The editorial team of Al Jazeera Journalism Review gathers news items published by media outlets concerning the current war on Gaza, focusing on instances of disinformation, bias, or professional journalistic standards and its code of ethics. We invite journalists and individuals to contribute. Our goal is to maintain truthfulness, journalistic professionalism, and adherence to ethical standards. Submissions will be evaluated and reviewed by the AJR editorial board, adhering to internationally recognised professional standards. Our discussions are designed to promote balance, objectivity, and fairness in wartime news reporting.
Tuesday, September 24, 2024
Did Western Media Justify Israel's Targeting of Civilians in Lebanon?
Israeli airstrikes on several cities in southern Lebanon have resulted in the deaths of 558 people and the injury of 1,835, 50 of them children and 94 women, according to preliminary figures released by the Lebanese Ministry of Health today. The early coverage of this news in several major Western media outlets has shared notable common characteristics:
- First Feature: Emphasising that Israel "requested residents of the south to evacuate the area before bombing it," immediately following the news of the casualties in Lebanon.
Websites of the BBC, Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and The Guardian have all reported the casualty figures and subsequently attached the Israeli claim that evacuation requests were sent to residents prior to the bombings.
-
Second Feature: The absence of the actual casualty figures announced by the Lebanese Ministry of Health, replacing them with vague phrases such as "scores" or "dozens," as seen in The Guardian, New York Times, and Washington Post articles. Although the exact number was mentioned within the body of their reports, it was deliberately avoided in the headlines
-
Third Feature: The adoption of the Israeli narrative that the airstrikes are targeting Hezbollah positions, presenting this as an undisputed fact without verification. This contradicts widely circulated photos and videos showing direct attacks on civilian homes in the south, as well as statements from the Lebanese Ministry of Health indicating that women, children, and paramedics are among the casualties.
So, did these media outlets attempt to provide a justification for the Israeli army’s bombing of southern Lebanon? And does Israel’s warning to civilians absolve it of any crimes it may commit against them?
Based on materials we have previously reviewed on the Monitoring Page related to the coverage of genocidal wars, these headlines seem to follow a pattern that could potentially provide Israel with cover to commit war crimes under the pretext of targeting Hezbollah's military objectives.
Tuesday, August 5, 2024
Is Western Media Reliable Regarding Ismail Haniyeh's Assassination?
The New York Times released a report claiming to reveal the details behind the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of Hamas' political bureau. Citing seven anonymous "official sources from Iran and the Middle East," The article stated with certainty that the assassination was executed with an explosive device that had been planted in the guesthouse of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard two months earlier.
Its lead sentence:
Ismail Haniyeh, a top leader of Hamas, was assassinated on Wednesday by an explosive device covertly smuggled into the Tehran guesthouse where he was staying, according to seven Middle Eastern officials, including two Iranians and an American official.
Later, the authors add:
As it turns out, the assassins were able to exploit a different kind of gap in Iran’s defences... that allowed a bomb to be planted and to remain hidden for many weeks before it would eventually be triggered.
The narrative quickly spread and was repeated by other major media outlets and on social media, becoming the accepted version of events. This emerged merely a day after the assassination, prior to the conclusion of the Iranian investigation, and following a statement by Israeli spokesman Daniel Hagari that no Israeli missiles were fired that day, except for the one targeting Hezbollah's senior commander, Fuad Shukr, in Beirut.
The near-complete reliance on the New York Times’ narrative raises professional and ethical questions, such as:
-
The article's dependence on anonymous sources, without disclosing their relevance or capacity to obtain details of the operation from either the Israeli or Iranian perspective, casts doubt on the narrative. Utilising anonymous sources in intricate situations is generally warranted only under extraordinary conditions.
-
The report's shortcomings arise not only due to insufficient evidence but also from its historical coverage of the conflict in Palestine. The New York Times has faced criticism for its previous reports on sexual assaults by Hamas fighters on October 7, where the key witness's family refuted the claims, challenging the report's credibility.
A consistent strategy employed by Israel in past events has been to control the initial narrative and create an alternative one by exploiting: the weaknesses of local and Arab journalism, the challenges of accessing local sources, and the prevailing bureaucratic systems. This strategy was also evident in previous coverage.
In November 2023, the Israeli army invited the BBC and CNN to document a "newly discovered tunnel" beneath Al-Shifa Hospital, which it had claimed was Hamas's central command, which it attacked and besieged under this pretext. The rare instances where Western media entered Gaza—embedded with the Israeli army—have served to justify the targeting of civilian facilities.
Thursday, July 25, 2024
Was the WSJ's Reporting of Netanyahu’s Speech Attendance Misleading?
Following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's address to the U.S. Congress on July 24th, the Wall Street Journal reported that it stated, "Prime minister defends Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza... in speech to a jammed House chamber"... "Addressing a packed House chamber" without clarifying that the audience were not necessarily US state representatives.
A speech in Congress might lead one to believe that the hall was "packed" with Congress members, thus suggesting widespread acceptance of Netanyahu's visit and speech. The report further implied approval by describing the attendees as "applauded raucously [...] giving him standing ovations."
Yet, a report by Axios revealed that 100 House Democrats (out of 212 Congress members) and 28 Senate Democrats (out of 50) boycotted the speech amid extensive boycott campaigns preceding his visit.
Who occupied the seats vacated by the boycotting members? The WSJ chose to describe the absence of a significant number of its members as "skipping" the speech, with no indication of an act of boycott on their behalf.
Another question is: who were the attendees filling the empty seats left by the boycotting members?
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez posted on X commenting on this saying: "Just so we're clear, Netanyahu has lost so many people that he is addressing just a fraction of Congress." Clarifying that when the house is not full, they fill the seats with non-members, as they do at award ceremonies, "in order to project the appearance of full attendance and support."
Why did the Wall Street Journal omit such crucial information in its report and fail to clarify for the American public the reality of the numerous Congress members boycotting the speech? Moreover, why did it only suggest "packed attendance" without elucidating the actual composition of the audience?
Monday, July 22, 2024
The NYT’s Misrepresentation of Israeli Occupation Legality in UN Resolutions
In its coverage of the legal opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the illegality of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories since 1967, the New York Times published a piece titled "Israel’s occupation has been a subject of U.N. debate for decades." This headline is misleading and inaccurate, signifying a further professional oversight in the newspaper's portrayal of the Israeli war on Palestinians.
While the advisory opinion issued by this court regarding the Israeli colonial occupation in the Palestinian territories is considered a historic precedence, the international community has long deemed the activities of the occupation and Israeli settlements in the occupied territories to be illegal, a fact that has been reflected over the decades by numerous resolutions in both the Security Council and the United Nations General Assembly.
In the Security Council, and in accordance with the principles of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Resolution 446 was adopted in 1979 addressing the status of settlements in Palestinian territories, including occupied East Jerusalem. This was followed by Resolution 452 later that year. Additionally, Resolution 465, adopted in 1980, called on Israel to dismantle existing settlements and halt settlement plans in the occupied territories and called upon the international community not to assist Israeli settlement efforts.
The Council's resolutions on this matter continued, with Resolution 2334 adopted on December 23, 2016, which “reaffirmed that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, had no legal validity and constituted a flagrant violation under international law.”
At the United Nations General Assembly level, numerous resolutions have condemned settlements and called for a cease on their further construction. Resolution 2851 of 1971, along with Resolution 38/79, rejected Israel's policies of occupation and called upon Israel to rescind all measures aimed at annexing any part of the occupied territories. The text of Resolution 38/79 reaffirmed the fact that “occupation itself constitutes a grave violation of the human rights of the civilian population of the occupied Arab territories” and declared once more that “Israel's grave breaches of that Convention [Geneva] are war crimes and an affront to humanity.” This was followed by many other resolutions over the years, which similarly condemned Israeli settlement policies in the occupied territories and reaffirmed their illegality.
These UN resolutions, studies, and reports, accessible to any journalist, confirm that the illegality of Israeli settlements is not a matter of debate within the international community, contrary to the New York Times headline. The prevailing and widely accepted view is that Israeli measures and actions in the Palestinian territories constitute a breach of international law and a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention on the protection of the indigenous population under occupation. This stance was ultimately affirmed by the International Court of Justice, which clarified that the continued Israeli presence in the occupied Palestinian territories is unlawful and should come to an end “as rapidly as possible”.
Wednesday, June 12, 2024
How Did 4 Israeli Captives Become More Important Than 274 Palestinians in Western Media Coverage?
After the Israeli occupation army killed 274 Palestinians and injured hundreds during its operation to free four Israeli captives from the Nuseirat refugee camp in Gaza, we attempted to monitor the main American and British media coverage of this event.
The Wall Street Journal (US)
The Wall Street Journal headlined its article "Israel Rescues 4 Hostages Held in Gaza" in bold print, and in a smaller font in the subheading, it mentioned, "Gaza health ministry says Israeli operation resulted in ‘enormous number’ of dead and injured Palestinians"
The Wall Street Journal did not refer to the actual number announced by the Palestinian Ministry of Health, which was more than 274 martyrs according to the latest tally and 210 in the initial hours, despite quoting the subheading from the ministry. Instead, they replaced the number with the term "a large number of deaths."
In the tenth paragraph of the article, it merely stated that the operation resulted in the "deaths" of 210 Palestinians and the injury of 400, despite the Ministry of Health's statement directly accusing the Israeli army of causing the civilian Palestinian deaths.
So, did the Wall Street Journal consider the news of rescuing 4 hostages to be far more important than the Israeli army killing more than 210 Palestinians at the time—the toll later rose to 274? Did they deem the number of Palestinian victims not significant enough to be included in the headline? And why did the newspaper substitute the number with the phrase "a large number," especially when the Ministry of Health was issuing updated statistics on the death toll?
The Washington Post (US)
The Washington Post headlined its article "For Israel, a rare day of joy amid bloodshed as 4 hostages are rescued alive," while in its subheading in smaller print, it mentioned that "The Israeli military staged a deadly raid in central Gaza to free the hostages, carrying out attacks that killed at least 210 people, officials said" without specifying their identities.
The reader will have to wait until the eighth paragraph of the article to know who these people were; the newspaper stated that "more than 210 Palestinians killed Saturday in actions around Nuseirat, where the hostages were rescued," without mentioning the party responsible for their deaths, even though the Ministry of Health statement, which the newspaper relied on as a source for this number, clearly accused the Israeli army.
I
n the 11th paragraph of the same article, the newspaper mentioned that the rescue operations showed that what happened was "one of the deadliest days for Palestinians since the beginning of the war."
Many professional questions arise around these formulations, the most prominent being: Why didn't these information appear in the headline or the first paragraphs of the article? Why didn't the newspaper mention that the 210 victims in the article's subheading were Palestinians? And did they see the news of freeing 4 Israeli captives as having greater news value than the Israeli army killing 274 Palestinians during the operation?
The New York Times (US)
The main headline of the New York Times article was: "Israel Rescues 4 Hostages in Assault That Killed Scores of Gazans" without mentioning the actual number of victims, which at the time was more than 210 Palestinian martyrs, later rising to 274.
Then it placed a subheading: "This news was met with jubilation in Israel, where tensions over the hostages' safety have been rising in recent months." The number of Palestinian victims was not mentioned until the 11th paragraph of the article, where the newspaper stated: "Reports of the numbers killed and wounded varied wildly in the confusion after the attack" before quoting two Gaza health officials who said that "more than 200 people were killed in the strikes in Nuseirat, including women and children." The newspaper ended that paragraph by stating that the sources "They did not say how many of those killed were militants."
So, why did the newspaper consider that the numbers of Palestinian victims "varied wildly," despite the sources it mentioned agreeing that "more than 200 people were killed," and did not provide any reports confirming otherwise? Did it try to downplay the magnitude of what happened by using phrases like "scores" to avoid mentioning the actual number?
The BBC (UK)
Using terminology similar to the New York Times, the BBC website headlined its article with "Four hostages rescued in Gaza as hospitals say scores killed in Israeli strikes."
The article referred to three numbers related to Palestinian victims, stating that two hospitals in Gaza counted 70 bodies, while linking the number announced by the Ministry of Health at the time—which had exceeded 210 martyrs—to "Hamas's government media office" quoting the Israeli army spokesman who said that "Israel estimated there were fewer than 100 casualties."
So, did the BBC try to make the Palestinian victim numbers seem conflicting by not relying on the number announced by the Ministry of Health in Gaza, despite the fact that the United Nations and independent bodies had verified the accuracy of its reports?
The Times (UK)
The British Times newspaper only referred to the news of rescuing 4 Israeli captives in its headline, without mentioning the number of Palestinian martyrs who were killed during the operation. It headlined its article: "How Israel freed four hostages—and granted a dying wish," referring to the mother of one of the captives who suffered from a chronic illness.
In the fifth paragraph of the article, the Times mentioned that due to the operation, "More than 200 died during Israel’s operation in Nuseirat, with hundreds more wounded, according to local officials in the Hamas-run strip."
Why did the Times decide that the operation to rescue 4 Israeli captives and detailing human stories related to their families were more important than mentioning that Israel killed 274 Palestinians during the rescue operation? And why did the newspaper use the term "died" instead of "killed" to describe the Palestinians killed by Israel during the rescue operation?
The Telegraph (UK)
The Telegraph did not refer to the number of Palestinian martyrs in the headline of its article about the rescue operation, and the article, published as a chronological tracking of events, did not consider the Israeli army's killing of 274 Palestinians as a major event in its report.
Within two lines, in the 19th paragraph of the article, it stated that "210 Palestinians were killed in Gaza on Saturday, many in the Nuseirat where the hostages were being held, according to the Hamas-controlled health ministry," without mentioning the party responsible for their deaths. In the following paragraph, the newspaper quoted the Israeli army, stating that the number did not exceed 100 and blaming Hamas for their deaths, without giving similar space to the Ministry of Health's statement.
The Guardian (UK)
The Guardian dedicated a page to follow the key developments related to the rescue operation, placing a timeline at the beginning showing the key events associated with the operation. However, the news of the Israeli army killing 274 Palestinians did not appear as a major event within this timeline.
In the summary of the same article, where the key events of that day (June 8) are reviewed, the summary begins with the news of the rescue of the four Israeli captives. In the sixth news item, the newspaper stated that "Bodies of at least 55 Palestinians killed in Israeli attacks on Al-Nuseirat and other areas in central Gaza, and dozens wounded, in the attacks, arrived on Saturday at Al-Aqsa Martyrs hospital, the health ministry said." without linking these bodies to the rescue operation carried out by Israel in Nuseirat camp. The Ministry of Health, which the newspaper quoted, stated in the initial hours that 210 Palestinians were killed in the military operation to rescue them in Nuseirat camp on Saturday, June 8, including women and children, this number later rose to 274.
So why did the Guardian not mention this number in its report? What is the news value of restricting the count of victims to the bodies transferred to Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital? And why did it not see the martyrdom of 274 Palestinians in the operation to rescue the Israeli captives as an important event worth mentioning in the "key events" timeline?
Wednesday, May 29, 2024
Is The Atlantic Justifying Child Killings in Gaza?
Can children be killed without breaching the law? According to an article in the American magazine "The Atlantic," the answer is yes, if it occurs within the context of attacking an enemy hiding behind them. In his article titled The UN’s Gaza Statistics Make No Sense published on May 17, 2024, Graeme Wood, the article's author, claims this scenario is unfolding in Gaza, asserting that Israel is waging a "legal" war. He argues the war's brutality stems not from legal violations but from its inherent necessity as any war is a "grim necessity."
However, the claim of legal justification for mass killings of children as "collateral damage" in a war is unequivocally contradicted by clear texts in international law and fundamental humanitarian covenants. International law explicitly prohibits targeting civilians, especially children, in warfare. Children, along with women, the elderly, the sick, journalists, and medical personnel, are categories that must be afforded the highest protection and all necessary measures must be taken to ensure their safety.
The "Convention on the Rights of the Child" mandates that state parties take "all feasible measures to ensure the protection and care of children affected by armed conflict." The Fourth Geneva Convention requires adherence to arrangements ensuring the protection of civilians and children, including their evacuation from besieged areas and the provision of medical and relief services. These requirements are also reinforced by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Wood dismisses these conventions and the substantial evidence collected over recent months, presented to the International Court of Justice and considered by various human rights and humanitarian organizations. This evidence strongly suggests that Israel has deliberately committed extensive war crimes against civilians in Gaza, with explicit targeting of children in what amounts to "reprisal" actions, as expressed by numerous Israeli political and military officials who view all Gaza residents as "guilty," "non-civilians," and even "human animals," according to the Israeli defense minister.
Despite Wood's attempt to justify the mass killing of Gaza civilians, including children, by alleging that the resistance groups use them as human shields—aligning perfectly with the official Israeli propaganda narrative—international law does not permit indiscriminate bombing of civilians, nor the use of the most lethal weapons designed to cause maximum casualties. This stance was recently confirmed by Aryeh Neier, co-founder of Human Rights Watch and a Holocaust survivor.
Publishing an article that explicitly claims the legal legitimacy of killing children, let alone thousands, reflects, as noted by academic and political analyst Joseph Daher, a racist perception of the victims and a profound disregard for the value of their lives compared to those of the opposing side. This results in a "prejudiced" bias towards one side and "solidarity" with the other, as evident in similar articles in other mainstream American and Western media outlets like The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal, among others.
Attempting to justify the killing of civilians on the scale occurring in the current war on Gaza through a journalistic platform not only violates professional standards—despite the deliberate misinformation and blatant bias—but also reveals a fundamental lack of basic humanitarian values. The writer's legal endorsement of mass child killings undermines the necessary trust in his professional integrity.
Therefore, despite the evident bias in "The Atlantic's" overall coverage of the Israeli war on Gaza, Graeme Wood's article, which also seeks to undermine the credibility of Gaza's casualty figures, does not present objective choices to be scrutinized by professional standards of right and wrong. Instead, as Daher argues, it represents an immoral stance siding with the perpetrator against the victims, a position that continues to find space in mainstream Western media.
Tuesday, May 14, 2024
Wednesday, May 8, 2024
50 Professor in journalism petition The New York Times for Malpractice
Over 50 journalism professors have signed a letter urging the New York Times to address concerns about their now infamous report on what they called "systematic sexual violence" during Hamas attacks on Israel.
The report, which was titled "‘Screams Without Words’: How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on Oct. 7" has been the subject of ongoing scrutiny and doubts from both external critics and Times staffers over the reliability of its sources and editorial process.
The Times defended its work but did not issue any corrections despite relatives of a woman cited in the story denying claims that she was raped and new evidence in the Israeli media.
The academics are calling for an independent review of the editorial process to address the credibility of the report, including discrepancies in accounts and reliance on inexperienced freelancers.
The signatories emphasize the importance of news organizations being willing to critically assess their own reporting to maintain credibility.
Wednesday, April 3, 2024
Mainstream Media Echoes Israeli Perspective on Fatal Strike Against WCK Convoy
Following reports of an Israeli drone attack that targeted three World Central Kitchen (WCK) vehicles and killed seven aid workers, the incident prompted widespread international condemnation and calls for an independent investigation. However, much of the Western media coverage appeared to give disproportionate focus to statements and narratives from the Israeli government that the incident was "unintentional" and that mistakes could not be avoided in a state of "war."
On the other hand, observers expressed concern that it could be a sign of an escalating policy against humanitarian relief efforts in Gaza or another deliberate attempt to hinder international aid efforts for Palestinians in Gaza, who are facing “man-made famine.” Nevertheless, many Western media outlets primarily reported statements from the Israeli military, which characterized the strike as an "unintentional" tragedy, echoing Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu's claim that such incidents “happen in war.”
Multiple investigations, including one by Al Jazeera's SANAD Verification Agency, have found that the successive targeting of the three World Central Kitchen (WCK) vehicles, which had shared their coordinates with Israeli forces, indicates the attacks were intentional.
The Israeli military's attempts to disrupt this humanitarian food aid initiative, which was providing essential meals to Palestinians amidst a famine exacerbated by the ongoing Israeli attacks since last October, further suggest the attacks were intentional.
Many Western media outlets have been criticized for obscuring this intention and for their unbalanced coverage of the incident.
Framing Bias:
This is blatantly evident in the uncritical acceptance of the Israeli narrative. The Israeli officials’ flippant admission that the attack had been “unintentionally” and that such incidents “happen in the course of war,” as stated by the Israeli PM, minimizes the gravity of the crime. This framing tactic serves as a smokescreen to deflect global public and diplomatic outrage over the targeting of foreign aid workers in Gaza, including an American, Australian, Canadian, Polish, and three Britons, in blatant violation of international law.
Misleading Language:
Rushing to adopt the descriptions provided in the Israeli official position, labeling the incident as "tragic" and "unintentional," risks portraying the war on Gaza as “justified” and "reasonable," except for an “unintentional” incident as per the official Israeli description. Through this linguistic and formal framing, foreign readers might be misled to believe that the actions of the Israeli occupation army are mostly "precise and professional," and that what happened was just an isolated incident, contrary to the findings of dozens of reports, including the most recent report by the UN Special Rapporteur on Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, that determined the presence of “reasonable grounds to believe” that the threshold indicating the commission of the crime of genocide has been met.
Lack of Balance and Neutrality:
The coverage of this incident in several Western media outlets aligns closely with the Israeli narrative at the expense of objective truth on the ground. This raises concerns that important details regarding the broader context of the Israeli brutal war on Gaza over the past five months are not fully addressed.
Such forms of professional malpractice take place in mainstream Western media despite the abundant contextual evidence in this conflict, where Israel has not only been responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians but has also targeted numerous civilian facilities protected by international law, such as hospitals, places of worship, schools, and universities.
Monday, March 25, 2024
How The New York Times Echoed the Occupation Narrative on Targeting Al-Shifa Hospital
The Israeli forces have launched a new raid on Al-Shifa Hospital, utilizing tanks and drones in an attempt to completely obliterate the remaining operational capacity of the medical complex, parts of which had already been destroyed in November of the previous year. The New York Times, in its coverage, has adopted the Israeli occupation's narrative regarding the operation, echoing its claims of a "high-precision" operation targeting areas of the hospital that allegedly housed members of the Hamas leadership who had "regrouped" in Gaza's largest hospital, based on "serious intelligence."
Furthermore, the paper recounted Israel's version of events regarding the alleged shooting at its soldiers from inside the hospital, despite denials from the Ministry of Health in Gaza and eyewitnesses. The Times, while mentioning the Ministry's reports of the complex being subjected to artillery shelling, emphasized that the Ministry is "affiliated with Hamas," in an attempt to frame the information within the narrative Israel seeks to promote.
According to several Palestinian journalists, including a correspondent from Al Jazeera Network, the occupation's artillery shelled Al-Shifa Hospital and imposed a blockade on those inside, including medical staff, journalists, displaced people, and patients. This was before families began to flee the site, escaping the fire of the Israeli forces after casualties occurred among the patients and the displaced.
The New York Times also covered these developments in a detailed separate piece titled in a way that reinforces the Israeli narrative about "Hamas's return to Gaza's largest hospital," consistent with the line dictated by the official Israeli institution. This approach represents a renewed breach of journalistic standards of accuracy and objectivity, and a relinquishment of the media's responsibility to independently verify information whenever possible, aside from neglecting the necessary context about the occupation's operations in the occupied territory, particularly its direct targeting of hospitals and the destruction of the health sector, which constitutes a war crime.
Moreover, The New York Times overlooked the news of the Israeli army's arrest of Al Jazeera correspondent Ismail al-Ghoul from inside the Al-Shifa complex after he was severely beaten, in a clear abandonment of the professional duty to highlight the violations faced by journalists and undermining the presumed role of the press in defending press freedoms and holding authorities to account, especially those responsible for the occupation and accused before the International Court of Justice of committing genocide.
Sunday, March 24, 2024
Western Media Silent on Reports of Sexual Violence Against Palestinian Women in Gaza
In recent days, shocking testimonies of Palestinians about the kinds of violations committed by the Israeli occupation forces against civilians in the Gaza Strip have been making headlines. Among these are crimes of sexual violation and rape. These testimonies have been widely circulated and are consistent with numerous previous accounts documented during the past months of aggression, including those recorded by the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, and others that United Nations experts have treated with "grave concern," which speak of similar violations against Palestinian women in Gaza. These documents include various forms of sexual assault, including rape and threats thereof.
Despite this, mainstream Western media outlets have markedly underreported these well-substantiated accounts, offering them significantly less attention compared to the extensive coverage given to the now-debunked stories of systematic rapes allegedly committed by Hamas. They irresponsibly promote misleading assertions, as the New York Times did in its infamous report, which was proven to be lacking in objectivity and professionalism.
This passive stance in covering reports of Israeli sexual violations in the Gaza Strip and in the West Bank is yet another piece of evidence among the many pieces already observed over the past months. It is evidence that many Western media outlets violate fundamental journalistic values, including, in this case, the principles of fairness, accuracy, and impartiality. Moreover, it is about forsaking journalistic responsibility in performing the role of monitoring authorities and holding them accountable, especially with regards to shocking allegations against women within the context of a war, which is considered by the International Court of Justice a war crime.
Wednesday, March 7, 2024
Despite lack of evidence: Libération Adopts the Israeli Account of October 7th "Sexual Assaults"
In an attempt to revive what has been a faltering narrative surrounding alleged sexual assaults by Hamas during the October 7th attack, Libération, a prominent French newspaper known for its left-wing leanings, published a controversial interview with Mirit Ben Mayor, an Israeli Police Chief Superintendent and a former prosecutor.
The interview raises concerns about potential bias. Despite documented reports and investigations from various journalistic sources that contradict – or at least cast doubt upon – the Israeli military's initial narrative of sexual assault and rape, and the reports that tackled the issue in mainstream Western media, the way the interview is constructed and the language used create the impression that the journalist uncritically accepts the unproven claims of the Israeli army as facts.
This approach raises questions about professional and ethical journalistic standards, which will be explored in the following points:
Journalistic neutrality is essential for ensuring balanced and unbiased reporting. However, the Libération interview with the Israeli police spokesperson, Mirit Ben Mayor, raises concerns about potential bias. While Ben Mayor freely discusses contested and controversial issues, the journalist appears unwilling to challenge these narratives or provide context by critically examining them. This is despite the existence of documented reports and investigations from various journalistic sources that refutes the Israeli military's initial claims of assault and the reports that followed in mainstream Western media. Additionally, testimonies from the families of the victims directly contradict the allegations, and the credibility and objectivity of many of the reports, especially the now widely criticized New York Times report “Screams Without Words”, face serious professional and ethical challenges.
Furthermore, the interview raises concerns about potential intentional bias, given the uncritical acceptance of the Israeli official narrative regarding sexual assaults. The police spokesperson, sensationally details a series of grave allegations, including "rape, cutting genital organs, both female and male, and shooting towards reproductive organs and systematic touching”. While she mentions documented witness testimony, the interview lacks any mention of the documented reports and investigations from various journalistic sources that contradict these claims, which also lack any forensic evidence. This creates the impression that the journalist accepts these unproven allegations as facts, raising questions about journalistic rigor and impartiality.
Lastly, Dov Alfon, a former intelligence officer of Unit 8200, heads the editorial team of Liberation newspaper, which raises concerns about a potential conflict of interest regarding the paper's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly the events of October 7th and the ensuing war. Many would argue that this latest interview was strikingly indicative of such bias, in an attempt at resurrecting an apparently questionable narrative of sexual assault, and its potential exploitation by the Israeli army to rationalize its genocidal war on Gaza, that killed more than 30,000 Palestinians. Such narratives may also function as a discursive shield for ongoing Israeli war crimes in Gaza and the perpetuation of an occupation denounced by the United Nations and the International Court of Justice.
Wednesday, March 6, 2024
The New York Times’ “Screams Without Words”: Report’s Credibility Still in Question
Since its release in December 2023, The New York Times' account of the alleged "sexual violence" on October 7, has come under increased scrutiny, and has been proved to contain several major flaws and inaccuracies. The latest disclosure comes from The Intercept, providing information about two of the three victims whose stories were sensationally featured in The New York Times report. An official in Kibbutz Be'eri, where the attack occurred, has confirmed that these two individuals were not victims of sexual violence, contrary to the claims made in the report.
The long and controversial report published by The New York Times in December played a role in amplifying unverified allegations and conflicting testimonies first circulated by Israeli media and propagandists. This was chiefly done by lending undue credibility to those accounts, despite the absence of any forensic evidence. Additionally, there is substantial circumstantial evidence that strongly suggests their inaccuracy, including the recent denial of the supposed experiences of two of the victims.
Michal Paikin, the spokesperson of the Be’eri kibbutz, refuted the New York Times’ report, stating that the two victims, whose stories formed a crucial pillar of the report, were not in fact victims of sexual violence. Paikin also cast doubt on the credibility of claims made by Israeli volunteer paramedics with associated with the "Zaka" organization, known for its lack of credibility. Additionally, family members of the third victim, Gal Abdoush, have raised serious concerns about the newspaper’s narrative regarding her alleged rape, further eroding the credibility of the three stories highlighted in the report.
The report's credibility and objectivity face serious professional and ethical challenges, particularly in connection to the involvement of the contributor, Anat Schwartz. Evidence suggests pre-existing bias against Palestinians, expressed through her online support for retaliatory and genocidal military actions and her endorsement of official Israeli narratives. Despite the initiation of an investigation by the newspaper on the circumstances surrounding her involvement, the New York Times has not taken the necessary steps, as typically followed in such cases of professional malpractice, whether in acknowledging the errors, or in issuing the needed notes by the editors, in order to provide the context of the identified errors and the actions taken to rectify them.
Wednesday, January 30, 2024
Internal Debate at The New York Times: Why 'The Daily' Podcast Episode Was Shelved
An internal debate at The New York Times following a biased report on “systematic sexual violence by Hamas” leads to shelving and then rewriting the script for the NYT’s flagship podcast episode of ‘The Daily’.
On December 28, 2023, The New York Times released an extensive report on claims of the Palestinian resistance employing 'sexual violence' systematically as a weapon against civilians during the October 7th assault, commonly referred to as the 'Aqsa Flood.' In a previous piece, The AJR identified several fundamental professional violations in the report, which was written by three senior in-house journalists. Such as the lack of reasonable evidence that supports the claim reached and the manner in which the relatives were led to accept the interview by the NYTimes. The report has since ignited substantial debate, both externally and internally.
According to sources from the newspaper, as reported by 'The Intercept', the report has stirred controversy within the New York Times among its staff. Criticism has mounted at the leniency of applying editorial standards to a report addressing such a sensitive topic, particularly in the context of a devastating war that has claimed the lives of tens of thousands of civilians.
This discussion was prompted by the newspaper's executive email that commended the authors work, describing it as one of the “signature pieces of enterprise on the Israel-Hamas war” saying that it was carried out by the team with great sensitivity and attention to details. Another internal message, seen by some as an administrative directive, was sent, urging the newspaper's employees to refrain from directing criticisms at each other via Slack, the internal messaging platform. According to sources speaking to 'The Intercept,' many journalists and editors interpreted this missive as implicitly referring to the ongoing debate surrounding the report on 'sexual violence' that was allegedly used systematically by the Palestinian resistance on October 7th. Doubts persist around this claim, with some details even being denied by relatives of the victim interviewed in the report.
The debate resulted in the shelving of an episode on 'The Daily,' the newspaper's flagship podcast. The original episode had planned to focus on the topic of "Hamas' systematic sexual violence." However, a new script has been drafted, incorporating reservations, caveats, and open-ended questions, which differ from the original report's approach. Sources speaking to the Intercept indicated that the team had reservations about fully embracing the narrative as presented in the initial report, recognizing the possibility of errors and exaggerations.
Adopting the new script could raise questions about the newspaper's stance on the original report and whether the internal debate might lead to a review of the original report, acknowledging any professional shortcomings. Internal criticisms within the newspaper suggest that the report should have undergone more rigorous investigative processes and adhered to the basic standards that the New York Times claims to apply to all its news, stories, and journalistic investigations, especially in the Palestinian context. This situation highlights the imposition of preconceived restrictions and systematic, controversial approaches to addressing issues that could evoke sympathy for the Palestinians.
In the meantime, sources at the Times have stated that Jeffrey Gettleman, the reporter who led the investigative report, has been tasked with gathering additional evidence to support his original reporting.
Wednesday, January 24, 2024
Overlooked Causes of Agony: NBC's report on Gaza's Medical Disaster
In a recent report titled “In Gaza’s collapsing health system, deaths are slow, painful, and often preventable,” the American network NBC goes into details of how the healthcare system in Gaza is collapsing, yet fails to attribute it to the Israeli attacks and siege. Israel is only mentioned much later on in separate paragraphs recounting the October 7 attacks and the number of Israelis injured during that operation. It is worth noting that, unlike when reporting Palestinian casualty numbers (by the Gaza Health Ministry), the report does not mention the cause of the medical disaster whatsoever (Israeli bombing and obstruction of aid).
As of Thursday, Jan. 18, there have been 645 attacks on the health system of the Palestinian territories, including on hospitals, ambulances and vehicles delivering supplies, resulting in 619 deaths and 835 injuries, according to the World Health Organization…
Significant obstructions to aid deliveries has meant critical shortages of pain relievers, antibiotics and anesthesia — basics for treating the injured...
The only context the network chooses to mention in the report is Hamas’s attacks on October 7, without mentioning the root cause of the hostilities.
Israel’s attacks on civilians, hospitals, relief centers, and civilian infrastructure have claimed the lives of over 25,000 Palestinians, most of whom are women and children. However, the report mentions the attacks on hospitals in the context of “Hamas command centers” supported by U.S. intelligence, as though to excuse these attacks.
The Israel Defense Forces says Hamas operates command centers at hospitals, uses ambulances to transport fighters, and diverts fuel aid intended for hospital use for military purposes, charges Hamas and hospital staff deny. The IDF found tunnels near or under hospitals, and a U.S. intelligence assessment found that Al-Shifa Hospital, which was at the center of intense fighting in November, was used to store some weaponry and house command infrastructure.
Even when posting the report on its social media accounts, NBC refrains from mentioning Israel. This has been the general tendency adopted by several mainstream Western media outlets in recent weeks.
Israel’s responsibility for the collapse of the healthcare system in Gaza is well documented, acknowledged not only through media coverage but also substantiated in reports by international human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch as well as in the legal case brought against Israel in the International Court of Justice (particularly in the fourth item of the case file).
Agreeing to discuss the catastrophe without mentioning the accused party, despite abundant evidence, represents a professional violation in the coverage of the war on Gaza in various foreign media outlets. This compromises objectivity and accuracy, undermining the journalist's duty to promote accountability, monitor violations during wars, expose war crimes, and strive to document and halt them.
Monday, January 8, 2024
Journalistic Blind Spots: Exposing Gaps in Gaza Coverage by The New Yorker
On January 3rd, "The New Yorker" featured an in-depth interview with Aref Hussein, a senior economic expert working with the United Nations World Food Programme. The interview, conducted by Isaac Chotiner, delved into the severe food crisis in the Gaza Strip, its potential escalation, and the dire consequences for Gaza's residents, especially children. This discussion occurs against the backdrop of the ongoing Israeli war on Gaza, now surpassing ninety days.
Following the onset of the war on Gaza, Israel imposed a complete lockdown on the people in Gaza, severely restricting the entry of essential resources like water, food, medicine, and aid. This blockade, particularly stringent at crossings such as the Rafah border with Egypt, has led to a dire situation where 90% of Gazans face food insecurity, with most households skipping meals daily. The interview underscores the looming threat of famine if hostilities persist.
However, despite clear statements from top Israeli officials, including the Minister of Defense, Minister of Energy, and the Prime Minister, acknowledging their strategy of imposing starvation and deprivation on Gazans, "The New Yorker's" interview conspicuously omits any direct mention of Israel or its government's legal responsibilities as an occupying force. The article, titled "Gaza is Starving," raises several journalistic concerns:
1. Lack of Accountability 
The New Yorker neglects its journalistic duty by omitting an important part of the story from it's readers; it overlooks Israel's role in the intentional and systematic starvation of Palestinians.
2. Loss of Context and Clarification
The interview's lack of context misleads readers, particularly those unfamiliar with the history of the conflict. This could potentially result in further misinformation influenced by Israeli propaganda and media complicity. Such a narrative could wrongly place the blame for the humanitarian crisis on Palestinians and their resistance efforts.
3. Impartiality Concerns
By not acknowledging Israel's role in using starvation as a war tactic and its responsibility for potential war crimes, the magazine's editorial stance appears biased toward the Israeli narrative. This omission may serve to protect Israel from criticism and hinder solidarity movements advocating for an end to the war and the blockade.
The interview published by "The New Yorker" reflects a broader trend among some UN-affiliated organizations, like the World Food Programme, and major Western media outlets, where professional journalistic standards are compromised in reporting of the war on Gaza. Such practices undermine accountability, transparency, and comprehensive coverage, essential for maintaining balance and objectivity in sensitive conflict reporting.
Sunday, January 7, 2024
How should Reuters' ambiguous use of words regarding civilian victims in Gaza be interpreted?
In its recent coverage of Israel's military campaign in the Gaza Strip, the Reuters news agency published two contrasting articles. The first, titled "Israeli ex-hostage says she feared being raped by Gaza captor," centers on the personal fears of a former Israeli/French captive released in a prisoner exchange, while the second report "In Gaza, rows of white shrouds symbolise mounting civilian deaths" highlights the growing number of death in Gaza.
The first report's title, emphasizing the ex-captive's fear of being "raped" by her captor, has sparked debate. Critics argue that focusing solely on the captive's apprehension of being "raped by his eyes" as she says in the interview, potentially misleads readers and feeds into the Israeli "Hamas rapists" narrative that has been circulating in Western media as a support for sexual violence accusations, despite the absence of any claims of actual rape or attempted assault. The report relies entirely on the statements of the former captive, detailing her captivity circumstances, the dynamics between her captor and his wife, and various unsubstantiated allegations. There is no supporting evidence to either confirm or refute these claims, with the agency inexplicably treating them as facts despite their overall insignificance.
Furthermore, the use of "Gaza Captor" in the headline, rather than "Hamas militant, as mentioned in the article, inadvertently strips the Gazan population of their civilian identity. Such framing could contribute to a skewed perception of Gazans, potentially justifying the intense Israeli bombardment that has been ongoing since October 7, resulting in over 21,000 casualties, more than half of whom are women and children.
Reuters' report relies entirely on the statements of the former captive detailing her captivity circumstances, the dynamics between her captor and his wife, and various unsubstantiated allegations. There is no supporting evidence to either confirm or refute these claims, with the agency inexplicably treating them as facts despite their overall insignificance from a journalistic point of view, and again, in the context of a vicious war, that has been repeatedly described as genocidal in its scope and unrestrained nature.
In the second report titled "In Gaza, rows of white shrouds symbolise mounting civilian deaths," Reuters employs phrases like "rows of white shrouds," which, while evocative, fail to directly address the cause of the increasing death toll, specifically the ongoing Israeli military actions in the Gaza Strip. This choice of language, particularly the use of "deaths" instead of "casualties," can be seen as obscuring the direct causes of these fatalities.
The report's language continues to be vague or indirect, seemingly to avoid naming Israel as the perpetrator of the deaths of over 21,000 civilians in Gaza. For instance, the phrase "21,000 Palestinians killed in clashes between Hamas and Israel" appears to equally attribute responsibility for civilian deaths to both parties, despite no evidence suggesting Hamas targeted civilians in Gaza. Conversely, the report explicitly blames Hamas for Israeli casualties on October 7th, stating, "..after Hamas killed 1200 and took 240 hostages on October 7th." This is in contrast to other reports, including those by Haaretz, which suggest the involvement of the Israeli army in some Israeli deaths on that date.
Furthermore, the report's descriptions, such as "the Gaza Strip facing a severe shortage of food, water, and medicine," lack explicit acknowledgment of Israel's role in cutting off water supplies and blocking essential food and medicine from entering the Strip.
This noticeable difference in language and attribution between the two reports raises questions about Reuters' impartiality in covering the conflict, especially given its significant role as a primary news source for many global media outlets.
Saturday, December 31, 2023
Is The New York Times Reproducing Allegations of "Sexual Violence" to Downplay Israeli Crimes?
The New York Times recently published a 3500-word report on alleged sexual assaults by Palestinian militants on October 7, 2023. This report emerges amidst Israel's extensive military operation in Gaza, which has led to significant casualties and international pressure on Israel. Critics argue that the Times' report aligns with Israeli narratives, particularly in its sensationalist approach and premature conclusions. The focus on sexual violence by Palestinian militants, as the report suggests, is seen as an attempt to shift attention from Israeli actions in Gaza.
Key to the controversy is the testimony of Raz Cohen, a former Israeli officer, whose inconsistent accounts have raised suspicions. Cohen's evolving statements, particularly his alarming claims in a PBS interview, coincide with intensified Israeli rhetoric against Palestinians. The Times' investigation, relying heavily on Israeli sources and lacking critical examination of sensational claims, is criticized for its journalistic approach. Critics suggest that this narrative construction aims to downplay Israeli actions in Gaza by focusing on alleged Palestinian crimes, employing a strategy that includes invoking feminist solidarity while neglecting the humanization of Palestinian victims. This approach, they argue, reflects a broader pattern in the Times' coverage, where Israeli narratives are often emphasized over Palestinian perspectives.
Wednesday, December 27, 2023
Examining Media Responsibility: DW's Controversial Use of 'Islamist Terrorism' in Reporting and its Impact on Muslim Communities
The German broadcaster DW published a report on its Arabic Instagram page titled "Due to the Threat of an 'Islamist Terrorist Attack'... Stringent Security Measures Ahead of Christmas Around the Famous Cologne Cathedral."
The channel's report, sourced from the German News Agency and other agencies, relayed statements from a spokesperson for the German police, which did not specify any particular group behind the threat. Furthermore, the report did not corroborate the channel's claim that the threat emanated from an "Islamist" group.
Typically, such warnings are based on undisclosed intelligence information, particularly when authorities accuse a specific group. However, in this instance, the German police only imposed heightened security measures as a "response to a serious alert" without identifying the source of the threat, according to a statement from a German police spokesperson included in the DW report.
This news followed a statement by the German Interior Minister warning of the rise of "Islamist terrorism," without clarifying the contexts or information that led to such remarks. These statements, which implicitly incite against an entire group based on religious belief, are seen as discriminatory rhetoric that fosters hatred.
DW's headline definitively claimed that the threat was solely from an "Islamist" group, despite lacking evidence. This, along with their seeming approval of the German Interior Minister's unverified statement and failure to critically question or challenge these claims, suggests that they are promoting a biased narrative that could incite hatred against Muslims in Germany.
This DW report comes shortly after the killing of Jordanian student "Mohammed Barakat" in Hamburg, Germany. The Jordanian newspaper Al-Ghad, citing sources familiar with the initial investigations, reported a suspicion of a "hate crime" following Barakat's social media posts expressing solidarity with Palestine.
Monday, December 25, 2023
Uncovering the Narrative: A Critical Analysis of CNN's Coverage of the West Bank Shooting Incident
CNN published a story titled "Video Shows a Man in Military Attire Shooting a Palestinian with a Mental Disability in the West Bank."
The American media outlet employs a passive voice in both the headline and the body of the article, without clearly identifying the true identity of the individual involved in the shooting of the Palestinian civilian.
In the body of the article, the story is narrated through the words of Tariq Abu Abed's brother—the name of the targeted civilian. In context, the article reminds readers that settlers sometimes wear military uniforms. The story raises four observations:
The first observation is the use of the term "clashes" to describe the hundreds of Palestinian deaths, when in fact even the UN has acknowledged that the deaths were caused by either settler attacks or targeted Israeli army killings.
The second observation is that the aggressor's identity is left unclear in the headline, even though it is made abundantly clear in the video thanks to his full military uniform and gear. CNN's vague description of the “man in military fatigues” gives the impression that the perpetrator is unknown and leaves the unfamiliar viewer wondering if the man in the video is a settler or a soldier in the Israeli army.
It is not the first time Western media have refrained from clearly pointing to Israel in its targeting of civilians. On October 13, Reuters reported on the killing of its journalist Issam Abdalla with the passive headline "Reuters journalist killed in Lebanon in missile fire from the direction of Israel" before republishing it later, indicating that an Israeli airstrike directly targeted him. Similarly, even after conclusive evidence from open sources and field reports emerged, the international media was persistent in not "accusing" Israel of bombing hospitals and United Nations facilities in Gaza after the October 7 attacks.
The third observation relates to the significant disparity between the headline and the content of the article; the headline mentions a man in “military fatigue” targeting a mentally disabled Palestinian, but the details of the story in the body of the article, though minimal, have more context and balance, raising the question: Why is this not reflected in the headline?
The fourth and most significant observation is the lack of journalistic effort to gather information about the published video. The identity of the apparent shooter, the location (is it close to an Israeli military checkpoint), or interviews with potential witnesses are important pieces of information to fully recount the truth about the attack, which could showcase the oppression faced by Palestinians in the West Bank.
While media outlets, such as The New York Times, BuzzFeed, and Agence France-Presse, publish their editorial guidelines to keep their “writers, reporters, and editors accountable to the readers,” CNN does not make this available for readers to allow their evaluation of how the outlet handles its stories. The Munich Charter of 1971, a fundamental reference for global newsrooms, stipulates "respect for the truth, whatever the consequences for the journalist, in response to the public's right to know the truth."
Monday, December 4, 2023
Exploring Media Bias: BILD's Portrayal of Palestinian Children as Terrorist Supporters
The German media outlet BILD recently published a report on the prisoners released as part of the latest ceasefire agreement between Hamas and Israel. However, the newspaper's portrayal of the prisoners from both sides indicated a preconceived bias, which depicts Palestinian children as sympathizers with “terrorism,” in contrast to the Israeli captives, who were shown in a state of familial empathy.
The released Palestinian children also had emotional reunions with their families, and social media was abuzz with photos and videos showing the warmth of these reunions, no less intimate than those of the Israeli prisoners' families. However, the newspaper ignored the Palestinian side of empathetic reunions, instead choosing a picture of a child prisoner draped in the green Hamas flag. Their image selection serves the negative framing used in their narrative.
Moreover, the newspaper's interpretation of the freed prisoners waving Hamas flags as an indication that the gatherings welcoming the released prisoners in the West Bank are "demonstrations supporting terrorism" is a connection based on biased judgments that the German media imposes on the local context, expecting Palestinians to adopt its political standards and viewpoint towards Hamas. Locally, Palestinians, like many other countries in the world, do not consider Hamas a “terrorist” organization but rather a part of the Palestinian social fabric and political landscape.
In the complex landscape of media reporting, it's crucial to maintain objectivity and avoid unfounded accusations. Just as Palestinian media outlets cannot label Israeli captives as supporters of occupation and apartheid merely for displaying the Israeli flag—a symbol many Palestinians associate with oppression and injustice—other media is not in a position to judge or hastily brand individuals as supporters of "terrorists" for merely holding the flag of an organization. Such associations should only be made based on reliable information, not on the symbolic act of flag-holding (of an organization that assisted their liberty from questionable imprisonment). This balanced approach is essential for fair and responsible journalism.
The newspaper's coverage of the recent prisoner exchange deal not only featured biased phrasing and imagery but also included misleading information about the Palestinian prisoners involved. Contrary to the report's claim that most were "convicted criminals," records show that the majority were actually detained without trial or charge until their release. Furthermore, the newspaper's focus on the charges against only three female prisoners, whose sentences are subject to scrutiny by international human rights organizations over the fairness of their legal proceedings, further illustrates a selective narrative that casts Palestinians in a negative light. This approach raises questions about the newspaper's commitment to accurate and unbiased reporting.
Sunday, November 29, 2023
What is the impact of media bias on Palestinian and Israeli prisoner-exchange narratives?
The media coverage of the prisoner exchange deal between Hamas and Israel by some Western outlets reflects varying journalistic practices. These include:
1. Simplified reporting: Certain news outlets, like France's CNews (which advocates far-right ideology), reported the event in a simplified manner, labeling Hamas as a terrorist organization and depicting Israel as seeking peace. This type of coverage often lacks depth and fails to explore the complexities of the situation.
2. Biased and unbalanced portrayals: Networks like CNN and Spain’s El Mundo have been observed to give more prominence to Israeli captives, including their images and family interactions, while Palestinian prisoners are often reduced to mere numbers, lacking personal stories or identities. This approach can lead to a skewed understanding of the issue, ignoring the human aspect of Palestinian prisoners.
3. Narrative Alignment: Some media outlets set their news agenda in line with the Israeli perspective, focusing extensively on Israeli captives. This can result in an imbalanced view of the situation, overshadowing the experiences and stories of Palestinian prisoners.
The impact of such media practices includes:
· Overshadowing Palestinian stories: The lack of coverage of the Palestinian prisoners' experiences, including the long-term detention of children and women without trial, their torture, and inhumane treatment, remains underreported. Human rights organizations like Human Rights Watch and Save the Children highlight the plight of Palestinian children in detention, facing abuse and legal challenges, yet these stories often receive less attention. They both highlight the concerning statistics: as of December 12 last year, Israeli authorities detained 150 Palestinian children.
According to Defense for Children International, each year, approximately 700 Palestinian children under 18 from the occupied West Bank face prosecution in Israeli military courts. These children are subjected to arrest, interrogation, and detention by the Israeli army, a process that raises significant human rights concerns. This aspect of the conflict, often underreported, sheds light on the ongoing challenges and violations faced by Palestinian children under occupation.
· Ignoring the Occupation Context: The broader context of the occupation, as defined by the United Nations, and its impact on daily life in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including the detention of children, women, and the elderly, is often overlooked. This neglects the reality of the occupation and its consequences for Palestinian society.
· Dehumanization of Palestinians: The media's portrayal can contribute to the dehumanization of Palestinians, aligning with political rhetoric that justifies the harsh actions of the Israeli occupation. This approach can obscure potential war crimes and the impact of military actions on civilian lives and infrastructure in Gaza.
In summary, the media's approach to covering the prisoner exchange deal between Hamas and Israel reveals a range of practices, from simplified reporting to biased portrayals and narrative alignment, each contributing to a partial and often unbalanced understanding of the complex situation.
Tuesday, November 28, 2023
Why Do Some Media Outlets Avoid Using 'Children' to Describe Palestinian Prisoners?
Following the announcement by the Qatari Foreign Ministry of reaching a temporary humanitarian ceasefire agreement, which included the release of 50 Israeli captives—women and children—held by the Palestinian resistance in exchange for the release of 150 Palestinian "prisoners"—women and children—by Israel, Western media began circulating details of the deal to their audiences and readers.
However, AJR noticed some media outlets avoid the term "Palestinian children" when referring to the prisoners to be released by Israel. The BBC correspondent in Jerusalem mentioned that the Israeli captives to be released under the exchange deal were women and children, while the Palestinian “prisoners” to be released were referred to as women and "teenage males," avoiding the use of the term child, which applies to anyone under 18. The term "teenage" is not a legal term and is not found in agreements, as it loosely describes a broad age stage linked to psychological factors unrelated to the legal status of individuals.
The New York Times used the term "minors" to describe the Palestinian children released in the deal, in contrast to "children" for the Israelis. The Washington Post used the term "teenagers" for the released Palestinian children, against "children" for the Israelis.
Describing Palestinian children as "minors" and Israeli captives as children. From the New York Times piece titled "First Captives Freed in Tense Gaza Truce Between Israel and Hamas" (24 Nov 2023).
According to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, a child is defined as "every human being below the age of eighteen years." According to the prisoner exchange agreement, Israel will release women and “prisoners” under 18 years of age, i.e., children. So why do media outlets avoid using the term children when describing Palestinian detainees and deny them their rights as children under international law, unlike the Israeli prisoners under eighteen?
Describing Palestinian child "prisoners" as "teenagers" and Israeli captives as children. From the Washington Post piece titled "Hamas releases first Israeli and Thai hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners amid pause in fighting" (November 25, 2023).
These attempts to avoid using the term child in the context of Palestinians can be understood in several scenarios:
1. Avoid portraying Israel as a state that detains children, especially since there has been a complete narrative condemning the resistance factions' capture of children on October 7th. Hence, "discovering" that Israel has been detaining dozens of Palestinian child prisoners for a long time before October 7th would be shocking for those following the scene from the Israeli narrative perspective.
2. There's an attempt to frame Palestinian child prisoners in a way that strips them of their childhood status. Although the term "minors," for example, also applies to children, using it to describe Palestinian children and "children" for Israelis in the same news paragraph removes the "childhood" state from Palestinians, possibly reducing empathy for them as they are not seen as "children" like the Israeli prisoners.
3. Using descriptions that strip the Palestinians of their childhood status could be interpreted as an attempt to justify Israeli detentions of Palestinian children, portraying them as “convicted criminals” undeserving of sympathy. Even though the published lists of potential Palestinian "child prisoners" to be released show that most of them are detained without any judicial sentences, this ignores international reports on children's rights clearly indicating violations and abuses committed against them as children.
Monday, November 27, 2023
Analyzing the Economist's controversial report on Al-Shifa Hospital raid: A case of biased journalism?
On November 16, The Economist published an article titled "The rights and wrongs of Israel and Hamas at al-Shifa hospital.. Why Israel must meet and exceed the requirements of the laws of war”, following the Israeli occupation forces' raid on Al-Shifa Hospital, the narrative takes an unexpected turn. While the title suggests a critical examination of potential violations of International Law and war crimes, the content swiftly aligns with the Israeli perspective. The article controversially insinuates that Al-Shifa Hospital, allegedly utilized by Hamas, could be considered a legitimate military target.
“In fact, because it appears likely that the hospital has been used by Hamas as a military facility, Hamas has probably turned it into a legitimate military target.”
This assertion is made without solid evidence or authoritative sources, deviating from the core principles of journalistic neutrality.
The Economist quickly dismisses Hamas's denial of these allegations, stating, "It has a record of deceitfulness." This approach starkly contrasts with the expected journalistic objectivity, especially in conflict reporting.
The article further indulges in biased allegations, suggesting that "using a hospital as a military base, as Hamas may well be, is a war crime.". It then extends this logic to seemingly legitimize the attack on the hospital, stating, "The laws of war establish that once a hospital is used as a military facility, it may lose its special protection." It concludes its report with, "All this suggests al-Shifa is a legitimate military target for the Israeli army, provided its intelligence is correct."
However, the narrative complexity deepens as The Economist, two days later, publishes another piece titled "Was Israel’s attack on Al-Shifa Hospital justified?" This follow-up article acknowledges the scarcity of evidence from Israel to justify the attack, hinting at the need for further investigation. Despite this later admission, the magazine did not retract its initial claims, nor did it offer an apology or clarification for its earlier report, which could be interpreted as justifying a potential war crime by the Israeli forces.
Almost two weeks after the raid, with Israel yet to present conclusive evidence of Hamas using Al-Shifa Hospital as a military headquarters, skepticism grows. Even Western media, including the BBC, have expressed doubts about the Israeli army's released videos claiming to show Palestinian resistance elements in the hospital. The Economist's failure to address these developments or correct its initial stance raises significant concerns about media bias and the ethical challenges of reporting in conflict zones. This situation underscores the importance of critical media consumption and the need for journalistic integrity in covering complex international issues.
Sunday, November 2023
Haaretz and Western Media: the crumbling narrative of the occupation about the "NOVA Music Festival Massacre"
Up to this moment (November 19, 2023), Western media outlets have ignored Haaretz's report (November 18, 2023) confirming an Israeli investigation that an Israeli military helicopter fired at a music concert near the Ra'im settlement on October 7, killing several attendees.
Although the narrative of targeting concertgoers was a fundamental part of the Israeli media story and provided political cover for the attack on Gaza, when will Western media start to reconsider their blind adoption of the Israeli narrative?
Nearly 24 hours after Haaretz's widely shared report on social media platforms, we browsed a wide range of Western media to see how they covered the news, which has significant headline value for news programs. However, we found no form of coverage, as if the news had never been published.
This implies that the bias towards the Israeli narrative in Western media has evolved to the extent of ignoring any news that could question it, even if Israelis themselves debunked it. Have these institutions become public relations firms, polishing Israel's image?
It appears that in covering the war on Gaza, Western media adopt a policy of distorting facts to portray Israel as a victim (like promoting the story of finding 40 beheaded children without any evidence) or absolving it from crimes committed in Gaza (like claims of Israel's non-involvement in bombing the Baptist hospital, which were later retracted).
Western media also seem uninterested in publishing any facts that question the Israeli occupation narrative about events since October 7, even if published in Israeli media itself, like the Haaretz report. And even when confirming the occupation forces' responsibility for civilian deaths, they publish the number of victims and attribute the killings to unknown assailants, just as some media did after the Fakhoura school massacre on Saturday, resorting to phrases like "alleged attack" or attributing to the unknown without any reference to the Israeli occupation's responsibility for the bombing, or adopting the usual Israeli military narrative after each massacre, that they are "investigating the incident."
Many media institutions may later issue apologies for adopting the Israeli narrative of targeting civilians at a party, but how useful is an apology after providing political cover for the killing of thousands and the bombing of hospitals, schools, and places of worship?
Monday 14 November 2023
CNN Correspondent and Israeli Occupation Army Propaganda
In a recent CNN report, correspondent Nick Robertson, guided by Israeli army spokesperson Daniel Hajjar, visited a location in Gaza's Rantisi Hospital, allegedly used by the resistance as an operational base, and claimed it was a location where hostages were kept. The room also contains several weapons, which the army spokesperson claims belonged to Hamas militants.
This scenario raises critical ethical questions: the possibility that the Israeli army could have staged the scene before the journalists' arrival cannot be discounted. Without independent verification, the authenticity of the evidence and the claim of resistance elements using the hospital remain unconfirmed.
Correspondent Nick Robertson's lack of critical questioning regarding the narrative provided by the Israeli army spokesperson is concerning. His acceptance of the presented scenario without skepticism suggests a missed opportunity for journalistic rigor. The report could have been equally effective if the Israeli army had directly supplied the footage to CNN, bypassing the need for a correspondent on-site.
More troubling is Robertson's extension of this narrative to other hospitals, hinting at a broader justification for potential Israeli military actions against medical facilities in Gaza. This approach not only compromises the objectivity expected in journalism but also risks normalizing one-sided narratives in conflict reporting and not questioning the potential war crimes committed by attacking civilians in hospitals.
Sunday, November 13, 2023
Ambiguous headlines and selective quoting that absolve Israel’s hospital bombings
Le Figaro, one of the most influential media outlets in France, and like most media outlets that defend right-wing narratives, fully embraced the Israeli narrative. On November 13, it published an article titled "War between Israel and Hamas: Gaza Hospitals Caught in the Crossfire," equating Israel (which is classified as an occupying power by the United Nations) and Hamas as warring powers. The piece resorts to using the term "crossfire" to describe the situation in northern Gaza, obscuring the identity of those responsible for bombing hospitals and targeting civilian facilities protected by international law.
The article mentions narratives from the Israeli army and Hamas about hospital bombings, but in the final paragraph, it refers to the European Union's condemnation of Hamas for "using hospitals as human shields in violation of international law." However, it fails to mention the organization's position on Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories, considering them illegal and an occupation.
The issue of professional balance in reporting is under scrutiny, especially regarding the alleged use of hospitals by Hamas. Notably, prominent organizations like Human Rights Watch have openly contradicted Israel's claims. They assert that there's no evidence to back the allegations that Hamas operates a base beneath Al-Shifa Hospital or that its military officials are stationed inside the hospital, challenging the narrative presented in La Figaro (and other Western media outlets).
The article in question overlooks key aspects of the ongoing conflict, notably Hamas's invitation to international bodies, including the United Nations and global media, to scrutinize Israel's allegations of militants operating within hospitals. Additionally, it fails to address Israel's restrictions on journalists entering Gaza, a crucial factor in reporting reality on the ground.
This approach of crafting headlines and omitting specific details about the perpetrators of civilian casualties in Gaza is increasingly seen as a tactic masquerading as "neutrality." In reality, this method leans towards bias, favoring Israel, and straying from the core journalistic principle of impartially holding all parties accountable for their actions.
Saturday, November 12, 2023
Stripping context to polish the image of Israeli occupation
"IDF is preparing to rescue trapped premature babies from Gaza hospital." The Telegraph published a piece on November 12 about the plight of malnourished children at Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza, who are facing the risk of death due to the hospital's electricity shortage. The report presents a singular viewpoint, aligning closely with the Israeli narrative. It notably omits crucial context about the hospital's dire situation, including the impact of the Israeli military's actions on the facility and the children at risk due to the electricity shortage caused by these actions.
The newspaper made no attempt to provide any context for the news. It simply relayed the statement from the Israeli army spokesperson without fulfilling its fundamental role in questioning authority or providing context to the event. The article did not mention the fact that the hospital is besieged by the Israeli occupation forces or the fact that the lives of these children are endangered due to Israel's electricity cutoff in Gaza since the beginning of its military campaign. Furthermore, it failed to mention the reality that the hospital has been subjected to continuous shelling by the Israeli occupation army in recent days, resulting in the deaths of dozens of civilians and the destruction of entire medical departments within the hospital, rendering them out of service.
The news piece also ignored the ongoing incitement by the Israeli occupation army against Al-Shifa Hospital, falsely claiming that it serves as a command center for Hamas to justify its shelling. Instead, it attempted to glorify the Israeli occupation army and present it as an ethical force saving children, disregarding the fact that the victims of Israeli shelling, including children, have exceeded 4,000 in the past few weeks.
Saturday, November 12, 2023
The Washington Post Issues Apology for Cartoon Condoning Child Deaths in Gaza
T
he Washington Post published a cartoon in its opinion section in its printed edition on Tuesday, November 7th. The cartoon depicts what appears to be a Hamas leader connecting several children to his front and a Palestinian woman from behind, saying, "How dare Israel attack civilians?"
The cartoon attempts to reinforce the Israeli narrative that the high civilian casualty toll in Gaza is due to their use by resistance factions as human shields. The cartoon not only justifies the high number of civilian casualties in Gaza but goes further by explicitly advocating for their killing. The cartoon suggests that it is necessary to kill children and women for Israel to reach the bodies of resistance leaders and kill them.
The newspaper published this cartoon in its opinion section, which is topped with the newspaper's header and the phrase "An Independent Newspaper." This independence allows for a blatant bias in justifying the killing of children and women and a continuous bias towards the Israeli narrative since the start of the recent escalation.
It cannot be ignored that the owner of The Washington Post is the American billionaire Jeff Bezos, who also owns Amazon. Amazon announced in August last year that it would invest over $7 billion In Israel in the coming years.
The newspaper issued an apology for the cartoon in its edition on Thursday, November 9th, after facing severe criticism from readers.
Thursday, November 9, 2023
The use of the term "terrorism" in media coverage of the Gaza war: a political or editorial choice?
Investigations et Enquêtes (Investigations and Inquiries), a YouTube channel, recently re-released a documentary from 2003 titled "Israeli Special Forces: In the Heart of the War against Terrorism." The episode garnered an exceptionally high viewership, surpassing half a million views in less than three weeks.
The channel employed the word "terrorism" to describe the factions and movements opposing Israel, and it is evident that not placing it within quotation marks reflects an editorial stance.
The United Nations defines terrorism (in general and broadly) as criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons, or particular persons for political purposes. However, this concept has been subject to political manipulation, with nations often using it to label their adversaries or those opposing their policies.
When discussions initially arose within the United Nations about the concept of terrorism, countries were divided on defining the term precisely, influenced by political and ideological conflicts. Heated debates occurred concerning "state terrorism" and the situations to which it applied. A specific stream did not prevail, and the United Nations did not reach a consensus on a definition for the term. However, the outcome of the discussion is that "terrorism" is a word laden with political implications that can escalate to the level of propaganda against adversaries.
Here, we can point to the shift in the United States' stance toward the Taliban, who were initially seen as liberators and heroes deserving of celebration at the White House during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, only to later be labeled as "sponsors of global terrorism" within a few years.
There are many examples indicating that the term "terrorism" is sometimes used to incite against opposition figures, as was the case with the anti-racism icon Nelson Mandela, who remained categorized as a "mere terrorist" by the apartheid regime for years.
Are the media concerned with adopting states' classifications of the terrorism concept?
The French Press Agency (AFP) found itself at the heart of an ongoing political debate regarding its decision not to use the terms "terrorism" and "terrorists" when describing the Hamas movement. Based on an editorial decision made during the ongoing conflict, describes Hamas as follows: "Hamas organization, as designated by the United States, Israel, and the European Union," with a strict constraint of framing the word "terrorism" within quotation marks.
Even when an Israeli aircraft was attacked over Dagestan, the French agency reported it as "an attack by a group opposing Israel," in contrast to many Western headlines that described the blockade of Israeli passengers as "terrorism" and "anti-Semitism."
The editorial choice of the French news agency regarding the use of the words "terrorism" and "terrorists" is not new; it refrained from using them to describe the 2001 attacks on America, the 2015 Paris attacks, the activities of the Basque ETA organization, and the Irish Republican Party.
The BBC also refuses to use the word "terrorism" to describe the Hamas movement. John Simpson, the BBC's World Affairs Editor, says, "Terrorism is a loaded term used to describe a morally objectionable group. It is not the BBC's role to determine who should be supported or condemned, who are the good guys, and who are the bad guys. If governments describe Hamas as a terrorist movement, that's their business, and those we interview are entitled to say that, but not in our voice. Our job is to provide the facts to our audience and let them make their own decisions."
"Terrorism" is a susceptible term and has become a tool in the hands of many countries to eliminate their opponents using international law and the institutions responsible for its enforcement. This compels newsrooms to handle the term with great caution. For example, Al Jazeera, given that "terrorism" has become one of the most widely used words in the world, adopted an editorial decision to use the phrase "so-called terrorism" when referring to states and entities that employ it without explicitly endorsing it.
Monday, November 6, 2023
The military censor controls the narrative
CNN aired a field report by its correspondent Jeremy Diamond on the 6th of November, who was embedded with the Israeli occupation forces during their incursion of the Gaza Strip, noting before its broadcast that the military stipulated the submission of all recorded content for review and approval before allowing its publication.
CNN consented to this condition, justifying its decision on the basis that it would enable the channel to provide its viewers with a "limited window to observe the Israeli operations in Gaza.".
This acknowledgment by CNN of prior control by the occupying Israeli military over the filmed content and determining what can and cannot be published violates the principle of independence in journalistic work. It transforms the role of the journalist from an objective conveyor of truth into a public relations officer for the Israeli military. The motive that led the channel to relinquish the independence of its coverage—to provide a limited view into the Israeli operations in Gaza—is not a viable justification.
The fundamental function of journalistic reporting is to convey facts objectively and independently. Therefore, publishing videos of Israeli occupation forces inside the Gaza Strip with prior censorship only serves the Israeli narrative of events and cannot be considered reliable journalistic practice but rather "military propaganda.".
American journalist and writer David Ignatius, the previous editor at The Washington Post in foreign affairs, explained the professional dilemmas arising from embedded journalism in a 2010 article for the same newspaper.
He states, "Embedding comes at a price. We are observing these wars from just one perspective, not seeing them as a whole. When you see my byline from Kandahar, Kabul, or Basra, you should not think that I am out among ordinary people, asking questions of all sides. I am usually in an American military bubble. That vantage point has value, but it is hardly a full picture.". He added that accompanying soldiers or even politicians on their trips ”inherits the distortions and biases that come with being ‘on the bus’ or ‘on the plane’.
If this is the case, how can coverage be fair and independent when the army not only escorts journalists to selected locations but also controls and censors what they can publish in their news stories, as in the case of CNN?
