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 both known for their high journalistic standards. However, they and their editors have repeatedly failed to accurately represent the scale of Palestinian casualties during the Israeli military campaign in Gaza.
This failure is evident in the repeated use of the Hamas-reported figure of 67,000 deaths since October 2023, despite credible estimates suggesting the actual death toll could be as high as 600,000. Unlike Israeli and American reporting, which typically accounts for all casualties, Hamas’s figures do not include those buried under rubble or victims of indirect causes such as disease, starvation, and lack of medical care—factors that often exceed direct fatalities by a factor of three to thirteen in conflict zones.
Both journalists are aware of the unprecedented destruction in Gaza, where the territory’s size is comparable to Philadelphia, and its population of 2.3 million people has faced relentless bombardment, blockades of essential supplies, and targeted attacks on healthcare facilities. These actions have been widely condemned by international human rights organizations and even some Israeli groups.
Academic and humanitarian sources, including The Lancet and organizations like Doctors Without Borders and the United Nations World Food Programme, have provided more accurate casualty estimates. Despite this, mainstream media outlets have largely avoided using these figures, fearing accusations of exaggeration, especially given the influence of pro-Israeli narratives.
Experts such as Professor Emeritus Paul Rogers of the University of Bradford have warned that the explosive power delivered to Gaza exceeds that of six Hiroshima atomic bombs. This level of destruction has led to massive civilian casualties, with many dying from starvation, untreated illnesses, and lack of access to medicine. Despite these realities, the press continues to rely on Hamas’s numbers, which exclude many of these critical factors.
Journalists could better serve their readers by acknowledging the discrepancy between reported and estimated figures. For example, stating, “The real count may be much higher,” would provide a more accurate portrayal of the crisis. Alternatively, conducting independent analyses based on empirical evidence and expert testimony could offer a clearer picture.
A recent article by Ben Hubbard in the New York Times, which cited the 67,000 death toll as one in every 34 Gazans, grossly underestimates the true impact. Local health officials have admitted that their figures exclude those buried under rubble and those who died from indirect causes. Physicians who have returned from Gaza have confirmed that the majority of victims are children and women, and that survivors are often injured or dying due to the lack of medical care.
Some journalists, like Gideon Levy of Haaretz, argue that even the current Hamas figures are sufficient to qualify as genocide. However, the magnitude of the death toll matters in driving political and diplomatic action. A higher estimate can generate greater pressure for accountability and intervention, as seen in historical contexts where undercounting had significant consequences.
The editorial policies of major U.S. outlets, including the Washington Post and the New York Times, have not kept pace with the reporting of their own correspondents. While they occasionally publish detailed accounts of the suffering in Gaza, their editorial stances often reflect the influence of powerful lobbying groups, such as AIPAC, rather than the voices of their own reporters.
—
At the United Nations General Assembly in late September, contrasting global visions were on display. U.S. President Donald Trump delivered a speech filled with hyperbolic rhetoric, including claims about climate change being a hoax and criticism of Muslim immigration. In contrast, leaders from Colombia, Brazil, and Chile emphasized democracy, humanism, and environmental action, opposing rising authoritarianism.
Meanwhile, the Venezuelan opposition, led by María Corina Machado, used the event to lobby for international support in overthrowing President Nicolás Maduro. Machado, a far-right figure and Nobel Peace Prize recipient, called for an “international coalition” to intervene in Venezuela, echoing similar rhetoric from the Trump administration. Her campaign has long been aligned with U.S. interests, including ties to American energy and defense firms, and she has previously worked with U.S. government agencies and think tanks.
Machado’s calls for intervention are not organic but are backed by American energy and defense interests. These efforts aim to create the illusion of a global movement while masking the underlying economic and geopolitical motives. Many Americans and Venezuelans oppose U.S. military involvement, yet the narrative persists, often framed around drug trafficking and “narco-terrorism.”
The Trump administration has designated groups like Tren de Aragua as terrorist organizations, citing alleged ties to the Maduro government without substantial evidence. This rhetoric has justified harsh measures, including deportations of Venezuelan migrants and drone strikes against fishing boats, which constitute war crimes. The administration’s actions reflect a broader pattern of supporting regimes that align with U.S. corporate and strategic interests, regardless of the human cost.
The opposition’s proposed economic policies would further entrench U.S. control over Venezuela’s resources, potentially leading to conditions that mirror the instability that contributed to Hugo Chávez’s rise. This is not about democracy or drug enforcement, but about protecting power and profits, particularly for oil, gas, and mining companies.
—
The U.S. Constitution, specifically the Fourth Amendment, guarantees protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, recent events, such as the ICE raid on a Chicago apartment building, have raised serious concerns about the erosion of these rights. The operation involved military-style tactics, including helicopter insertions and the detention of civilians without warrants, violating constitutional protections.
These actions reflect a broader trend of militarization and disregard for civil liberties, reminiscent of the abuses that led to the American Revolution. The Framers of the Constitution sought to prevent such overreach, yet modern practices increasingly challenge these principles.
As President Trump continues to push for a third term and advocates for militarized law enforcement, the threat to democratic institutions remains real. The danger lies not only in the actions themselves but in the normalization of such behavior, which undermines the very foundations of American governance.
—
The ceasefire in Gaza, while a temporary reprieve, is partly the result of Israel reaching a calculated threshold of civilian deaths. Former Israeli military intelligence chief Aharon Haliva once stated that for every Israeli killed, 50 Palestinians must die. With approximately 1,275 Israelis killed in the October 7 attack, Israel’s target was roughly 63,750 Palestinian deaths. This number has reportedly been reached, prompting the ceasefire.
However, the true death toll, when accounting for indirect causes such as lack of medical care, starvation, and other life-support failures, is likely to be significantly higher. The United Nations and the International Association of Genocide Scholars have documented Israel’s actions as constituting genocide.
Two key factors underpin this campaign: the historical precedent of colonial-settler violence and the Old Testament literalism embraced by parts of the Israeli government. Colonial-settler societies have historically used mass murder and terror to subdue indigenous populations, and Israel’s actions in Gaza follow this pattern. Additionally, Netanyahu and his allies cite biblical narratives, such as the command to destroy the Amalekites, to justify their actions.
This strategy represents a continuation of ethnic cleansing, with the goal of eliminating any possibility of a Palestinian state. Despite the ceasefire, Israel remains committed to its vision of “Greater Israel,” as outlined in the Likud Party’s 1977 charter. Netanyahu has made it clear that he opposes a two-state solution, and the Knesset overwhelmingly rejected it.
Global opinion has shifted in favor of Palestinian statehood, with over 150 countries recognizing Palestine and widespread public support for the cause. The U.S., while still blocking Palestine’s UN membership, faces increasing pressure to change its stance. The UN General Assembly has endorsed the implementation of the two-state solution, signaling a potential shift in international dynamics.
A lasting peace is possible if the U.S. and the international community take decisive action to support Palestinian statehood. The Arab nations must also resist the lure of another false “peace process” and instead push for a genuine resolution to the conflict.
English 
Arabic