By Oded J.K. Faran and Walter Block
Ross Douthat’s recent New York Times analysis of the Gaza conflict exemplifies a troubling trend in contemporary commentary: the elevation of false moral equivalence above moral clarity. While Douthat acknowledges Hamas’s atrocities, his analysis fundamentally misunderstands both the nature of this conflict and the unprecedented burdens being placed on Israel.
The Problem with Douthat’s “Just Think It’s True” Standard
Douthat delivers himself of this remarkable admission: “So there is no way to look at the rubble in Gaza and the death-toll estimates and offer a mathematical proof that Israel is failing to exercise adequate restraint. I just think it’s true.” Here lies the fundamental flaw in his entire analysis: when serious moral judgments rest on subjective feelings rather than evidence, journalism becomes ideology.
This “death toll estimates” that Douthat treats as gospel emanate from one source and one source only: the health ministry of Hamas. According to this New York Times columnist, we can apparently take the word of the same organization that orchestrated the October 7 massacre and take it to the bank. Would Douthat have similarly trusted casualty figures provided by the Nazi Party during World War II? The comparison is not hyperbolic: both are terrorist organizations with every incentive to inflate civilian casualties for propaganda purposes.
The Visual Evidence Tells a Different Story
Peruse carefully all those pictures of the so-called starving Gazans, waving big pots around, seemingly begging for food. See any emaciated people there? Notice any of them as skeletal as those released from German concentration camps in 1945, or as thin as Jewish hostages recently set free by Hamas? The visual evidence contradicts the starvation narrative being promoted.
This is not to minimize genuine hardship, but the crowds in these photographs appear well-fed compared to victims of actual famines throughout history. If mass starvation were truly occurring, where are the emaciated figures we associate with such crises? The disconnect between the apocalyptic rhetoric and the photographic evidence should give serious observers pause.
The Simple Solution Douthat Ignores
Most problematic in Douthat’s presentation is his failure to acknowledge a simple reality: if Hamas released all hostages and surrendered, five minutes later there would be no food crisis. Okay, we exaggerate, but only slightly. It might well take Israel an hour or so to address this issue, and this is no exaggeration.
To attain this end, Hamas wouldn’t even have to surrender and face Israeli prisons. All these terrorists would need to do is depart: leave the Gazan women and children and elderly to the tender mercies of the Israelis, instead of hiding behind them as human shields. This would place these unfortunates in a far better position than they now occupy under the so-called “care” of Hamas.
But the murderers and rapists of Hamas don’t wear military uniforms: the understatement of the year. This creates the problem of distinguishing combatants from civilians among Palestinian males of military age. (Women of that age have proven to be prime candidates for suicide bombing, but we can set that aside for now.)
Of course, Hamas does no such thing. So whose fault is the present plight of the Palestinians: Hamas or Israel? According to Douthat’s moral calculus, both parties bear equal responsibility. This is where his analysis becomes not just wrong, but morally grotesque.
The Unprecedented Standard Applied to Israel
Has any other country in history been called upon to feed and care for enemy civilians during active warfare? The Allies certainly did no such thing for Germany and Japan during World War II. Did Douthat condemn the United States for failing to provide food aid to German civilians while Allied bombers destroyed their cities? Not to our knowledge.
Yet Israel, uniquely among democracies at war, is expected to solve the humanitarian problems created by its enemy’s deliberate strategy while that enemy continues to hold hostages, fire rockets, and use civilians as human shields. This double standard is not just unfair; it incentivizes the very terrorist tactics that create civilian suffering in the first place.
When a democracy is held to standards that no other nation has met in existential warfare, while its terrorist adversary faces no comparable expectations, we have abandoned moral reasoning for something approaching moral perversion.
The Missing Endgame
Douthat correctly identifies the lack of a clear path to lasting peace as problematic. But his analysis ignores the most obvious solution: Hamas’s defeat or surrender. Instead, he seems to suggest that Israel should accept a return to the status quo ante, with Gaza under Hamas control and the terrorist organization rearmed and ready to repeat October 7.
This reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the conflict’s nature. This is not a dispute over territory or resources that can be resolved through negotiation. Hamas’s charter explicitly calls for Israel’s destruction. Its leaders have repeatedly stated their intention to repeat October 7 attacks until Israel is eliminated. There can be no stable peace while Hamas retains power in Gaza.
Moral Clarity vs. Moral Equivalence
True moral analysis requires distinguishing between the deliberate targeting of civilians and their incidental harm during legitimate military operations. It requires recognizing the difference between a democracy fighting under international legal constraints and a terrorist organization that deliberately violates every norm of civilized warfare.
Douthat’s analysis fails these basic tests. By treating Israeli restraint and Hamas brutality as morally equivalent problems requiring equal condemnation, he incentivizes terrorist tactics and punishes democratic restraint. His approach doesn’t serve peace: it serves Hamas’s propaganda objectives.
The tragedy in Gaza is real, but its primary author is Hamas, not Israel. Until this basic moral fact is acknowledged, commentary like Douthat’s will continue to obstruct rather than advance the cause of peace.
Additional Sources
“No Proof Hamas Routinely Stole U.N. Aid, Israeli Military Officials Say.” The New York Times, July 26, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/26/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-aid-hamas.html
“Joint Statement on the Occupied Palestinians Territories.” Government of the United Kingdom, July 23, 2025. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-on-the-occupied-palestinian-territories
“Israel-Gaza Aid Restrictions Eased as International Pressure Mounts.” The New York Times, July 26, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/26/world/middleeast/gaza-aid-restrictions-eased.html
The “Additional Sources” do not match the content of the article or at most bolster the statements made by the UN and the EU. They are not, nor can they be based on fact or evidence.
As said in the article, one seeks in vain for pictures akin to those from Biafra from days past. Simply search google for famine in Biafra and compare the facts.