How the Western media covered up Israel's genocidal intent from day one

As arrest warrants are issued for Israeli leaders, it must not be forgotten that they confessed to their crimes from the start. Western media outlets chose to suppress the truth

Israel said exactly what it would do from the start

The International Criminal Court has finally issued arrest warrants for war crimes and crimes against humanity for Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defence minister, Yoav Gallant. Any other outcome would have defied reason - because no crime in modern history has been so confessed to by its perpetrators - with so much shamelessness, pride and relish - as Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

To understand what Israel planned to do from the very beginning, you required no special intuition, no access to leaked top secret documents. You simply needed to listen to what Israeli political and military leaders and officials said in public, and take them literally. Such statements proved the most accurate roadmap to predict the crimes Israel went on to commit.

Yet Western media outlets not only failed to frame their coverage around what should have been understood as unambiguous public commitments to perpetrate grave war crimes, and to specifically treat the civilian population as a legitimate military target. In many cases, newspapers and broadcasters buried these statements, failed to explain their significance, or - in countless cases - didn’t quote them at all.

This alone should be regarded as one of the worst scandals of Western journalism in history. There was overwhelming evidence from the start that a state allied to the West - a state armed and backed by the US and its allies - was going to commit genocide. In a practical sense, the vast majority of our media outlets covered that up in one of the most extreme examples of deceit by omission in history.

Six weeks after the genocide began, I interviewed Raz Segal, an Israeli-American Associate Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies. He told me that Israel’s onslaught against Gaza was “unique in the sense of discussing it as what I think it is - that is, genocide - because the intent is so clearly articulated.” Normally, those who intend to commit genocide go to great lengths to disguise their intentions. Israel, by contrast, could not have offered the Western media clearer evidence of their intentions. Yet broadcasters and newspapers alike chose to keep the truth from their audiences.

---

“We are fighting human animals”

Two days after the 7th October attacks, the Israeli Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant - now subject to an international arrest warrant - told a news conference that Israel was:

“Imposing a complete siege on Gaza. No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.”

This was unambiguously the declaration of multiple war crimes: not least, depriving a civilian population of the essentials of life. Article 33 of the Geneva Conventions legally prohibits collective punishment, a factual point which readers and viewers should have been made aware of.

Indeed, Human Rights Watch - a prestigious NGO - declared this a call “to commit a war crime”, noting its criminality on grounds of collective punishment and “using starvation as a weapon of war.” Here was a quote from a credible source which media outlets could have used to offer proper legal context. Indeed, in its statement, HRW asked the International Criminal Court to take note - and eight months later, its chief prosecutor issued a request for an arrest warrant against Gallant, specifically focusing on the crime Human Rights Watch correctly identified.

As I noted at the time, “this is genocidal language”, not least given the use of “human animals”. Indeed, dissenting media outlet The Intercept correctly identified it as such the same day. As we will see, Gallant was not alone in using this specific phraseology, which can hardly be dismissed as coincidental.

Yet in most of the Western media, the significance of Gallant’s comments was disregarded. At the time, the sole mention on the BBC news website - the world’s most read news site - was in an article headlined ‘Israel’s military says it fully controls communities on Gaza border’. Gallant’s statement was buried towards the end of the article. There was no mention of how this violated international law. Indeed, the BBC went on to mention that Gaza had been under a “tight Israeli-Egypt blockade since the Hamas takeover 16 years ago”, adding: “The two countries say it is for security reasons.” Nothing countered this official reasoning, such as the humanitarian impact of the longest blockade of the 21st century.

That month, the only other mention on the BBC website was in an article about protests at US colleges. In an article with language slanted in favour of Israel throughout, the reference to Gallant’s quote was an example of dishonesty by omission. It said:

“Israeli officials have used extreme language, with Defence Minister Yoav Gallant referring to Hamas militants as "human animals".”

But this interpretation would be completely undermined if it was quoted in full, given Gallant made clear the siege would be against the civilian population, and - as we will see - his key ally used “human animals” squarely to refer to civilians, a fact which is omitted.

While the Times of Israel ensured Gallant’s comments were quoted in the headline - in an article clearly indicating approval - and the Middle East Eye accurately reflected his statement in its headline, mainstream Western outlets largely did not.

In news coverage, the New York Times buried Gallant’s commitment to grave war crimes. The day it was made, it appeared 13 paragraphs down in an article devoted to discussing whether the bipartisan consensus in support of Israel would hold. 8 days later, it was again buried in another article - not to place it in a context of clear criminal intent, but to investigate Arab backlash against US and Israeli policy. The statement is similarly buried in another article 11 days after it was made, expressing US concerns about “some Israeli officials, including Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Gallant” being “blind with rage”, but again, nothing about the significance of these comments in revealing Israel’s intent.

Outside of news coverage, the New York Times editorial board included the statement in a piece reflecting the newspaper’s official position, headlined ‘Israel Can Defend Itself and Uphold Its Values’. It claims “what Israel is fighting to defend is a society that values human life and the rule of law”, urging its onslaught to be consistent with that, and describes Gallant’s unambiguous criminal intent simply as proof that “this war is unfolding in an atmosphere of intense emotions.” Its assertions about the values underpinning Israel’s assault have been proven false in the most brutal sense possible - and Gallant’s statement should have represented obvious evidence about that from the start. The newspaper further covered preemptively covered for Israel’s war crimes, claiming Hamas was using civilians as “human shields”: in fact, there is far more evidence of Israel using human shields. The editorial further suggests that “Israeli soldiers will look to their leaders to guide their actions and decisions on the battlefield to make sure that they, unlike Hamas, make distinctions between civilians and combatants.” No evidence was offered for this claim and - as we will see - such a claim deliberately ignored Gallant offering his soldiers impunity days before the editorial was written.

Yes, The New York Times featured opinion columns that October which, to varying degrees of seriousness, criticised Gallant’s words. But again, the point is the failure to frame news coverage around what the Israeli state said it would do.

Other than opinion pieces, the statement did appear in a Washington Post analysis - headlined ‘Israel ordered a ‘complete siege’ of Gaza. Here’s what that looks like’ - two days after it was made. While the article does look at the potential human impact of such a siege, there is no discussion of international law, the Israeli justification is quoted without challenge, and it ends with a quote from analyst concluding “ultimately, Hamas knew exactly what was going to come.” Commendably, in his newsletter, the foreign affairs columnist Ishaan Tharoor declared that Gallant had invoked “rhetoric that rights groups claimed was tantamount to announcing war crimes”, although this leaves an objective fact open to interpretation. Like other newspapers, that Gallant’s statement made clear Israel’s criminal intent was not woven into wider coverage, or used to map out Israel’s inevitable strategy.

In other newspapers, there were only cursory mentions of Gallant’s words in the month they were made, such as The Telegraph. In The Times, you can find his words only quoted 10 days later, buried in a news article with no legal context. The only exception is two days after that, in an article in which actor Sam Heughan is forced shamed into apologising for signing a letter condemning Israel’s onslaught, with the letter then quoted, including its justified denunciation of Gallant’s genocidal words.

---

“You wanted hell, you will get hell.”

Another public statement was even more clear-cut about Israel’s genocidal intent. On the same day as Yoav Gallant, Major General Ghassan Alian, the Israeli Army Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories - or COGAT, the Israeli Ministry of Defence’s agency for the occupied territories - used essentially the same phrase as Gallant. It was posted on COGAT’s Twitter feed:

“Hamas became ISIS and the citizens of Gaza are celebrating instead of being horrified. Human beasts are dealt with accordingly. Israel has imposed a total blockade on Gaza, no electricity, no water, just damage. You wanted hell, you will get hell.”

There is no subtlety here. No one could try and dishonestly pretend that “human beasts” referred to Hamas, rather than Gaza’s civilian population. The Israeli general charged with overseeing the civilian affairs of occupied Palestinian territories made clear that he regarded the civilian population as “human animals” who must suffer collective punishment for the attitudes he alleged they displayed in their entirety in response to 7th October. Major General Alian made clear that the civilian population would accordingly suffer a “total blockade” on the essentials of life, and would receive "just damage” instead, as well as “hell”.

There is no plausible other interpretation than this general had issued an official declaration that war crimes on a grand scale would be committed by Israel against the Palestinian civilian population, from starvation to mass destruction, underpinned by collective punishment. Yet not only did Western media outlets fail to frame their coverage of Israel’s intentions around this declaration, they largely did not cover Alian’s statement at all.

The Times of Israel correctly but briefly identifies that Maj. Gen. Alian was addressing “Gazan residents” and that he was “lambasting Palestinian popular support for the terror group”: in context, the newspaper clearly approves.

There is no mention of this statement on the BBC website. There was no mention of this statement in news coverage in the days, or even weeks, after it was made in multiple newspapers, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Times, and The Telegraph. There were opinion columns which quoted these words - but such words should have profoundly influenced news coverage of Israel’s intentions, yet they did not even appear in the news section.

Elsewhere, the partial quoting of the general was itself revealing. Two days after the statement was made, The Economist wrote:

“News of a gruesome massacre in Kfar Aza, a southern kibbutz, has hardened the mood. Some have hinted at collective punishment. “Hamas became ISIS and the citizens of Gaza are celebrating instead of being horrified,” said an Israeli general. “Human beasts are dealt with accordingly.””

Here, the magazine put the general’s genocidal rhetoric in the context of atrocities committed by Hamas. As well as cutting down the quote, The Economist suggested this only “hinted” at collective punishment. This is a preposterous interpretation of such an extreme statement, which did anything but hint.

---

“Eliminate everything”

There was other devastating evidence of Israel’s public intentions. On 10th October, Defence Minister Yoav Gallant told Israeli troops on the Gaza border he had “released all the restraints”, adding:

“ Gaza won’t return to what it was before. We will eliminate everything. If it doesn’t take one day, it will take a week. It will take weeks or even months, we will reach all places.”

Two days later, he declared he had “removed every restriction” on Israeli forces. He could not have been clearer about the impunity he was granting Israeli soldiers. Again, this proved to be an entirely accurate predictor of how those soldiers would go on to behave.

The Israeli media jubilantly reported such statements, such as The Times of Israel, in an article headlined ‘Gallant: Israel moving to full offence, Gaza will never go back to what it once was’.

Yet Gallant’s orders to his troops were barely covered by the Western media at all at the time, unless mentioned in passing and buried. Striking exceptions included right-wing tabloid The New York Post, which rightly anticipated the apocalyptic conditions Gaza would face, and celebrated them, and Fox News, similarly in an article defined by a pro-Israel tone.

This omission should be considered astonishing: the man in charge of Israel’s military could not have been more explicit about orders amounting to severe war crimes, not least collective punishment, and impunity granted to soldiers. The Western media chose to suppress this.

The point, as ever, is that if the Western media wanted to accurately report Israel’s intentions, they should have shaped their coverage around the statements of the man in charge of the state’s armed forces. Instead, they largely barely reported these orders, and - at best - offered up a self-evidently dishonest debate about whether Israel’s response was proportionate or not. This did not even include what by definition was always going to be a war against the civilian population by soldiers who were told to “eliminate everything”, with their leader informing them that no “restraints” or “restrictions” on their behaviour existed.

---

The biggest journalistic scandal of our age

There are many other examples. The Israeli President, Isaac Herzog, said the following in response to a question from British broadcasters ITV, who asked about alleviating the impact on Gaza’s civilian population, “many of whom have nothing to do with Hamas”:

"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. They could have risen up, they could have fought against that evil regime which took over Gaza in a coup 'd état.”

The headline failed to reflect the implications of collective guilt: ‘Israeli president Isaac Herzog says Gazans could have risen up to fight 'evil' Hamas’. Most Western media outlets failed to cover this statement at all.

In another example, an Israeli defence official told Israel’s Channel 13: “Gaza will eventually turn into a city of tents. There will be no buildings. The ground manoeuvre will surprise Hamas”.

This was indeed prophetic. Most buildings in Gaza have been destroyed or damaged, with this tiny strip of land the size of East London suffering Israeli detonations with equivalent firepower to several Hiroshima bombs. The destruction is so extreme that Gaza has a different colour and texture when looked at from space.

But most Western media outlets, again, failed to cover a statement which proved entirely accurate about Israel’s intentions. Instead, they chose to treat clearly absurd Israeli claims about proportionality and careful targeting as though they were credible. One exception was Sky News Australia, a network which has zealously backed Israel’s onslaught, and which - like fellow Rupert Murdoch-owned outlet, the New York Post - made clear the implications.

Since these statements were made, Israel has committed some of the worst war crimes of our age. The real total death toll is unknown, with some public health experts suggesting up to 186,000 Palestinians in Gaza by July. Israeli soldiers have relished the impunity explicitly granted to them at the start, gleefully posting their war crimes online. As well as all relevant aid agencies, two US government departments made clear in April that Israel was deliberately blockading the essentials of life.

All of this was inevitable, based on the statements made by Israeli leaders and officials at the start. None made any effort to disguise their intentions. All Western media outlets were aware of them. If they were covered at all, their significance was not explained, and they were buried in broader coverage. If the explicit implications were spelled out in media outlets, it was in a few outlier columns in their opinion sections.

Throughout this genocide, the Western media chose to portray Israel’s onslaught as self-defence. Even though it was clear that Israeli leaders and officials were saying one thing to their domestic audiences, and another to Western viewers and readers, broadcasters and newspapers treated the latter as credible. The few dissenting voices who took the statements of Israeli leaders and officials literally were defamed as extremists and antisemites.

For this reason, on 24th October 2023, I wrote a column for The Guardian headlined ‘Israel is clear about its intentions in Gaza – world leaders cannot plead ignorance of what is coming’. Given the horror to come, it was clear that some would later claim ignorance: the column was written as a marker, to make it clear no such excuses existed.

By intentionally covering up what Israel made clear it would do from the start - which it has done, to the letter - the Western media helped facilitate Israel’s genocide. The International Criminal Court has finally issued arrest warrants for Israel’s prime minister and defence minister. But it’s not just Israel’s leaders who must be held to account.