In the wake of the Gaza ceasefire, a new narrative painting Israel as an aggressor is subtly infiltrating mainstream media.
Biased reporters, like Politico’s Dalia Hatuqa, try to depict Israel’s ongoing anti-terrorism operations in the West Bank as a new onslaught against innocent Palestinians.
To that end, any means is justified, including distorted or even made-up terminology, one-sided sources, and omission of crucial facts.
In a recent piece published by the magazine, Hatuqa interviews residents of the Jenin refugee camp who were displaced due to Israel’s operation. The accounts are obviously heartbreaking, and only one paragraph is dedicated to Israel’s stated aim of uprooting murderous Jihadis.
Without any mention of terror casualties on the Israeli side, Hatuqa goes on to platform a Jenin hospital director, as well as Diana Buttu, a former PLO official with a track record of spreading falsehoods about Israel.
And then, attentive readers understand Hatuqa’s trick: her entire piece, including the headline — “The ‘Gaza-ification’ of the West Bank” — is parroting the words of these one-sided sources.
One of these words is “revenge,” as if Israel is now unleashing its anger over October 7 not on Gaza but on poor West Bank residents:
Many here in the West Bank believe this operation is a way for Israelis, still angry about the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks, to continue to take revenge on the Palestinian population despite the Gaza cease-fire.
Other words are used to mask who Israel is really fighting against. The made-up term “traditional Palestinian factions,” for example, is used instead of naming the proscribed terror groups that threaten Israel, such as Hamas or Islamic Jihad.
And the phrase “Palestinian armed resistance” appears in a distorted background paragraph about Israel’s 2002 military operation in Jenin. The paragraph completely omits the fact it was Israel’s reaction against the terror wave of the Second Intifada that targeted Israelis with suicide bombs on buses and in cafes.
What @DaliaHatuqa won’t tell you in @politico is what “Palestinian armed resistance” really means.
Israel didn’t simply invade Jenin’s refugee camp in 2002. It was forced to mobilize against the wave of terror unleashed by Palestinians in the Second Intifada that targeted… pic.twitter.com/32tNvgm7zw
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) February 10, 2025
Related Reading: The Eight Categories of Media Bias
Sadly, none of this is surprising if one takes a quick look at Hatuqa’s X account (formerly Twitter). She doesn’t even try to hide her pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli bias.
In a tweet last weekend, she called a protester who raised a Palestinian flag during the Super Bowl halftime show “a king.”
This is who @politico published.
No surprise that someone who sees terrorism as “armed resistance” also considers an attempt to disrupt the Super Bowl halftime show as a heroic act. https://t.co/DfHQ3P5Qdw pic.twitter.com/6WjP8XqcYX
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) February 10, 2025
And last year, she ridiculed Israel’s proven claim that UNRWA staff and Gazan journalists participated in Hamas’ October 7 atrocities:
How can Politico see Hatuqa as a credible journalist? What she writes is not news but propaganda, and it’s quite easy to check her social media activity.
HonestReporting has asked Politico to explain.
Liked this article? Follow HonestReporting on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to see even more posts and videos debunking news bias and smears, as well as other content explaining what’s really going on in Israel and the region.
Image Credit: Oren Ben Hakoon via Flash90
