Last week, The New York Times posted a video showing how the lives of people in the Gaza Strip were affected by the 11-day Hamas-initiated war with Israel.
Taken in the context of another video recently produced by the Times, one which purported to depict the experiences of Israelis during the same conflict, the videos are a textbook example of how hostile Western media outlets can be to telling Israel’s side of the story.
Is The Gaza Story Twice As Important?
The video focusing on the experiences of those in Gaza, ‘So They Know We Existed’: Palestinians Film War in Gaza, is almost 14 minutes long. This is nearly double the length of the Israel clip, called No Rockets, but Anxiety Persists in Southern Israel. While it’s clear that significantly more destruction took place in Gaza, that is in large part due to the fact Hamas purposely placed its military assets in, and under, civilian neighbourhoods, thus ensuring that Israeli strikes would cause damage to civilian infrastructure.
For one video to be twice as long as the other suggests that equal attention was not given to both sides, and, largely devoid of context (more on that soon), creates an impression of grave unfairness. This was, to reiterate, the second video the Times had already produced focusing on Gaza.
Baby “Sword of Jerusalem” Named After Hamas’ Rocket-Firing Campaign
During the Gaza video, a young couple is shown on-screen holding their newborn baby. The proud parents tell the camera they gave their son the name “Seif al-Quds.”
Somewhat incredibly, the Times failed to translate the name or provide context. Seif al-Quds, literally “Sword of Jerusalem,” was the name Hamas gave to its military operation against Israel in which Israeli cities and towns were subjected to a relentless bombardment of over 4,500 rockets.
If the Times had bothered to inform readers that the baby featured in their video had been called Sword of Jerusalem, they would have been able to fully understand the sheer irony of the next line in the video: “And the next day, his birth blessed us with a cease-fire,” the father says with a straight face.
But viewers missed all of this because the Times failed to translate the name and provide basic context.
Planting Seeds of Doubt With Israel “Said”
Towards the end of the video documenting the experiences of Gazans, viewers are informed that Israeli officials told the Times “that they were targeting Hamas military infrastructure.”
Had the Times wanted to, it could have mentioned that there is plenty of evidence, established by journalists and independent bodies, that Hamas embeds its military infrastructure in civilian districts while hiding its personnel and command posts in hospitals, mosques and health clinics. Had the Times wanted to reflect the full story, it could have referred to video evidence of Hamas tunnels with entrances inside of homes.
Had the Times wanted to, it could have included a statistic or two to demonstrate that the vast majority of Israeli airstrikes on Gaza did not harm anyone.
Instead, the Times failed to describe Israel’s actions in an objective manner.
Lies, Damned Lies, And Statistics
Toward the end of the Gaza video the following text flashes on-screen:
Over the 11 days of fighting, the U.N. said 260 Palestinians were killed in Gaza and 13 people were killed in Israel.”
This, actually, is a good use of “said.” In the absence of a definitive list of people killed and absolute proof that the deaths of each one was the result of the fighting, it’s correct to attribute these numbers to a particular source.
However, while the numbers are important and relevant, they do not tell the whole story. If anything, there is a strong case to be made that they are highly misleading. According to UN statistics, of those killed in Gaza 132 were combatants. And the true number may be significantly higher. Evidence suggests that only combatants were targeted by Israel. And with respect to those killed in Israel, 12 were civilians and just one was a soldier. This information is highly significant.
Times readers are not getting this crucial context.
Unmentioned: Hamas Policy of Human Shields
Not even once in either video are viewers told of the Hamas policy of hiding behind human shields.
Neither are viewers told that Hamas’ strategy, by its own admission, is to hit Israeli cities and towns and kill Israeli civilians. Indeed, the war commenced with an unprovoked Hamas RPG attack on an Israeli civilian on a hilltop adjacent to Gaza followed in quick succession by a hail of rockets at Jerusalem.
Failing to note this is a major journalistic failure.
Meanwhile, those seeking to better comprehend events in Gaza earlier this year, and in general, need to understand the basic reality that Hamas deliberately seeks to deter Israel from striking by locating military headquarters, command centers, tunnels, rockets and other assets in the heart of densely populated urban centers. As a result, innocent people are placed in harm’s way by Hamas.
Omitting this fact is inexcusable and fundamentally warps the picture being painted.
Israeli Claims Contextualized; Gaza Narrative Unchallenged
During both videos, there are moments when text appears on-screen to provide a modicum of background information. Towards the end of the Israeli video appears: “Hamas says its attacks during the war were in response to Israeli aggressions, starting with Israeli police raids and evictions in East Jerusalem.” That’s Hamas’ version. But the Israeli perspective is not given.
Now compare that with the video from Gaza, which cites Israeli officials who “confirmed their military carried out the attacks featured in this video.” “They said that they were targeting Hamas military infrastructure, not civilians.” Crucially, though, immediately afterward, UN statistics then appear on-screen, showing that many were killed in Gaza. This seems to “disprove” the Israeli claim. Why is Israel’s claim contextualised and challenged in a way that Hamas’s claim is not?
Visuals: Adults vs. Children
It’s striking how in the Palestinian video numerous children are interviewed, including a pair of sisters who at one point become emotional and embrace. In the Israeli video, however, those featured are business owners, workers, a foreign laborer and one young woman. No young children at all are featured.
It’s tugging at heartstrings stuff. It’s also fundamentally dishonest. The Times distorts reality while paying lip service to journalistic balance by having two videos. But those two videos are not even remotely balanced — not in context, not in content, not in those interviewed.
Not the First Time, Not the Last
This was not the first video documenting the experiences of people in Gaza during the flare-up in hostilities. In June, the Times released a visual “investigation” which insinuated that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) caused the collapse of apartment buildings in the Gaza Strip by irresponsibly deploying bombs against Hamas targets.
As HonestReporting noted then, that video failed to include any conclusive evidence that Israel’s bombs were directly responsible, and largely overlooked the fact that Hamas’ policy of locating its military assets in civilian areas is a clear breach of international law.
Not for the first time, the New York Times has succeeded in presenting an utterly false depiction of reality, portraying Israel as causing untold damage to the people of Gaza while excising the presence and role of Hamas.
