 |
| One of the many hundreds of food trucks sent into Gaza by Israel (WFB) |
You can explain the actual reality until you are blue in the
face, but - as the saying goes - one picture is worth a thousand words. And in
Gaza, there are thousands of pictures showing apparent starvation and
indiscriminate slaughter of innocent Palestinians by Israel, seemingly for no
real gain.
These images have generated worldwide condemnation of Israel
in general, and of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in particular, with many
calling him immoral or even genocidal. It is difficult to support a government
portrayed in such a way, especially when Netanyahu was never universally
admired and now finds himself at a low point in American popular support.
I admit that when I see those images, I recoil in horror.
Like anyone else, I feel human compassion when confronted with scenes of human suffering.
Especially when the accompanying commentary blames Israel and depicts Netanyahu
as a war criminal on par with other genocidal maniacs of history. No one says
it outright, but when you accuse someone of genocide and brand him a war
criminal, what else are you implying?
As critics of Netanyahu often note, whether or not the
reporting is accurate, the impression is that Israel has lost its way. Once
admired by much of western culture for
all of their achievements in so many fields, Israel has now lost that support. European leaders have been quick to do so. And more and more liberal voices in
America - including mainstream Jewish Democrats like Jamie Raskin - are joining
the chorus.
Some of Israel’s critics are not necessarily anti-Israel. In
fact, some of them are people I admire, such as Rabbi Yosef Blau. Their
criticisms are not born of stupidity or malice but from reacting to
overwhelming negative media coverage that they accept at face value. They may
question the accuracy of some reports, as I do, but the devastation they see is
overwhelming and undeniably real. Innocent people are suffering, many are
homeless, and there is real hunger in Gaza.
This makes me feel it is futile to explain why these images
and the narratives accompanying them are misleading or outright false… difficult
if not impossible to counter with explanations. The IDF is in Gaza. Over the
last two years of its offensive, Gaza has been devastated. Tens of thousands of
innocent civilians have been killed, most survivors are displaced and living in
tents, and there are food shortages. All of this is corroborated by Palestinians
reporters, and ‘respected’ UN or UN-approved observers.
But does that mean the truth should be ignored? Absolutely not!
It must be told, over and over again. Some
people do listen. That is why most conservative Republicans and most mainstream Evangelicals still strongly support Israel’s current war plan to
take control of Gaza, eliminate Hamas, and bring the hostages home.
So what are the truths that need repeating? Are all the
negative images fakes? Certainly not. But some of them are. And the reporting fails to
address who is truly responsible for civilian deaths, or the fact that Israel’s war tactics are the most humane in modern warfare. Which is the opposite of the mainstream media's insinuation in their nightly narrative
Nor is it reported that Israel is not responsible for food shortages. The media reports the opposite based on what their sources in Gaza tell them. Which is that Israel is solely responsible for that.
Critics focus on Israel’s refusal to allow foreign journalists into
Gaza, but there have been independent observers - far more credible than Hamas
affiliates or UN staff with conflicts of interest who testify differently.
Jonathan Rosenblum notes the following in his recent column:
The (New York) Times published a front-page photo of an emaciated Gazan infant as emblematic of starvation. It was later revealed that the child suffered from genetic birth defects, and the full photo showed a healthy, well-fed older sibling. The Times offered no apology, merely “added context.”
(John)Spencer, head of the Modern War Institute at West Point, has embedded with the IDF four times since October 7. He has witnessed firsthand Israel’s extraordinary efforts to limit civilian casualties: missions delayed or canceled when children were nearby; soldiers taking personal risks to spare civilians; humanitarian corridors opened; millions of vaccine doses, fuel, and medical aid delivered—even to an enemy population in wartime.
As Spencer notes, the laws of war do not prohibit fighting. They prohibit deliberate targeting of civilians and require proportionality. By his account, the IDF has demonstrated restraint, compliance with international law, and unprecedented levels of humanitarian aid to its enemy.
Meanwhile, as noted in the Washington Free Beacon, the
Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), often cited as proof of
famine in Gaza, recently changed its metrics to make it easier to declare
famine. It lowered the threshold for malnutrition from 30% to 15% and relied on
less precise arm measurements instead of traditional weight-and-height studies.
Such changes cast doubt on whether “famine” is the accurate term. Of course
there are food shortages. That’s what happens in a war.
Facts like these dramatically shift responsibility for
Palestinian suffering away from Israel. But unfortunately, optics and narrative
dominate. Perception becomes reality.
And so Israel finds itself facing the worst reputational crisis in its short history. Which leads to the ultimate question: is the price of continuing this war worth it?
Hamas may be a shadow of its former self, but if they
remain in Gaza in any capacity, there is not the slightest doubt that they will rebuild. Their terror tunnels will
be restored. Their genocidal intent will not disappear. October 7th was
not a one-time event. They have promised to repeat it until they succeed in
their unapologetically stated genocidal goal.
That determination must be weighed against the mounting
pressure to end the war. For all the negative commentary from abroad, the
media, and even from many Israelis, the hard truth may be that stopping the war now
would be the greater mistake. Even if it means harsher criticism.