In the Service of Genocide and War Crimes—Switzerland’s “Weltwoche” Has Lost Its Way

Introduction

Since October 2023, "Die Weltwoche* has been taking a very strange course. The completely intellectually lazy portrayal of the events surrounding October 7, 2023, has resulted in Weltwoche, under the leadership of its owner, publisher, and editor-in-chief Roger Köppel, pursuing an increasingly uncritical pro-Israel stance. The narrative disseminated by Roger Köppel is riddled with “facts” that are none. Added to this are falsehoods and an underlying tenor that seems to derive from Israel's Zionist script, readily adopted by a newspaper that claims to observe world events independently. The suspicion arises that Roger Köppel has degenerated into a puppet of Israeli agents of influence—the evidence for such entanglement is converging.

In this article, we analyze two pieces published by Roger Köppel on April 10 and 27, 2026, by comparing the author’s claims with verifiable facts. The results are shocking. Köppel exploits the history of the Jewish people to justify Israel’s Zionist policies in a manner that is historically and journalistically questionable.

Analysis

Genocide

On April 27, 2026, Köppel published the article “Sorry, Tucker. Sorry, Professor Mearsheimer. I agree with you on Russia. But not on Israel.” The title promises a serious and well-founded analysis of the arguments put forward by these two American titans: Professor Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago is, alongside Professor Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University in New York, a major heavyweight in American geopolitics. Tucker Carlson is the most prominent and courageous journalist in the United States.

Köppel’s analysis of these leading American intellectuals amounts to nothing more than describing Tucker Carlson as “courageous” and Professor Mearsheimer as ”smart. None of their arguments are seriously discussed. Why should they be? Köppel is more comfortable spreading pro-Israel propaganda and stays in intellectual waters that are shallow.

The ever-cheerful Swiss “feel-good” journalist denies that genocide is taking place in Gaza. Based on his own unique interpretation—offered without further explanation—he explicitly exonerates Israel of genocide. This is nothing new at "Weltwoche". As early as December 2024, Köppel demanded: “Stop calling everything genocide.”

Köppel pays no heed to the definition of genocide under Article II of the Convention of December 9, 1948, on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. He glosses over the rulings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding genocide and the international arrest warrant against Netanyahu issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC). As early as last summer, the author drew malicious comparisons between Netanyahu and Putin in order to whitewash the former.

“It wasn’t Israel; it was Hamas that went too far with the massacre of October 7, 2023: 1,200 people murdered, raped, and abducted—including babies.” Köppel’s account of the events of October 7 finds no support even in the Israeli press, “Haaretz,” or the “New York Times”: According to Haaretz, there were 900 deaths, 508 of them Israeli soldiers. There is no evidence of rapes, no evidence of the killing or beheading of babies, as claimed by official Israel. More than half of the victims were killed by Israeli fire. “Haaretz” and “The Cradle” refer here to the application of the so-called “Hannibal Directive.” This obligates the Israeli military to prevent the taking of Israeli hostages, even by killing the hostages. “Haaretz” also found the following: The number of civilians killed by Hamas was less than 100. The fact that most of those shot were armed settlers once again exposes the aforementioned Western “reporting” for what it is: incitement in the name of an apparently predefined political goal, which is uncritically adopted by “Weltwoche.”

The Israelis had known about the planning of the Hamas operation on October 7, 2023, long before it took place. This was due, in part, to a tip from Egyptian intelligence. The Israeli leadership deliberately did not prevent this operation. What we did not know at the time is that Tel Aviv exploited this Hamas operation to justify the genocide that followed in Gaza and to officially implement the “Greater Israel” project—as a kick-off, so to speak. A fact that Köppel fails to mention.

Hamas’s operation was of a military nature: taking hostages in order to exchange them for the thousands of Palestinians (many of them children) being held in Israeli prisons without legal grounds. It should be noted that armed resistance against an occupying regime is supported by international law.

According to the UN, since October 7, 2023, Israeli forces have killed 72,619 Palestinians, injured 172,484, and killed 391 UN staff members; these are the official figures—the actual number of victims buried under the rubble is likely to be many times higher.

Israel

Köppel claims that the Jews did not immigrate from Europe, but are a people with a connection to Palestine dating back thousands of years. He argues that this renders the colonialism argument null and void.

Köppel uncritically and shamelessly adopts this dishonest line of reasoning.

This is an absurd claim, since it would mean that any Italian, as a descendant of Rome, could use the same reasoning to annex land and houses in Zurich, the former Roman city of “Turicum.” Most of Israel’s Jewish residents immigrated from Europe. In the wake of Hitler’s dictatorship and World War II, Israel was settled primarily by Holocaust refugees, initially from Eastern Europe. Later, many Jews came from the former Soviet Union, so that today there are 2 million people of Russian—or rather Soviet—origin living in Israel alone. The “people of Israel” has therefore not historically grown through its own efforts and thus has nothing to do with the people of Israel of the Old Testament.

Incidentally, all of Israel’s leading politicians changed their names to conceal their European origins, including Netanyahu, whose real name is “Mileikowski.” This, too, serves to convey an impression that has no basis in fact.

Köppel goes on to claim that “the State of Israel was not created by imperial decree, but by a UN resolution.” He is referring to UN Resolution 181 of November 29, 1947 (text here). This resolution provided for a two-state solution. Ben-Gurion preempted this solution, which was conducive to peace among nations, by proclaiming the State of Israel on May 14, 1948, thereby provoking a war that the Arab neighbors had announced they would wage in the event of a unilateral declaration of an Israeli state.

Köppel misleads his readers, as they assume that he is familiar with the resolution’s content and is presenting it accurately. The prevention of the establishment of the State of Palestine led to the 1948 war, during which the Israelis expelled or murdered 850,000 Palestinians through ethnic cleansing in order to seize their first piece of land. For the Palestinians, these events—known as the “Nakba” (Arabic for catastrophe or disaster)—went down in history as a national trauma, just as the Holocaust did in Jewish history.

Köppel thus distorts the entire history of Palestine in order to justify, downplay, and support the crimes that the Israelis have deliberately committed since the very first day of the State of Israel’s existence.

Democracy

The main argument behind Köppel's stance on Israel is his portrayal of Israel as the only democracy in the region. In doing so, he demonstrates a remarkable ignorance of the realities on the ground in Israel.

Democracy consists of the following elements: free elections, recognition of fundamental and human rights as defined by the UN, separation of powers, the rule of law, and a free press. Israel does not meet the criteria for a democracy, as fundamental and human rights include equality before the law, regardless of religion, for example. However, different rules and legal standards apply to Jews and non-Jews in Israel—thereby manifesting a system of apartheid. Amnesty International noted this in February 2022. The rule of law, which requires that laws apply equally to all, is also not upheld, as the laws distinguish between Jews and non-Jews; for example, in the West Bank, military law applies to non-Jews and civil law to Jews. The most recent example of racism and apartheid is the Knesset’s introduction of the death penalty for terrorism exclusively for Palestinians just a few days ago.

There is documented evidence of torture and rape of Palestinian prisoners; the latter, incredibly, is also carried out by specially trained dogs. This abuse, which disregards all civilized norms, thus affects not only humans; animals, too, are forced to engage in behavior toward humans that defies nature, all in the name of Zionism. Reality in “democratic Israel.” If a Palestinian has the misfortune of living in the West Bank or Gaza, he is degraded as a human being in a manner consistent with the provisions of the General Plan East.

“What Speaks in Favor of Greater Israel?” asks Köppel

In his April 10, 2026, article titled “Greater Israel: Not the Worst Idea,” Köppel looks to the future and completely loses touch with legal and moral standards. He advocates for a “struggle for living space” that is in no way dissimilar to Adolf Hitler’s visions and practices during the war against the Soviet Union. Köppel writes with confidence:

“I believe—in fact, I’m almost convinced—that a greater Israel, that more of Israel in the Middle East, would mean more peace, more prosperity, and more democracy.”

Roger Köppel, Weltwoche, April 10, 2026

Ever since Israel declared itself a state in 1947 in defiance of UN Resolution 181, the Middle East has been in a state of constant war. Prosperity and democracy remain the exclusive preserve of Israel’s Jewish population, at the expense of the Arab population. More Israel therefore means more war, more misery, and certainly not democracy.

Köppel argues that the “Greater Israel” project is a consequence of aggression by Israel’s Arab neighbors and is necessary to establish freedom, peace, and democracy in the Middle East. This is a historically untenable and absurd claim, for “Greater Israel” has been a matter of national policy, in both planning and implementation, ever since the proclamation of the State of Israel: On May 21, 1948, Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary:

“The Achilles’ heel of the Arab coalition is the Lebanon. Muslim supremacy in this country is artificial and can easily be overthrown. A Christian state ought to be set up there with its southern frontier on the river Litani. We would sign a treaty of alliance with this state. Then, when we have broken the strength of the Arab legion, and bombed Amman, we would wipe out Transjordan; after that, Syria would fall. And if Egypt still dared to make war on us, we would bomb Port Said, Alexandria, and Cairo. We would thus end the war and would have settled the account with Egypt, Assyria, and Chaldea [South Iraq] on behalf of our ancestors.”

Source: David Ben-Gurion, May 21, 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion: A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978, p. 130.

As a reminder: Greater Israel includes the following countries or parts thereof: Egypt, Jordan, the West Bank, Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and a large part of Saudi Arabia. This is Israel’s official policy today; every Israeli soldier now wears this map on his uniform. These countries, or parts thereof, are to be annexed by Israel and thus attacked. This strategy differs in no way from Nazi Germany’s bloody expansionist strategy.

Greater Israel is also the reason behind Israel’s attack on Iran, because this monstrous project—which has been underway for nearly 80 years—can only be realized if Iran is destroyed or at least neutralized.

Misusing a statement by Willy Brandt, who coined the slogan “Dare to have more democracy,” Köppel goes so far as to make the following statement under the slogan “Dare to have more Israel”:

“Anyone who takes the welfare of the civilian population as their yardstick—and one should do so in a debate that constantly invokes human rights—must acknowledge this: People are better off under Israel’s protection than under that of its neighboring states. A larger Israel would mean that more people would benefit from the rule of law, democracy, and economic participation. One might dismiss this as naive. But is the alternative—failed states, theocracies, civil wars—any more promising? Hardly.”

Roger Köppel, Weltwoche, April 10, 2026

In doing so, Köppel demeans people—indeed, entire nations. Lebanon, for example, was long regarded as “the Switzerland of the Middle East.” That was before Israel, in collusion with other Western powers, made normal life in the country impossible through constant warfare. As we saw above, this was already Ben-Gurion’s plan in 1948, as he confided in his diary. Currently, Israel is proceeding in Lebanon exactly as it did in Gaza: the occupied territories in Lebanon are being razed to the ground, and their inhabitants are being driven out or murdered.

What Defines Journalism?

Sensitive topics such as Israel and Palestine require a special degree of journalistic diligence. A casual attitude and the superficiality that comes with it are not acceptable.

Readers of an article published by a widely read, influential media outlet—especially one written by its editor-in-chief—have a right to expect thorough reporting and truthfulness. Most readers are unable to verify the facts; they simply do not have the time to do so. Consequently, they rely on the integrity and word of the journalist, particularly the word of an editor-in-chief, owner, and publisher of a publication in neutral Switzerland.

These are simple but fundamental rules that should underpin Roger Köppel’s work. The media coverage of Israel in "Die Weltwoche" runs diametrically counter to them. The dishonesty with which Köppel argues, and his deliberate distortion and misinterpretation of facts, are unworthy of a journalist trusted by many readers in the German-speaking world.

I rule out the possibility that Roger Köppel believes what he writes, because the dishonesty is so obvious that it would not stand up to even the most superficial scrutiny—especially editorial scrutiny. He must therefore be aware of his dishonesty. He is thus deliberately putting his reputation on the line.

What is interesting in this context is that while other media outlets, such as the "Neue Zürcher Zeitung" (NZZ), do indeed side with Israel, they refrain from such overt propaganda and exercise greater restraint.

Why is Köppel Doing This?

It is well known that Tel Aviv uses every means at its disposal to influence public opinion regarding Israel. In the US, this issue is omnipresent. In Western Europe, it is less so, though that does not mean that similar activities are not taking place. The last time I spoke with Roger Köppel, I asked him about his meeting with Netanyahu’s son—specifically, whether money had changed hands. He left that question unanswered.

The question arises as to whether Köppel is allowing himself to be used by Israeli authorities. According to rumors, Israeli representatives sought to speak with the "Weltwoche" editor-in-chief prior to the publication of the “Greater Israel” article on April 10, 2026. On May 14, I therefore contacted Roger Köppel by email and asked for clarification. This inquiry also went unanswered.

No answer is also an answer.