By Jacob Kohn and Walter E. Block
The Editorial Board of the New York Times recently declared that “Israel’s Gaza Media Ban Is Indefensible,” advocating that Israel allow all journalists, particularly Palestinians, unfettered access to witness IDF operations from the front lines.
The editorial notes that “all wars are dangerous to cover, but Gaza holds a place of its own among modern conflicts for the peril faced by journalists. Some 200 journalists have been among the estimated 63,000 people killed since the Gaza war began, an overwhelming majority killed by the Israeli military.”
However, several counterarguments merit consideration. First, evidence indicates that numerous Palestinian “journalists” are actually Hamas operatives. The IDF has documented cases where individuals carrying press credentials were simultaneously serving as Hamas intelligence officers, weapons smugglers, and even participants in the October 7 attacks. These individuals are not neutral observers but active participants in war crimes, including the deliberate targeting of civilians demonstrated on October 7, 2023, when over 1,200 Israelis were murdered and more than 240 were taken hostage. The rationale for granting such individuals privileged access to military operations, rather than treating them as enemy combatants, remains unclear. Would the Times have advocated for embedding Al-Qaeda operatives with press badges alongside American troops in Afghanistan?
The editorial characterizes Israel’s policy as “outrageous and self-defeating.” Regarding the first charge, Israel is hardly alone in this approach. Both Russia and Ukraine have recently implemented strict regulations, including total bans on journalist access to front lines. During the Battle of Mosul in 2017, the U.S.-led coalition severely restricted journalist access to active combat zones. Britain’s Ministry of Defence maintains tight control over media access during military operations. France imposed significant restrictions on coverage of its operations in Mali and the Sahel region. As for the second claim, the Times itself acknowledges that “Israel’s leaders and defenders often argue that they are held to a different standard during wartime from other nations, and they are sometimes correct about that.”
In reality, Israel is consistently held to a far more stringent standard than virtually any other military force in the history of warfare. Hamas systematically uses the Gazan population as human shields, a fact rarely acknowledged by international journalists. Hamas has constructed over 300 miles of tunnels beneath civilian homes, schools, and hospitals. It positions rocket launchers in residential neighborhoods and operates command centers from within hospitals and mosques. The terrorist organization stores weapons in schools and United Nations facilities. This deliberate strategy makes civilian casualties nearly inevitable despite Israeli precautions, yet this context is routinely omitted from media coverage. When Israel warns civilians to evacuate before striking legitimate military targets, Hamas often prevents them from leaving, ensuring maximum casualties for propaganda purposes.
The editorial claims that “Ukraine allows journalists in to cover its war with Russia,” which misrepresents the actual restrictions Ukraine has imposed. In March 2023, Ukraine’s military command implemented new regulations severely limiting journalist access to frontline areas, requiring special permits and military escorts. Journalists who violated these rules faced detention and expulsion. Moreover, even when Ukraine does grant access, such coverage generates favorable international propaganda for their cause. Western journalists in Ukraine operate under implicit pressure to present the conflict in ways that support continued international assistance. The opposite is true for Israel, where media coverage is overwhelmingly hostile regardless of the facts on the ground. A 2024 study by Fifty Global Research Group analyzed 1,378 articles from major outlets and found that only 3% cited figures for militant casualties, only 15% noted that Hamas-controlled sources don’t differentiate between combatants and civilians, and 98% of reports relied on Hamas figures while only 1% mentioned these figures cannot be independently verified.
The Times writers assert: “Thanks to social media and the work of those brave Palestinian journalists, people can see the mass killing, severe hunger and wholesale destruction in Gaza, and it has prompted an outcry.” This statement exemplifies the one-sided narrative promoted by partisan reporters and amplified by major media outlets. The editorial assigns blame for Gaza’s suffering exclusively to Israel, with no acknowledgment of Hamas’s role in deliberately embedding military operations within civilian infrastructure or its systematic theft of humanitarian aid. Hamas has intercepted thousands of tons of food, medicine, and supplies intended for civilians, selling them on the black market to fund its military operations. The organization has seized fuel meant for hospitals to power its tunnel network. It has commandeered civilian buildings for military use, transforming them into legitimate targets under international law.
These writers appear not to grasp that Israel faces an existential threat to its survival as a nation-state. Hamas’s charter explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel and the genocide of Jews worldwide. Iran, Hamas’s primary sponsor, provides hundreds of millions of dollars annually to fund terrorist operations and has repeatedly declared its intention to eliminate Israel. Hezbollah has amassed over 150,000 rockets aimed at Israeli cities. When the United States fought in Vietnam, it faced no threat to its national survival and could afford to accommodate extensive media access. American cities were never under rocket fire. American civilians were not hiding in bomb shelters. The editorial praises U.S. efforts to “take steps to reduce the risks to journalists covering the conflict,” noting that “military planners nonetheless take account of where journalists are operating and how they might be protected. Israel has failed in this regard.”
Israel already operates under extraordinary constraints in its efforts to minimize civilian harm. The IDF employs a “roof knocking” procedure, dropping non-explosive devices on buildings minutes before actual strikes to warn occupants. It sends millions of text messages, makes phone calls, and drops leaflets warning civilians to evacuate targeted areas. It provides specific coordinates and timeframes for evacuation corridors. Israel introduced ground troops early in the conflict despite the higher risk to its soldiers, specifically to enable more precise targeting and reduce civilian casualties. This decision has resulted in significantly higher IDF casualties than an extended aerial campaign would have produced. The New York Times appears to demand that Israel accept even greater handicaps in defending itself, effectively asking the nation to fight with one hand tied behind its back while facing an enemy that deliberately maximizes civilian deaths for propaganda value.
The editorial particularly criticizes “Israel’s use of the double-tap tactic in urban warfare” as evidence of “disregard for civilian life.” Yet the historical record tells a different story. The so-called “double-tap” involves striking a target a second time after Hamas fighters and weapons are observed returning to the location. This tactic exists precisely because Hamas uses temporary lulls to rearm positions and continue attacks. Even the Nazi military did not systematically hide behind German civilians as Hamas does. Studies show that conventional military operations typically result in nine civilian deaths for every enemy combatant killed. The ratio in urban warfare is often far worse. During the Battle of Mosul, coalition forces killed an estimated four to five civilians for every ISIS fighter. In the Battle of Raqqa, the ratio was similar. Israel’s record stands at approximately three civilians for every two combatants, representing an unprecedented effort to minimize non-combatant casualties. Yet this achievement receives no recognition from the Times editorial board. By comparison, when allied forces bombed German and Japanese cities during World War II, civilian deaths numbered in the hundreds of thousands with minimal military casualties inflicted.
Perhaps most troubling is this statement of moral equivalence: “The Gaza of the future deserves a free press wholly different from what Hamas and Israel have permitted.” This assertion places a democratic state with a free press, where Arab journalists work freely at major newspapers and Arab members serve in parliament, on equal footing with a terrorist organization that brutally suppresses dissent, executes political opponents, and persecutes minorities, including homosexuals. Hamas has murdered journalists who criticized its rule. It has banned independent media outlets. It has tortured dissidents and thrown political opponents off buildings. Gaza has not held elections since 2006. Women face severe restrictions on their freedom. Christians have fled in droves due to persecution. Homosexuals face execution. One wonders if the writers have considered sharing this perspective with members of “Queers for Palestine,” who advocate for a regime that would execute them for their identity.
The disconnect between the editorial’s rhetoric and the reality on the ground recalls the legacy of Walter Duranty, the New York Times correspondent who denied Stalin’s genocidal famine in Ukraine during the 1930s. Duranty’s willful blindness to inconvenient truths in service of a preferred narrative earned him both a Pulitzer Prize and lasting infamy. His reporting provided cover for mass murder while claiming to represent objective journalism. The Times eventually acknowledged that Duranty’s work was “some of the worst reporting to appear in this newspaper.” One can only hope that future editors will look back on this editorial with similar regret, recognizing that they prioritized narrative over truth and advocacy over accuracy at a critical moment in history.
Sources
October 7, 2023 Attacks
NPR: Israel Revises Death Toll
Around 1,200 killed, 240+ hostages.
New York Times Editorial
Israel’s Gaza Media Ban
Primary editorial being critiqued.
Hamas Operatives as Journalists
IDF: Hamas Uses Journalism
Documents Hamas press credentials misuse.
Ukraine Media Restrictions
CPJ: Ukrainian Regulations
Frontline journalist restrictions documented.
Russia Media Restrictions
NPR: Russian Law Bans
Up to 15 years imprisonment.
Hamas Tunnel Network
Modern War Institute: Underground
300-mile network comprehensive analysis.
Hamas Charter
Yale Avalon Project: 1988 Charter
Calls for destruction of Israel.
Iran Funding Hamas
Congress.gov: Iran-Supported Groups
Up to $100 million annually.
Hezbollah Rockets
Times of Israel: 150,000 Rockets
Israeli officials document arsenal.
IDF Roof Knocking
IDF: Minimizing Civilian Harm
Warning procedures documented.
Civilian Casualty Ratios
Washington Times: Lower Ratio
Less than 2:1 documented.
Fifty Global Media Study
Middle East Forum: Media Bias
1,378 articles analyzed.
Queers for Palestine
Reason: The Contradictions
Hamas persecution of homosexuals.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.