Ben Hubbard, a long-time Middle East correspondent for the New York Times, and Karen DeYoung, a longtime reporter and foreign affairs editor for the Washington Post, are known for their high journalistic standards. However, both have been criticized for consistently repeating Hamas’ reported death toll of 67,000 Palestinians in Gaza since October 2023, despite widely available evidence suggesting that the actual number is significantly higher—likely around 600,000.
This discrepancy raises concerns about the accuracy of reporting on one of the most severe humanitarian crises of the 21st century. Unlike Israeli and American cultures, which typically do not underestimate civilian casualties in conflict zones, Hamas appears to view the high death toll as an indicator of its failure to protect its people and as a measure of Israel’s military strength. Both Hubbard and DeYoung, however, are aware of the extensive destruction in Gaza, including the daily bombardment of a densely populated area equivalent in size to Philadelphia, with over 2.3 million residents.
The blockade of essential resources such as food, water, medicine, fuel, and electricity, along with the targeted destruction of healthcare facilities, has drawn condemnation from international human rights organizations. Academic and relief groups, including The Lancet, Doctors Without Borders, Save the Children, and the United Nations World Food Programme, have provided more accurate casualty estimates, some of which suggest numbers far exceeding the figures cited by Hamas.
Despite this, mainstream media outlets have largely avoided using these higher estimates, citing concerns about credibility and potential accusations of fabricating information. Some journalists acknowledge that the real death toll is much higher but lack a figure they consider sufficiently credible. Experts such as Professor Emeritus Paul Rogers of the University of Bradford, who estimated that the explosive power delivered to Gaza equates to six Hiroshima atomic bombs, have also warned of the catastrophic consequences.
The failure of news editors to hold Israeli leaders accountable for their actions has further complicated the narrative. While some outlets have published reports and photographs depicting the devastation in Gaza, others have been criticized for downplaying the scale of the crisis. This has led to calls for more transparent reporting, including the use of “news analysis” to provide context and challenge misleading narratives.
One particularly controversial example was an article by Ben Hubbard in the New York Times, which claimed that “more than 67,000 killed, or one in every 34 Gazans, according to local health officials.” This statement has been widely criticized, as it fails to account for the many individuals still buried under rubble or those who died due to secondary causes such as disease, starvation, and lack of medical care.
Some journalists, like Gideon Levy of Haaretz, argue that even the Hamas figures are horrific enough to meet the definition of genocide. However, others believe that accurately reflecting the true scale of the tragedy is essential to driving political and diplomatic action. The difference between a death toll of 67,000 and 600,000 can have significant implications for global pressure on Israel and for the pursuit of justice for the victims.
The editorial leadership of major U.S. publications has also faced criticism for not adequately addressing the broader implications of the conflict. While some outlets have published accounts of the suffering in Gaza, they have often avoided directly challenging the official narratives promoted by the Israeli government and its allies.
In contrast to the coverage of the Gaza war, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in late September presented a stark contrast in global perspectives. U.S. President Donald Trump’s address was marked by provocative rhetoric, including claims that climate change is a hoax and allegations about the impact of Muslim immigration on Western cities. In contrast, leaders from Colombia, Brazil, and Chile emphasized democratic values, environmental protection, and resistance to authoritarianism.
Meanwhile, the Venezuelan opposition, led by María Corina Machado, used the UNGA as a platform to seek international support for a coup against President Nicolás Maduro. Machado, who has been associated with right-wing policies and American-backed initiatives, has called for the “total asphyxiation” of Venezuela’s economy and has aligned herself with U.S. interests. Her rhetoric, echoed by other opposition figures, has contributed to a narrative that frames the Maduro government as illegitimate and dangerous.
The U.S. government has been accused of supporting these efforts, with reports of meetings between Trump administration officials and opposition leaders. This has raised concerns about the potential for increased U.S. intervention in Venezuela, despite widespread public opposition to military involvement.
The opposition’s claims, such as the designation of the Tren de Aragua as a terrorist organization, have been criticized for lacking substantial evidence and serving more as political tools than genuine counter-narcotics strategies. These tactics echo historical patterns of U.S. intervention in Latin America, where drug trafficking has often been used as a pretext for regime change.
The broader implications of these actions extend beyond Venezuela. They reflect a pattern of U.S. policy that prioritizes corporate interests and geopolitical influence over democratic principles and human rights. This has led to calls for greater scrutiny of U.S. involvement in the region and a reevaluation of the costs of military intervention.
In the United States, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution remains a critical safeguard against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, recent events, such as the militarized raid on a Chicago apartment building by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), have raised serious concerns about the erosion of civil liberties. These actions, justified under the guise of combating crime, have been criticized as violations of constitutional rights and as part of a broader trend of authoritarian governance.
As the U.S. faces increasing domestic and international pressure, the need for a return to democratic values and the protection of civil liberties has never been more urgent. The lessons of history, including the American Revolution, remind us that the preservation of freedom requires vigilance and active participation from the public.
In Gaza, the ceasefire signed by Israel reflects a complex interplay of military strategy and international pressure. The Israeli government’s stated goal of achieving a 50-to-1 kill ratio of Palestinians to Israelis has been met, leading to the agreement to halt hostilities. However, the long-term implications of this ceasefire remain uncertain, as Israel continues to resist the establishment of a Palestinian state.
The genocide in Gaza, as documented by the United Nations and the International Association of Genocide Scholars, is rooted in both colonial-settler logic and a literalist interpretation of religious texts. This has fueled ongoing violence and displacement, with the ultimate aim of eliminating any possibility of a Palestinian state.
As the international community continues to push for a two-state solution, the role of the United Nations and global solidarity will be crucial in shaping the future of the region. The UN General Assembly’s endorsement of the two-state solution in September 2025 marks a significant step forward, though challenges remain in translating this resolution into meaningful action.
English 
Arabic