The US media's moral blindness over Hamas is showing, and it isn't pretty | The Hill
By: Becket Adams, Opinion Contributor (The Hill)
Bassackwardsism
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
by Becket Adams, Opinion Contributor - 11/06/23 7:00 AM ET
by Becket Adams, Opinion Contributor - 11/06/23 7:00 AM ET
Photo by MAHMUD HAMS/AFP via Getty Images A member of Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades, military wing of the Palestinian Hamas movement, takes part in a parade in Gaza City on November 14, 2021. (Photo by MAHMUD HAMS/AFP via Getty Images)
In the clearest moral test in a generation, much of the U.S. media is failing. And not just by a little — they are failing spectacularly.
On Oct. 7, the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas murdered an estimated 1,400 Israelis, many of whom were civilians, and kidnapped nearly 250 others to use as hostages. From the air, land and sea, Hamas terrorists targeted men, women, children, infants and the elderly.
Some Israelis were shot. Some were burned to death. Some were killed with explosives. Some were tortured and maimed. Some were raped and thenmurdered. The list of atrocities, many of which have been confirmed independent of Israeli officials, goes on and on.
Israel has since responded with military force, vowing to root out and destroy Hamas.
In this specific moment, when Israel is responding militarily to the greatest single-day slaughter of Jews since Adolf Hitler's suicide, the question of who committed evil and who is justified could not be any clearer. Indeed, it is rare that a story as clear-cut as this falls into one's lap.
Yet despite the uncomplicated nature of this precise situation, and despite the universally shared principle that murder and terrorism are, in fact, wrong, many journalists and editors appear to be morally confused.
Some scribes seem to be losing sleep, agonizing over such deep ethical dilemmas as, "Is ethnic cleansing — sorry, 'decolonization' — a legitimate form of protest?"; "does the terrorist organization that rules the Gaza Strip really owe it to the people it governs to provide basic utilities, including clean water?"; "can we really say that an Israeli infant was 'beheaded,' when it's probably more accurate to say that the infant's head was blown off by a rifle or a grenade?"; "is there a way around the idea that the Palestinian slogan, 'From the river to the sea' is an explicit call for a genocide?"; "do we really need to vet or fact-check statements and accusations that come from Hamas?"
The approach of many journalists to the current moment — a combination of "both-sides-ism" and kid-gloves treatment for Hamas terrorists — is not just morally repugnant; it's absurd. It's absurd because many of these same journalists spent the last several years boasting about their own moral clarity and willingness to speak out against evil, while scolding the rest of us for failing to do the same. It wasn't so long ago that many of these same journalists laid out, in explicit detail, why it's so dangerous to say there are "very fine people on both sides" when the story is one of civilians versus violent extremists.
To be sure, as many say, the Oct. 7 attack did not occur "in a vacuum." And Israel's response to this massacre has already and will cause more loss of innocent life. There is, however, a key difference between Israel's military-state struggle for self-preservation against armed enemies on the one hand, and Hamas's wanton, intentional massacre of helpless civilians on the other.
War happens and can even be justified under certain circumstances. But the Oct. 7 atrocities were not acts of war that just had unfortunate side effects. They were deliberate, targeted atrocities. For anyone with a moral compass, there is nothing that could ever excuse or even explain them.
Yet many in our media would play nice with a group composed of rapists and killers who routinely use human shields in conflict to maximize civilian casualties, insisting that we appreciate the "context" of their atrocities and taking their word as fact. As for stateside supporters of Hamas, it is difficult to see the coverage of their activities as anything other than sympathetic.
Consider, for example, the New York Times'srecent coverage of the desperate plight of Palestinians misgoverned by Hamas since 2006. Gazans suffer greatly, in large part due to the terrorist group's hoarding of all the humanitarian aid they are supposed to receive — the food, water and fuel — in underground tunnels, in preparation for a long conflict with Israel. In any other scenario, this would be recognized as an obvious evil. Yet, shockingly, a New York Timesreporterdeadpans: "Hamas's stockpiles raise questions about what responsibility, if any, it has to the civilian population."
What questions would those be, exactly? From any reasonable perspective, there is no question that Hamas owes it to the people it rules to provide them with the clean water, fuel and food that outsiders generously send in for humanitarian purposes. And as a government that has refused to allow another election since it took power in 2006, Hamas arguably bears even more responsibility than a legitimately elected government would for providing utility services and other things governments are supposed to provide.
So why is this a question? Better yet,how is it a question?
Elsewhere at the New York Times, an equally shocking headline states, "For decades, Iran has vowed to destroy Israel. Now that its ally Hamas is at war with Israel, will Iran and its proxies follow through?" The subhead reads, "With Israel bent on crushing Iran's ally Hamas, Tehran must decide whether it and the proxy militias it arms and trains will live up to its fiery rhetoric."
Aside from the euphemisms — "militia" for terrorists and "fiery rhetoric" for calls for genocide — the New York Times presents as a "Sophie's Choice" Iran's dilemma of whether to follow through with the promise to kill more Jews. Won't someone please think of the poor ayatollah and the immense pressure he must be experiencing right now?
These stories appear against the backdrop of theNew York Times re-hiring a Palestinian video journalist known chiefly for his publicly stated admiration for Adolf Hitler on social media. It's almost as if the newspaper's problems are deeper than mere ignorance.
At the Washington Post, the in-house fact checker sprang to life this week to scold President Joe Biden for saying, "I have no confidence in the number that the Palestinians are using." The fact-check argues this is a "remarkably uninformed" position, given that the United Nations has, in the past, independently corroborated figures reported by the Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health. It's worth pointing out, however, that the UN concedes of the current conflict that it "has so far not been able to produce independent, comprehensive, and verified casualty figures," and that the numbers it currently cites come directly from the Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health. In other words, Biden is correct to be distrustful of uncorroborated figures. It's strange certain journalists feel differently.
At smaller news outlets, there has been more of the same, including a piece fromVice, which includes the astonishing lines: "Hamas as an organisation is often compared to ISIS. Israel, the U.S. and multiple countries in Europe define it as a terrorist movement. However, Hamas defines itself as an Islamic resistance movement with a political party and military wing, and is seen that way by Palestinians and other Arab states."
Note that use of "however." Never before has that word been asked to do so much work for so little.
The piece continues, adding, "After all, Hamas has been running Gaza for 17 years, providing many regular services like any governmental administration would."
Considering the well-documented lack of fuel, water, food and basic utilities inside Gaza, one cannot help but wonder which "regular services" Hamas has been providing. The author of the Vice article never says.
Tinier newsrooms have likewise engaged in this bizarre pro-Hamas crankery. This includes the Daily Dot, where an article asks whether it's part of a Jewish conspiracy for people to put up missing persons posters for the 200 hostages that Hamas captured on Oct. 7. And no, this is not an ungenerous paraphrase. The headline reads, "'Like a trap': Are posters of Israeli hostages drawing awareness or baiting pro-Palestinians into getting canceled when they tear them down?"
No serious newsroom would play it this way if the story involved, say, the Westboro Baptist Church. No serious newsroom would tolerate similar behavior if the people tearing down missing persons posters were supporting white supremacist terrorism rather than Hamas terrorism. No one ran straight-faced news coverage pondering the "root causes" and "nuances" of the Charlottesville car attack, asking readers to keep an open mind and consider all points of view to "contextualize" the grievances on both sides.
In fact, Vice is downright irritated that people even notice the substantial overlap between the pro-Hamas crowd's rhetoric and the "Kill the Jews" rhetoric of honest-to-goodness white supremacists.
Yet, for whatever reason, these same journalists who unflinchingly challenged white supremacism believe that Hamas and its supporters stateside deserve a gentle, understanding approach. "Let's hear them out — they may have a point!"
They would rather play the fool, asking questions they would never ask in any other story involving an extremist group, than contemplate the possibility that Palestinian terrorists are in the wrong, and Israel justified in its response.
For an industry that thinks so highly of itself, and for one that boasts so often of its own bravery and clear-eyed morality, one would think it would be better prepared to meet this moment.
But one would be horribly, horribly wrong.
Becket Adams is a writer in Washington and program director for the National Journalism Center.
No Trump, trolling, or fascism crap.
Tags
Who is online
427 visitors
Half wits...........
You give them to much credit, by half.
I guess this just proves that racism and antisemitism are stronger drivers than wokeism for the left, They will actively support a group who fell homosexuals deserve the death penalty, they support a group who think women have no rights and shouldn't be allowed to leave the house without a males permission over a free society simply because it is run by Jewish people.
This is a direct result of our failures as a society to teach our children history. Without a clue about the region, the conflict or the actors involved our youth equate a liberal democracy with South African apartheid, total and complete intellectual nonsense.
Watching Western children led by bigots marching in protest to the tune of hate is our que that we have failed. These useful idiots would be slaughtered by Hamas in Gaza for many of their beliefs, lifestyles etc. The ideology of far left woke is an extinctionist death cult with a lack of worldly awareness to survive. We are all culpable for our failures to educate.
Just out of curiosity, what should "western" children and young people be taught about the history of the colonialism and imperialism practiced by their forebeaers ?
That the people living in Israel today were the oppressed.
You are aware that Israel is the only liberal Democracy in the Middle East? Their values align with yours? Would you prefer our youth admire religious bigots who openly condemn all religions but Islam, or consider homosexuality an abomination justifying murder? Are you aware of what Islamic law in Gaza does for Women's rights?
What parts of Islamic law do you find beneficial in comparison to the values of Liberal democracy?
Thats not what asked you. Do you want history taught, or do you want "some" history taught ?
[deleted]
I think the next president will have to ban all immigration for the next 25 years, just so we can absorb the 8-10 million illegal immigrants Uncle Joe just let in.
This has something to do with Hamas or are you just attempting to hijack the seed?
He is trying to stay on topic.
Why would you ask a question that does not relate to the article we are discussing? Sorry but I am only interested in discussing the topic of the article.
YOU wrote that. So it seems you selectively want history taught.
Do the "palestinians" have a historical presence in the area known as Palestine? That might seem a good topic for historical presentation.
And it lives a perilous existence. There's a very real chance it's a historical blip, a liberal democracy that existed in an ocean of hostility for a hundred years, maybe more, maybe less. It could easily go the way of the crusader kingdom, real enough for the generations that lived through it, but something that was ultimately destroyed without much of a trace after 150 or so years
. Avoiding that scenario seems like a worthy use of resources.
The article is about Hamas. In a recent interview one of the leaders of Hamas explained that most of the Palestinians are refugees living in Gaza and they aren't Hamas's responsibility at all. It's the responsibility of the UN to take care of them not Hamas.
Can you imagine saying such things about the people you govern? It doesn't matter to some though, they just want to play word association and say things like Apartheid...fight the patriarchy....colonization.....and march around chanting bigoted slogans to feel involved and self important.
How about just plain history? Instead, what we have is indoctrination against Western thought and using colonialism and imperialism as a means to do so. That is not history. That is indoctrination into the Marxist idea that everything is about the struggle of the oppressed against the oppressor. It is a system that doesn't encourage critical thinking concerning actual issues. It literally is simply down to who's who in the oppressor/oppressed equation, wherein the oppressed is always right.
In the case of Israel vs Palestinians and Hamas, Israel has the power so, according to the students and much of the media, they are the oppressed and therefor "the good guys" in this. Absolutely ridiculous.
Depends on what you are calling Palestine. Initially it was an area east of the Jordan river and included part of Syria.
This was an area controlled by various empires over the centuries. The Greeks (12th century BCE) (first mention of Palestine (originally Philistia)), the Romans (2nd century CE), the Ottomans (15th and 16th centuries), etc. So to answer your question, you will need to be specific in the time frame you are looking at. "Palestinians" is really a matter of opinion. There are a few centuries when those in the area were called Greek, or Roman or Ottoman.
So, in other words, to teach their children to hate millions of other humans because of their associations and to utterly suspend all empathy for them unto death and their people's extermination?
I am getting annoyed with people talking about “Palestine” like it was ever a real place or has any sort of real historical boundaries or unique culture.
Let’s see if we can list everyone who has ruled that area or parts of it over the years… Assyrians, hittites, Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Jews, Arabs, Turks, Brits, Persians… and whoever else I’ve forgotten. The idea that anyone has sort of historical claim is laughable, but frankly the Jews probably have the best argument since we know they have ties to the area going back at least 3000 or more years.
There's not a lot of empathy to be had for them, except the little children. What's so painfully laughable about all this is that the left supports a culture that is religiously fascist and not democratic in any way. This isn't about the land. It's about who's on the land. Jews, which are not Muslim. When Egypt occupied Gaza there was no outcry by the Palestinians. Know why? Because the Egyptians were Muslims. The Left is supporting religious Nazis.
This really shows the true nature of the hard core Left and the young, indoctrinated young who never learned to think for themselves. No values. No principles. There's only the ideology, which is whatever they need it to be at any given point to suit whatever purpose they have.
You mean, send them to Palestinian schools? It's a thought, I suppose.
I had to pick a few things out of the article ...
I have been asking the same question(s) .. the American campus youth aka the future of this great nation, is out in mass supporting Hamas. Something is being taught that I was not taught in college.
Spencer Platt a Columbia professor lauded Hamas "awesome" attacks on Israel and called them a "stunning victory."
Ummm what?
Yet these students are not being condemned for their pro Hamas stance calling for the extermination of the Jewish people.. so why are extremist groups that come with many different names and have far less numbers than the students now doing their job for them so condemned. (agreed they should be condemned ... yet that is not the point) I have had individuals tell me that regular racism is okay but extremist is bad .. ummmm once again what?
I am out here trying to figure out where the lines are to be drawn .. and I am thinking racism is racism, violence is violence, bigotry is bigotry .. and excuses made are just that excuses .. and ya know what I think... I think the students have proven that there are very fine people on both sides that have lost their way!
Okay .. so here we go again - do any of you realize that up to 450 trucks a day filled with aid for the Palestinian people enter Gaza prior to 10/7? The only difference right now is that Israel is no longer supplying aid nor letting it through their borders due to atrocities of 10/7... so who was supplying that aid? .. these Arab / Muslim countries crying out about the horrors that are being rained down on the people of Gaza - yet they do nothing!
That is some scary stuff right there .. I want to teach a class on understanding Hamas - I would be done within an hour.
Peace!
Thanks for letting me vent once again