The New Republic used to be a reputable magazine offering commentary on politics, contemporary issues and the arts. Sadly, in recent years the venerable institution has shifted away from responsible fact-based journalism and entered the field of advocacy-driven reporting.
A recent article, titled “Why the Unrest in Gaza Might Get Worse,” is a case in point.
Freelance writer Dalia Hatuqa’s piece is clearly hostile not only to Israel, but to the truth. For example, Hatuqa uses evocative, exaggerated language, claiming that “Gaza was pulverized,” when in reality the bulk of the damage sustained in the Strip was by Hamas and Islamic Jihad military facilities and infrastructure in these terrorist groups’ immediate vicinity.
Then, there are such demonstrable falsehoods as describing Gaza as a “besieged coastal enclave,” when the legal definition of siege simply does not apply.
Join the fight for Israel’s fair coverage in the news
From the very first sentence, in which Hatuqa refers to “the wall that hems in the Gaza Strip,” the article is replete with clear factual inaccuracies. In fact, Israel is separated from Gaza by a fence. Although a wall has been constructed, it is deep underground, and was built in order to prevent terrorists from crossing into sovereign, internationally-recognized Israeli territory, and launching attacks and abduction missions.
In short, there is no wall for those in Gaza who are not terrorists.
New Record for Most Lies in One Sentence?
Among the inaccuracies and misleading reporting, one particular sentence is so full of misinformation, it requires a full dissection.
Here’s the full paragraph:
Tuesday night’s hostilities served as a reminder that the cause of the May conflict is far from settled. The looming expulsion of several Palestinian families from their homes in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah—to make way for Israeli settlers—became the spark that ignited the Israeli bombardment of Gaza last month and saw rockets lobbed on Israeli cities, leaving 256 Palestinians and 13 citizens and residents of Israel dead.”
There are no less than five major problems with that last sentence.
1. Readers are fundamentally misled regarding “the cause of the May conflict.” The catalyst for the escalation in hostilities in May was not the property dispute in the Jerusalem neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah / Shimon Hatzadik. The actual sequence of events began with a wave of Palestinian attacks on Jews, which were recorded on video and spread on TikTok and other social media. This sparked a strong response by Israeli youths.
Shortly thereafter, the dual tensions of Israeli policing of Palestinian rioters at the peak of Ramadan and an annual Israeli flag march considered unacceptable by the Palestinians occurred at the same time as a court case related to the property dispute.
Most significantly, weeks previously, with his popularity on the wane, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas had cancelled the first Palestinian national elections in fifteen years, a move which Hamas decried as “a breach of national consensus” and “a coup.” Incensed and desperate to prove itself as the true leaders of the Palestinian people, Hamas used the incidents in Jerusalem as a pretext to open fire on Israeli cities.
As such, attempting to reduce the roots of the conflict to a single incident like this is grossly misleading.
2. Framing the situation in Sheikh Jarrah / Shimon Hatzadik as an “expulsion… to make way for Israeli settlers” omits the basic fact that the dispute would be over in a moment if the Palestinian families just paid rent. The Palestinians living in the property have refused to pay rent – and that is a matter of fact.
3. The chronology is woefully inaccurate and misleading. Even if the land dispute was the “spark” here, it did not lead to an “Israeli bombardment of Gaza” and then, afterwards, rockets being fired on Israeli cities. In reality, Israel attacked targets in Gaza as a response to Hamas’ sudden targeting of Israeli population centres — a clear war crime.
4. Compare the language: Hatuqa describes an “Israeli bombardment” of Gaza, while mentioning rockets that were “lobbed” on Israeli cities. One term is much harsher, while the other is passive. And while Israel is actively identified, the Gaza-based terror groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad are omitted altogether. In fact, only once is Hamas mentioned in the entire article – in the context of a “fragile ceasefire” in place between it and Israel.
5. Of the Palestinians to die in the course of the fighting, many were terrorists. Even now, the links of some to terrorist organizations are still emerging. Readers deserve to know that many of the Palestinians were killed because they were combatants and directly involved in the fighting. Saying only that “256 Palestinians” were killed conceals this reality.
Related Reading: 5 Ways Media are Twisting Coverage of Israel-Hamas Conflict
Litany of Lies
The lies don’t end there.
Later in the article, Hatuqa unquestioningly parrots the dubious Al Jazeera narrative that one of the Qatari news channel’s reporters had her arm broken after being detained, for no reason, by Israeli forces. After her release, Givara Budeiri claimed her arm had been broken — but not before being caught on camera picking up two children, one in each arm, without any apparent unease.
Coincidentally, videos also emerged showing the journalist pushing a member of the Israeli border police. None of this is mentioned by Hatuqa, who writes as fact that Budeiri was “detained and beaten.”
Hatuqa also whitewashes the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank between 1948 and 1967, saying only that “Jordan administered the West Bank” at the time. The term compares starkly with Israel’s presence, routinely described as an “occupation” in the media.
But Jordan didn’t administer the territory with its military, as prescribed by international law. In reality, eastern Jerusalem was annexed by the Kingdom of Jordan in mid-December 1948. Jordan’s annexation of the territory was formally made law in May 1950, and residents of the West Bank even voted in Jordanian elections.
Hatuqa and The New Republic are welcome to express their views on the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, but make no mistake — such stories cannot conjure up parallel realitties that ignore the facts and cross the threshold from factual reporting into the realm of anti-Israel advocacy with mindless repetition of hearsay and falsehoods.
