Israel-Palestine war: How US media legitimise Israel's barbarism against the Palestinians
20 October 2023
By presenting
Israel's terror campaign against Palestinians as if it were defensible,
the US media are doing their part to help it continue
Palestinian
women react at the Greek Orthodox Saint Porphyrius Church which was
damaged by an Israeli strike, where Palestinians who fled their homes
take shelter, in Gaza City on 20 October, 2023 (Reuters)
Recent editorials in leading liberal US newspapers have consistently presented the unrelenting mass terror that Israel inflicts on Palestinians as legitimate.
Media outlets have endorsed Israel's assault on Gaza, and America's
funding of the attack, while criticising those who offer even mildly
dissenting views. American publications have repeatedly conferred on
Israel's violence a virtuousness, even as it mows people down - a
generosity not afforded to its Palestinian counterpart.
On 12 October, The Washington Post ran an editorial
praising US President Joe Biden for his "unreserved condemnation of
Hamas's terrorism", saying: "In that respect, Mr Biden's firm words also
stand in welcome contrast to the equivocations by a small number of the
left-wing members of Congress in his own party, which White House press
secretary Karine Jean-Pierre specifically repudiated."
The link to Jean-Pierre's words indicates that the "equivocations" the Post objects to are statements that "suggested the Hamas
attack on Israel should be considered in context with previous actions
by Israel", as well as those that "opposed US military aid for Israel on
social media and called for an immediate cease-fire in the conflict."
A day before that editorial was published, the human rights groups
Mezan, al-Haq, and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights jointly documented
that, just in the period between midday 10 and 11 October, Israel
destroyed entire neighbourhoods of al-Qarm, Ezbet Abdrabbo, and
al-Sikka, with rescue teams "recover[ing] dozens of bodies" while
"others are still under the rubble"; "target[ed]" Gaza's Islamic
University and bombed the Al-Fakhoura Scholarship Program building",
assaults that combined to kill 57 Palestinians, including 20 children.
They further noted Israel's air strikes and shelling of the Middle Area
District's agricultural lands and "residential areas, most notably in
the three densely populated refugee camps of Al-Bureij, Al-Nusairat, and
Deir al-Balah", killing at least 49 Palestinians, 15 of them children.
For the Post, "equivocati[ng]" about whether the US should fund such
atrocities, or try to bring them to an end through a ceasefire, is
"[un]welcome".
Rationalising 'genocidal' language
In its most recent editorial, the Post professes
concern for the Palestinians but still endorses Israel's military
campaign: "After the slaughter of its civilians, Israel - like any other
state - has every right to respond militarily."
For the Post, the violence of the occupier is just and that of the
occupied isn't: Israel can "respond militarily" to Palestinian forces
killing Israelis but Palestinians don't have the same right, even after 75 years of ethnic cleansing, even under apartheid.
![]()
Western media’s parroting of official lies is paving way to genocide in Gaza
Read More »
A 14 October New York Times editorial
strongly supports Israel's attacks, saying that Israel "is determined
to break the power of Hamas, and in that effort it deserves the support
of the United States and the rest of the world." The authors go on to
say that "Ending Hamas's control over Gaza is an essential step".
The New York Times's editorial is infused with qualifiers like Israel
"should not lose sight of its commitment to safeguard those who have
not taken up arms".
The editorial board contradicts its own claims about Israel's
supposed "commitment" to protecting civilians by citing Israeli Defence
Minister Yoav Gallant calling Palestinians "human animals", which the
authors rationalise by saying that the remark occurs "in an atmosphere
of intense emotion".
Of course, Gallant isn't the only Israeli official to use genocidal
language since the escalation of their war on Palestine. Israeli
military spokesperson Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari said that Israel had dropped "hundreds of tons of bombs" on Gaza and that "the emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy".
Israeli President Isaac Herzog said:
"It is an entire nation out there that is responsible. It's not true
this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved. It's absolutely
not true." He added: "We are defending our homes, we are protecting our
homes, that's the truth, and when a nation protects its home it fights
and we will fight until we break their backbone."
Not only have Israeli leaders repeatedly signalled that they have no
intention of "safeguard[ing]" non-combatants, but Israel has
deliberately slaughtered them on a mass scale.
For instance, a day prior to the editorial's publication, the award-winning human rights group Defence for Children International Palestine reported
that Israel had killed almost 600 Palestinian children to that point in
its onslaught against Gaza, a third of the overall death toll.
Outlandish assertions
Even as Israel eschews any commitment to protecting civilians in both
word and deed, The New York Times repeatedly contrasts Israeli military
policy favourably with that of the Palestinian forces, writing that
"Israel is preparing to send its young men and women into battle, where
they will face an enemy that does not respect the same rules of warfare
that they have committed to."
These fantasies about Israel's supposed non-targeting of civilians
and its allegedly humane 'values' present all of its cruelty - the
merciless killing, the sadism of the siege - as well-meaning mishaps
Saying that Israeli state violence is morally superior to Palestinian
resistance groups carries the clear message that the former is
legitimate while the latter is not.
The Times made the outlandish assertion that "What Israel is fighting
to defend is a society that values human life and the rule of law."
Since no such assertion is made about Palestinian "values", the
message is that slaughtering Palestinians is legitimate: if Palestinian
society (or significant portions thereof) values murderous criminality,
then the implication is that it's desirable for them to be wiped out by a
supposedly more civilised force.
Meanwhile, two days before the editorial went to press, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said
Israel had used white phosphorous - which, upon contact, can "burn
people, thermally and chemically, down to the bone" - over both Gaza
City's port and rural areas along the Israel-Lebanon armistice line.
HRW said that using white phosphorous in Gaza, one of the most
densely populated areas in the world, "magnifies the risk to civilians
and violates the international humanitarian law prohibition on putting
civilians at unnecessary risk".
As HRW noted, Israel also used this weapon in Gaza in 2009 and,
during the current round of fighting, Israel has "cut electricity,
water, fuel and food into Gaza in violation of the international
humanitarian law prohibition against collective punishment."
For "a society that values human life and the rule of law", Israel does an awful lot of human-life taking and law-breaking.
An ethical veneer
Similarly, The Los Angeles Times declared
that "Israel has every right to use military force to prevent" attacks
like the ones that Hamas carried out on 7 October and that Israel "must
stay true to its values by doing everything possible to minimize the
suffering of innocent Palestinian residents of Gaza."
The piece applauds Biden for saying he will ask Congress for "an
unprecedented support package for Israel's defense" and for vaguely
suggesting that Israel reflect on whether killing thousands of
Palestinians will help it "achieve [its] objectives".
The editorial then asserts: "That Israel does not target civilians is
small comfort for the families of those killed or wounded."
Perhaps the authors think it magnanimous to mention the 3,000-some
Palestinian lives Israel has snuffed out in 11 days. But such sympathies
are worse than useless when they are packaged with a lie that
rationalises all the killing and creates alibies for all the killing to
come: for instance, two days before the editorial, the United Nations
Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) noted:
"Multiple residential buildings in densely populated areas have been
targeted and destroyed” by Israel, including a “residential building in
Jabalia, northern Gaza, where ten Palestinians were killed; a
residential building in the Musabah area of Rafah, where at least 11
Palestinians, including women and children, were killed; and a charity
organization’s building in Rafah, where 11 Palestinians were killed, and
several others were injured. On 16 October, in the morning, Israeli
forces reportedly targeted a residential building in Khan Yunis, killing
22 Palestinians."
Furthermore, on 15 October, the World Health Organisation (WHO) stated:
"Four hospitals in northern Gaza are no longer functioning as a result
of damaging and targeting. 21 hospitals in the Gaza Strip have received
instructions from Israeli forces to evacuate. The WHO reiterates that
all precautions must be taken to protect health workers and health
facilities, including patients and civilians sheltering in them."
These fantasies about Israel's supposed non-targeting of civilians
and its allegedly humane "values" present all of its cruelty - the
merciless killing, the gruesome physical and psychic wounds, the sadism of the siege - as well-meaning mishaps en route to a just cause; it is rhetoric intended to mask Israeli brutality with an ethical veneer.
But colonial violence is Israel's cause. The violence of dispossession, torture, and massacre after massacre after massacre. Because no ethno-state in which Palestinians remain a persecuted minority in their homeland is possible without ruthless, incessant violence.
By presenting all that barbarism as if it were defensible, the US media are doing their part to help it continue.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.