil rights movement in the 1960s. This day is not a federal holiday, although some are. American states and cities have made it a holiday, so who is Malcolm X?

Malcolm was born on May 19, 1925 as Malcolm Stuart Little, the fourth of eight children, in Omaha, Nebraska, and died on February 21, 1965, in New York. He was a prominent figure in the Nation of Islam. After his assassination, his life story spread widely and he became a hero among black youth.

After his birth in Nebraska, baby Malcolm moved with his family to Lansing, Michigan. During his early childhood, he and his family were exposed to racist abuse from the Ku Klux Klan, and they had to move frequently to avoid harm from this violent racist group.

When Malcolm was six, his father, Reverend Earl Little, a supporter of black leader Marcus Garvey, died after being hit by a streetcar, sparking speculation that he had been the victim of white murder.

The family was so poor that Malcolm's mother, Louise Little, resorted to cooking dandelion greens from the street to feed her children. After being admitted to a mental institution in 1939, Malcolm and his siblings were sent to foster homes or to live with family members.

Malcolm excelled in school, but after one of his teachers told him in eighth grade that he should become a carpenter instead of a lawyer, he lost interest and soon finished his formal education.

Malcolm moved from a foster home in Michigan to live with his half-sister, Ella, in Boston. There he became involved in petty criminal activities in his teenage years, becoming a street hustler, drug dealer, and leader of a gang of thieves in Roxbury and Harlem (in New York City).

While in prison for robbery from 1946 to 1952, he underwent a conversion that eventually led him to join the Nation of Islam. His decision to join the Nation was also influenced by discussions with his brother Reginald, who had become a member and who was imprisoned with Malcolm in the Norfolk Colony. In Massachusetts in 1948.

Malcolm quit smoking, gambling, and eating pork in 1948. In order to educate himself, he spent long hours reading books in the prison library. In accordance with Nation of Islam tradition, he replaced his surname "Little" with an "X", a custom among Nation of Islam followers who considered their family names to have originated from slave-owning whites.

In the early twentieth century, some Muslim religious leaders in the United States asserted that Islam was the natural religion of blacks, relying largely on accounts of African Muslims being kidnapped centuries ago and sold into slavery in the Americas.

The Nation of Islam, a movement and organization of black Americans, was founded in 1930 by Elijah Muhammad and is famous for its teachings that combine elements of traditional Islam with black nationalist ideas.

The Nation of Islam also combines religious ideas with those that denounce the suffering suffered by blacks at the hands of whites.

Malcolm rose so quickly through the ranks of the Nation of Islam that Elijah Muhammad, who had a special affection for Malcolm, appointed him spokesman for the group, second only to Muhammad himself. Under Malcolm's leadership, the Nation of Islam claimed half a million members.

Malcolm was an articulate public speaker and charismatic figure who expressed the pent-up anger, frustration and bitterness of African Americans during the civil rights movement from 1955 to 1965.

He delivered speeches in the streets of Harlem and spoke at major universities such as Harvard and Oxford. His penetrating wit and passionate radicalism made him a formidable critic of American society. He also criticized prevailing civil rights movement concepts, challenging Martin Luther King's views on coexistence and nonviolence.

Malcolm argued that issues of black identity, integrity, and independence for black people were more important than the civil right to sit in a restaurant or even to vote. In contrast to King's strategy of nonviolence and civil disobedience, Malcolm urged his followers to defend themselves "by any means necessary."

He also disagreed with Martin Luther King's ambition for America to be a place where blacks and whites lived together, as Malcolm did not believe in this vision and wanted a separate nation for blacks only.

...

Racial segregation ended throughout the United States thanks to the efforts of the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s, of which Malcolm

Civil rights include the right to liberty, the right to education, the adult right to vote, and the right to a fair trial.

For a long time in the United States, African Americans were denied their civil rights.

Black Americans suffered from slavery and were bought and sold for money. Their life as a slave was very difficult and difficult to imagine now. Most of them were treated horribly by their white owners and had no rights at all. Many of them were forced to change their names, sometimes to the name of their owner.

Although slavery was abolished in England in 1833, and in America in 1865, blacks were still treated fairly due to segregation laws - or rules - that separated blacks from whites.

Racial segregation in the United States meant that, by law, non-white people were kept physically separated and treated poorly compared to white people.

Things like housing, hospitals, schools, transportation, and workplaces were segregated, based on the color of a person's skin.

For example, black children were not allowed to go to the same schools as white children, blacks had to sit separately on buses, and were not allowed in whites-only areas.

Media review: CNN faces pressure from its employees because of its bias towards Israel

Media review: CNN faces pressure from its employees because of its bias towards Israel

    Monday, February 05, 2024   No comments

The Guardian newspaper said that the American CNN network is facing violent reactions from its employees over editorial policies that they say adopt the Israeli narrative, while censoring the viewpoints of Palestinians in the network’s coverage of the war on Gaza.

Journalists in CNN newsrooms in the United States and abroad say the broadcast was skewed by administration rules and a topic approval process that resulted in very partial coverage of the October 7 attack and the Israeli war in Gaza.

“Most of the news since the war began, no matter how accurate the initial reporting, has been skewed by systemic and institutional bias within the network toward Israel,” a CNN employee said, adding that CNN’s coverage of the Israeli war on Gaza amounts to journalistic malpractice.

According to accounts from six network employees in multiple newsrooms, and more than a dozen internal memos and emails obtained by The Guardian, daily news decisions are shaped by a flow of direction from CNN headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, which sets strict guidelines on coverage.

They include severe restrictions on quoting the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) and conveying Palestinian views, while Israeli government statements are taken at face value. In addition, every war story or news item coming from the Jerusalem office must be deleted.

The American network's journalists say that the tone of the coverage was set by its new editor-in-chief and CEO, Mark Thompson, as some employees are concerned about Thompson's willingness to tolerate external attempts to influence coverage, as Thompson previously served as director general of the British Broadcasting Corporation, and was accused of caving in to government pressure. In a number of positions, including calling for the dismissal of one of the network’s most prominent correspondents in Jerusalem in 2005.

In early November, David Lindsay, the network's director of news standards and practices, issued a directive banning the publication of most Hamas statements, describing them as "inflammatory speech and propaganda."

CNN sources admitted that no interviews had been conducted with Hamas and its leaders since the October 7 attack. CNN correspondent Sarah Synder faced criticism for repeating the alleged Israeli story that Hamas beheaded 40 children at the beginning of the Al-Aqsa Flood operation. The correspondent later apologized for the story.

One of the network's journalists told the Guardian that there are selected individuals who edit all reports with an institutional pro-Israel bias, and often use language and phrases to absolve the Israeli army of responsibility for its crimes in Gaza, and downplay the number of Palestinian deaths and Israeli attacks.

While other employees said that some journalists with experience covering war and news in the region are avoiding assignments related to Israel, as they believe that they will not be free to tell the whole story.

One employee said there is a lot of internal conflict and opposition within the network, and some employees are looking to leave.