Within about a month of each other, two articles came out discussing how America’s most prominent liberal newspapers—the New York Times and the Washington Post—have both abjured proper standards of journalism when covering the Israel/Hamas war. (Further, the other day the Torygraph wrote about how the BBC does the same thing.) And, of course since all three criticized venues are on the Left, their biases run in the same direction: towards Hamas or Palestine and against Israel.
The first headline below is from conservative National Review, and you can read it by clicking on the headline below or reading it archived here. The second headline is from Quillette, and you should be able to access it directly by clicking on the second headline.
The articles differ slightly, with criticism of the Post dealing with its direct biases in reporting, while that of the NYT, written by a historian, showing its abysmal understanding of Middle East history, which, coincidentally, makes Israel look bad. (It’s clearly not a coincidence, as the distortions always fit the liberal narrative.). I’ll just give one or two examples of bias from each article because you can read them yourself.
This, from the WaPo, is a bad one, verging on blood libel against Israel. But there are lots of other examples that I’ll pass over:
Once more, three days after the Post’s flawed military analysis [denying Hamas’s use of hospitals as headquarters], a team of the outlet’s senior reporters, including its Istanbul and London bureau chiefs, wrote about Israel returning dozens of Hamas bodies recovered in northern Gaza.
The IDF initially brought the bodies back to Israel to determine whether they were in fact Israeli hostages. The IDF then returned those bodies it had identified as Hamas fighters.
In its report on the body return, the Post cites a statement from the “Hamas-run government media office,” advancing the well-worn antisemitic conspiracy that the Jewish state had “stolen” the organs of slain Palestinians and “mutilated” their bodies. The Post quoted the ministry as saying, “After examining the bodies, it is clear that features of those killed had changed greatly in a clear indication that the Israeli occupation had stolen vital organs from them.”
“The media office denounces in the strongest terms the Israeli occupation army’s disdain for the dignity of the bodies of our 80 martyrs that Israel had stolen during its genocidal war because it delivered them mutilated,” Hamas said.
“The claims could not be independently verified,” the Post wrote of the Hamas-ministry reports. “The IDF referred questions about the bodies to the Israeli agency for civilian coordination with the Palestinians, which did not immediately respond.”
Virtually all other reputable news outlets — Reuters, Barrons, the French wire service AFP, and the Times of Israel — decided not to lend any credibility to the preposterous allegation. But not the Post. The outlet stood alone in airing Hamas’s antisemitic conspiracy. Outlets across the broader Middle East such as the Yemen Press Agency, Al Jazeera, Iran Press, and Al Mayadeen English were not so circumspect, joining the Post in advancing Hamas’s claims.
“It’s factually absurd. They’re harvesting organs from dead terrorists who’ve been lying around for days?” Reed Rubinstein, deputy associate attorney general for the Trump administration, said. “For years, there has been, primarily in academia and Palestinian propaganda outfits, this claim that the Israelis are harvesting organs.”
“It evokes the worst of the blood libel; ‘taking the blood from little children’ kind of stuff which is still recycled to this day,” Rubinstein continued. “The fact that the Post would publish this, and that somehow it got by the editors, is frankly a damning indictment of the operation over there now.”
The “blood libel” claim Rubinstein refers to is a centuries-old antisemitic conspiracy theory that holds that Jews use the blood of non-Jews in religious ceremonies. The ancient smear has in recent years morphed into the claim that Israel routinely harvests the organs of oppressed peoples: When Israel established a hospital in Haiti in the wake of that country’s 2010 earthquake, allegations that the IDF service members staffing the hospital had illegally procured patients’ organs to sell for a profit went viral.
Reached for comment, a Post spokesperson did not explain why the outlet chose to include Hamas’s blatant antisemitic conspiracy mongering in its coverage while most other reputable international outlets disregarded the remarks.
Yes, the Post had no comment, but it would probably say they were just “raising the possibility” that Jews stole the organs of dead Hamas fighters. The whole accusation is palpably ridiculous, even more so given that the bodies that supposedly provided organs had been dead for days. You don’t “raise the possibilities” when they’re as stupid as this—not unless you want to sow doubt in the minds of Israel-haters. So it goes.
The Quillette article below is by the distinguished and reliable Israeli historian Benny Morris.
Morris analyzes a discussion in the NYT Sunday Magazine by six people (you can read it for yourself, archived here), and calls out most of the participants for arrant historical ignorance. His intro:
As we saw from the savage Hamas assault on southern Israel on 7 October, the Palestinians have certainly been active protagonists in their more-than-century-long battle against Zionism and Israel. But the New York Times would have it otherwise. Indeed, the underlying narrative in their magazine piece of 6 February 2024, “The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and the Long Shadow of 1948,” is that the Palestinians have always lacked agency and have no responsibility for anything that has befallen them over the decades. This, plus a welter of factual errors and misleading judgments, has produced a seriously distorted description of the history of the first Arab–Israeli war and its origins.
The Times article consists of a lengthy “discussion” between Arab and Jewish scholars (three ostensibly from each side) and comments and clarifications (and mis-clarifications) by Emily Bazelon, the NYT staff writer who moderated the dialogue and put the piece together. Five of the six people involved can hardly be deemed experts on either the Arab–Israeli conflict or the 1948 war. Only one—Itamar Rabinovich, a former Israeli ambassador to Washington—has published works of some relevance: The Road Not Taken (1991), on the clandestine post-1948 Arab–Israeli peace talks, and The War for Lebanon (1984), on the Israel–PLO war of the early 1980s. During the discussion, the three Arab panellists—Nadim Bawalsa, an associate editor of the Journal of Palestine Studies; Leena Dallasheh, who is writing a book on Nazareth in the 1940s and ’50s; and Salim Tamari, a sociologist from Bir Zeit University in the West Bank—almost uniformly toe the PLO (or Hamas) line, which is indistinguishable from propaganda.
Bazelon, the moderator and staff writer for the NYT Magazine, seems to make repeated mistakes, and I’ll give one example below. First, though, a trope Bazelon uses several times:
Bazelon comments that in 1929 the “Palestinians rebelled” against the British and “violence first broke out over control of the holy sites in Jerusalem.” (Throughout the New York Times piece, Bazelon uses the phrase “violence broke out,” instead of explicitly stating that the Arabs assaulted the Jews, though she does concede that in 1929 Jews were massacred in Hebron and Safad).
The “violence broke out” phrase would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic. The article is replete with mistakes, but here are two more excerpts:
Towards the end of the panel discussion, Bazelon asks: why did the Palestinians reject partition in 1947? This is the crux of the issue since their rejection of partition then is arguably the reason why the Palestinians do not have a state to this day. The panellists offer a variety of misleading answers. Abigail Jacobson, a historian at Tel Aviv University and one of the three Jewish participants, argues that the Palestinians could not accept a resolution that earmarked 55 percent of Palestine for the Jews, who only comprised a third of the country’s population, while the Arabs—two-thirds of the population—were only awarded 45 percent of the land. “If you were a Palestinian,” she asks her readers, “would you accept this offer?” But Jacobson forgets that most of the land assigned to the Jewish state was barren wasteland in the Negev Desert. She also elides the basic truth, which is that the the real reason the Palestinian leadership opposed the resolution was that they opposed the grant of any part of Palestine—no matter how small a percentage of the land—to Jewish sovereignty. In their view, all of Palestine, every inch, belonged solely to the Palestinian Arabs. Jacobson argues that “the Palestinian national movement was ready to accept the Jews as a minority within an Arab state.” That is correct. But the point is that they were only willing to accept them as such.
The “real reason” still holds: the Palestinians don’t want two states because they want Israel gone, and they might tolerate Jews in a majority-Palestinian state, but that’s unlikely since there are few Jews remaining in any Arab state. Jews in a Palestinian-majority state would most likely be doomed.
And once again Bazelon flaunts her ignorance:
Finally, the article’s meagre treatment of the 1948 War is itself fraught with errors. Take Bazelon’s introductory paragraph describing the war’s second half. Her first sentence is correct: “On May 14, Israel declared itself a state.” But then she adds, “The next day, the British began leaving, and Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq attacked the new state, later joined by Jordan.” This sentence contains no less than three basic errors. Firstly, the British had already begun their staggered withdrawal from Palestine in December 1947, and had lowered the Union Jack on 14 (not 15) May, though some small British units remained in the north of the country until the end of June 1948. Secondly, Lebanon never attacked Israel. And thirdly, Jordan participated in the pan-Arab invasion of 15 May, rather than joining “later.”
Three errors in one sentence, and Bazelon was wrong, as you can check. Now this description of history isn’t all that consequential, but it shows a lack of fact-checking and of knowledge, as does the entire article. There’s a longer passage about something more important—the participation of Palestinians in the Second World War—but I’ll leave that for you to read.
I no longer get war news—or at least believe war news—from the NYT or the Post, but go first to the Times of Israel. Yes, it’s an Israeli paper, but I find it to be more accurate, and less likely to jump the gun, than American liberal media. And access is free.
The inaccuracies and biases of the mainstream and left-leaning media are increasingly evident and disturbing. And more and more people seem to lack adequate information to formulate well-reasoned opinions, but merely parrot what they get on their Facebook feeds, without realizing (or caring?) that their biases are reinforced by social media algorithms. Two of the results are, on the left, this horrifying antisemitism, and on the right a surrender to Russian propaganda and the betrayal of Ukraine.
I hate to say it but twitter *can* be a source of some unbiased news about ongoing events as they happen. Of course lots of filtering required. By contrast no amount of filtering will get you unbiased coverage from sources that include none of it (like NYT or WaPo). [edit: And of course one has to tune one’s feed to get unbiased sources to show up via the algorithm or from the accounts that one follows]
Oh, come on. Left-leaning or even out-and-out Leftists or Radical Leftists, are NOT anti-Israel and are not towards Hamas. STOP GENERALIZING, especially when you are using something as nebulous as “mainstream media” or “prominent liberal newspapers” as the basis for your opinions. If one thinks that Benjamin Netanyahu is leading, driving a rabidly militaristic action against the terrorists in Gaza and criminally killing and brutalizing non-Hamas Palestinians as part of that action, that does not mean that one is anti-ISRAEL or pro-Hamas.
Actually it does. “Rabidly” and “criminal” have meanings. To use them they way you do betrays an agenda. If you don’t want Israel to destroy Hamas who wishes it destroyed, how can you be other than anti-Israel and pro-Hamas?
Yes. Mr Stowers doth protest too much, methinks
What the blazes are you talking about? And where on earth are you getting your data from? If you can say that Radical Leftists are not anti-Israel – and keep a straight face while doing so – you’ve been looking in the wrong direction for the last 5 months. You’ve also had your fingers in your ears, screaming “NOT LISTENING”.
I’m not taking any sides in the conflict here, and I don’t need to, because what you claim is so obviously and categorically wrong that you cannot be taken seriously.
You might like to learn about the NDP in BC, who happily let their MLAs chant about the river to the sea, but when their one Jewish MLA says Palestine was a ‘crappy piece of land’ when it was given to the Jews she has to go for anti-islamophobia training and then is asked to resign. You can read her resignation letter:
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/full-text-selina-robinson-resignation-letter-to-bc-ndp-caucus
She gives great detail on the double standard within the NDP, and their complete disregard for the fear being stoked in the Jewish community. Now tell me how lefties all love Jews!
Thanks, Christopher – that’s a powerful letter from Selina Robinson.
Re Benny Morris as “reliable” – the problem I have with history is the way that two apparently rational and well-informed historians can look at the same set of facts, even quite recent ones, and come to quite opposite conclusions, both of which can seem perfectly convincing to a layperson such as myself immediately after reading them. I was very impressed by Avi Shlaim’s “The Iron Wall” when it came out, and am currently reading the updated edition covering events from 2000 onwards. Morris however has been highly, even insultingly, critical of Shlaim’s version of events, and Shlaim in return has been highly critical and insulting of Morris. Faced with a welter of competing interpretations of events such as, for example, the failed negotiations between Barak and Arafat, it is just about impossible for a layperson to know who to believe.
There isn’t exactly a Code of Chivalry between Israel historians. Efrain Karsh has had some choice criticisms of Ilan Pappe:
https://www.meforum.org/897/a-history-of-modern-palestine-one-land-two-peoples
and, here, about Benny Morris:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297701708_Benny_Morris%27s_reign_of_error_revisited
I’m not looking for a Code of Chivalry between historians. But my problem, for example, is this: many people of goodwill, our host included, say that the Palestinians have been offered a two-state solution and have rejected it out of hand. Other people, who, to me seem also to be people of goodwill, lay the blame on the intransigence of people like Netanyahu. So, me, I don’t think I have enough knowledge to take a view as to the rights and wrongs of how we got here, but, although an unbeliever, am prepared to stand by the concepts of the Catholic Just War theory – and in this case, although I am ill-informed, do tend to feel that the damage inflicted on Gaza is disproportionate.
Our host is correct. The Palestinians have rejected a statehood treaty at least 15 times. This is a matter of public record. Google “the three No’s” for a taste of the problem.
Four years ago I set out in ignorance to see if I could determine which narrative was correct about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I used founding documents and expert opinion to see if I could figure out which side had a valid claim to the land, and what the actual borders of Israel were under International law on May 14th, 1948 and also after 1967. I can tell you that, in my humble opinion, one narrative is true and the other is a tissue of falsehoods. But this is something you would need to do for yourself.
You have posted here before, and I presume you have read here already about what “proportionality” means with regard to the law of war. Perhaps you should revisit the topic, because I don’t think objective observers would agree with your feelings.
Well, look, and not wishing to break da roolz. My views on war and proportionality are those of Prof Ascombe here: http://www.ifac.univ-nantes.fr/IMG/pdf/Anscombe-truman.pdf
But, with regard to my original comment, I guess I was expressing a doubt about whether there is a such a thing as a “correct” narrative about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Disproportionate to what, though? Both the Catholic Just War Theory and the Geneva Convention of 1949 embody the concept of proportionality to something else. “Disproportionate” by itself doesn’t mean anything, any more than a ratio (proportion) of 10: __ means anything.
From the 1949 Geneva Conventions (amended), since that is international law, it is a war crime to:
iv. Intentionally launch[] an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects . . . which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated; [Emphasis added — LM]
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml
If Israel limits the incidental damage to civilians so as to be not excessive to its overall military goals — that is, if she abstains from killing them for the hell of it — she is off the hook here, no matter how many civilians actually die. I don’t see how you can fight an existential war any other way. You might say that Israel should lose the right to exist if she kills too many civilians. Israel sees it differently.
Further, it is also a war crime to
Tak[e] hostages
and
Utiliz[e] the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations; (“human shields”)
and
Kill[] or wound[] treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army (Employing combatants with concealed arms and not in military uniform or insignia fits in here.)
The use of human shields by the enemy (and combatants in civilian clothing to a lesser degree) militarizes the civilians and makes them legitimate military targets. The other side is not required to grant the immunity sought by the side using human shields. Rather, by committing that war crime, the side using human shields guarantees their destruction if the military objective can’t be gained in some other way that spares them. Remember that it is a legitimate military objective to reduce casualties among your own soldiers.
When one side has committed war crimes that threaten to give it a decisive military advantage (hostage-taking, say, or use of human shields) the other side loses an otherwise powerful incentive to refrain from similarly useful war crimes on its part. I’m not saying that Israel has committed any policy-driven retaliatory war crimes but if she were to, the government would be in a good position to ask forgiveness from its people afterward. (They’d be wasting their breath on the world who would condemn them just for winning. Again.)
Leslie, you’re quite right about my use of “disproportionate”. It was careless. But as regards the civilian damage caused by Israel’s legitimate self defence, I have in mind this from Prof Anscombe:
“I mean that if you attack a lot of military targets, such as munitions factories and naval dockyards, as carefully as you can, you will be certain to kill a number of innocent people; but that is not murder. On the other hand, unscrupulousness in considering the possibilities turns it into murder.”
I’ve read Anscombe’s piece, Andrew, written when the war was safely over and second-guessing about the atomic bomb could begin. There is a law of war. A philosopher’s opinion about war-making, and whether President Truman should have been invited to England, is not the law. Unscrupulousness is a claim about someone’s state of mind and the cognitive processes used to come to a decision. It is not a fact demonstrable by mere observation of actions and outcomes. A person accused by his bitter enemy of acting unscrupulously is entitled to a context-grounded defence under the law of war, as the Geneva Conventions make clear.
Iirc Morris’ reputation is much better for early Israeli history than for later events.
Haaretz, the left-leaning Israeli newspaper, puts out a daily briefing on the war and other topics. Free to subscribe….And it looks like another ceasefire is about to go under as an emboldened Hamas makes extravagant demands and gives up little.
I think the endless protests and Western media sycophancy toward Hamas has been a catastrophe for Palestinians.
https://us18.campaign-archive.com/?e=5369e4d0b4&u=d3bceadb340d6af4daf1de00d&id=28c4928614
‘Violence broke out” reminds me of the infamous (and still used) “Mistakes were made.” As if this sh*t just happens all by itself without agency. The articles you cite are very good ones.
For those wishing to read more about the horrendous reporting on the conflict, I recommend the Camera website: https://www.camera.org/. This site is entirely devoted to calling out erroneous or biased reporting regarding Middle East affairs, much of it today focusing on the war in Gaza. The organization has been around since 1982.
I continue to read the major U.S. news outlets, as well as the BBC, and I even glance at Al Jazeera. But, like Jerry, I frequent several English-language Israeli web sites and have come to rely on them for a different perspective on events.
“The IDF referred questions about the bodies to the Israeli agency for civilian coordination with the Palestinians, which did not immediately respond.”
What time of day was the request for reply sent?
Did the journalist send the question to the correct person who could have provided an immediate response?
How much time was allowed between when the request was sent and the article was posted?
How many other questions was the subject fielding besides just the one self-important journalist’s questions to which they were also trying to respond?
When I see “did not immediately respond”, I see this as a journalistic trick to:
A) Make the journalist look good by supposedly making the effort to do due diligence
B) Make the subject look bad because they avoided responding
C) Not give the subject the opportunity to respond at all and thus avoid having to include that response in the article
Definitely a way to bias an article while seeming to give the impression of being even-handed.
I offer the the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. If you are an expert or are physically present at an event you generally find that journalists get critical details wrong – but you forget the shortcomings when journalists report on issue which you are not expert in.
So if you are well aware of events in Israel and Gaza then the journalism in the MSM is clearly biased and incorrect in significant ways. Yet articles about Trump in the left wing/liberal press (or Biden in the right wing press) are nodded through without much critical thought.
We are all busy. What is the best one source for world news?
1) Right here.
2) The Economist. It’s weekly but subscribers get e-mail quick takes on breaking news and previews of what will be in the weekly print mag. I figure if it’s any news I have to know about TODAY, I’ll be dead before I can get my fallout shelter dug.