Regrettably, once again, @nytimes issued a high-profile story -- this time, on video -- that is woefully under-sourced, with the effect of being a one-sided attack on #Israel operations in #Gaza last month. 1/7
At the outset, it is important to underscore the human tragedy of what happened in #Gaza. At its core, this is the tragedy of a terrorist organization - #Hamas - using hundreds of thousands of innocent people as pawns and shields in its war against #Israel. 2/7
Furthermore, it is a tragedy that about half of those killed in #Gaza were such innocent civilians, a proportion that is about the same as the proportion of civilians killed in US bombing against ISIS in Mosul and against Taliban throughout Afghanistan. 3/7
Indeed, what's missing in this video is context: here, reference to the fact that Israel minimizes civilian deaths on par with the US. But that would require @nytimes to explain why it hasn't investigated civilian deaths from US attacks, only those of a foreign country. 4/7
But the key element missing is what role #Hamas played in the creation of this video. It is not referenced in the credits. It is described early in the video just as "the group that governs #Gaza." It is not even called a terrorist organization, as labeled under US law. 5/7
Given #Hamas' authoritarian control of Gaza, viewers have a right to know how and under what circumstances and conditions journalists accessed witnesses and victims, how they met with "Gaza police," how missile fragments were neatly collected, piled and identified, etc. 6/7
It is really shocking that @nytimes would endorse this video without giving viewers a full accounting of the role that #Hamas played, directly and indirectly, in its making, especially given its disturbing accusations. Viewers/readers of the NYT deserve better. 7/7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
