Right after October 7, 2023, Economist Magazine's Defense Editor Shashank Joshi posted X messages claiming that Hamas beheaded babies during the terrorist attack on Israelis. He has now deleted his posts. Instead of apologizing for joining the baseless Israeli propaganda campaign, Joshi has blamed it on "the fog of war", knowing fully well that this falsehood was used by the Israeli government to justify the Gaza genocide that has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians, most of them women and children. Here's what Joshi has now posted:  "Some of these reports have turned out to be untrue, and yes, I was wrong to be as confident in what was reported as first-hand evidence as I was, particularly given the fog of war in those initial post Oct 7th days". 

An X user Tom London dismissed Joshi's excuses as follows: . @shashj @TheEconomist

@zannymb when I heard the story that Hamas was said to have beheaded 40 babies I thought 

1. This makes no sense at all. Where is the evidence?

2. This sounds like a fabrication to justify GENOCIDE 

The Economist printing this is a journalistic crime of the gravest importance

Economist Magazine Cover Portraying Israel as Victim

Joshi's bias extends beyond the Middle East. Contrary to what most western reports, including the US Congressional report, concluded, Joshi claimed that India won a "military victory" over Pakistan in the 2025 clash that India dubbed "Operation Sindoor". He did concede, however, that Pakistan won a "diplomatic victory". 

While the Joshi excuses and his denunciations are going viral, Tucker Carlson's podcast with Zanny Minton Beddoes, Joshi's boss at the Economist, has attracted attention in social media where she is challenged to explain the meaning of "Does Israel have a right to exist?", a well-known Israeli government's talking point to justify Israel's aggression against Palestinians and other nations in the Middle East. Here's the full exchange between the two on this subject:

MINTON BEDDOES: You are critical of the government of Israel. Do you believe in Israel’s right to exist? Would you consider yourself a Zionist in that narrow definition?

CARLSON: What does that mean, a right to exist?

MINTON BEDDOES: The existence of the political state of Israel.

CARLSON: But it has a right. What does that mean?

MINTON BEDDOES: That you think it should continue in its existence as a state right now. So you do not agree with Iran, for example.

CARLSON: Let me just ask, since you asked me the question, it’s fair for me to get you to define the term so I can answer it. You’ve asked two questions. The first was, do you believe Israel is a right to exist? And the second question was, do you believe Israel should continue to go on as a nation-state? And those are very different questions. So, I often hear the phrase–

MINTON BEDDOES: Having been created as a political entity in 1948–

CARLSON: Does it have a right to exist? Is that what you’re asking?

MINTON BEDDOES: I don’t want to get hung up on the right to– should it continue to exist. That’s what, that’s how I define narrowly–

CARLSON: Because the phrase you used was devised by the Israeli government, of course. Does it have a right to exist? And so my question to you would be, what does that mean?

MINTON BEDDOES: Why don’t you answer my question? It’s a very simple question.

CARLSON: I don’t know what your question is. Are you asking, does it have the right to exists or do I want it to exist? Do I seek its destruction?

MINTON BEDDOES: Fine. Answer it that way.

CARLSON: Well, of course I don’t seek its destruction. I’ve already said, as you know, because I said it to you, I don’t want Israel to be destroyed or have to use nuclear weapons.  

Notwithstanding the Zionist propapaganda about the “right to exist” vis-à-vis Israel, it is not an international legal concept. Under international law, no state has a right to exist. On the other hand, the right of self-determination, which is the idea that all peoples have a right to determine their own fate by forming their own political entities, is a fundamental principle of international law. Israel is denying that basic right to the Palestinian people living under its military occupation. 

British historian William Dalrymple has succinctly summed up The Economist magazine's troubles in his recent X post saying:  

@TheEconomist has utterly destroyed its reputation with its deeply racist and profoundly bigoted coverage of the mass-murder of the people of Gaza. For six months we have seen issue after issue of scandalously one sided-coverage which has has made it complicit in the continued enslavement of the Palestinian people, the on-going seizure of their land, the systematic abuse of their human rights and the industrial slaughter of their innocent civilians in both Gaza and the West Bank. Shame on its senior editorial staff responsible for the travesty of inhumanity and bias.  @zannymb

The Economist magazine is widely seen by critics as a tool of western imperialism. It has faced recent denunciation for a 2023 article labeling Latin American workers "unproductive" and "useless". During the Southern India famine of 1876-78, The Economist condemned British officials who imported food to feed starving people. The publication argued that providing such aid gave Indians the impression that "it is the duty of the Government to keep them alive". 

Related Links:

Haq's Musings

South Asia Investor Review

Modi and Netanyahu: Two Sides of the Same Coin

Israel's Gaza Attack is Criminal, Not Defensive

Congressman Massie Exposes Israel Lobby's Bullying Tactics

American College Campuses Rise Up Against Israel's Genocidal War on...

Israeli Settler Colonialism

Islamophobia Driving US Policy in the Middle East and South Asia?

Israeli Scholars Offer Insights into Zionist Psyche

Total, Extended Lockdown in Indian Occupied Kashmir

What is India Hiding From the UN Human Rights Team?

Indian JNU Professor on Illegal Indian Occupation of Kashmir, Manip...

Riaz Haq Youtube Channel

PakAlumni: Pakistani Alumni Social Network