spectator.org
The New York Times , Kristof, and the Ethics of War Reporting
Nicholas Kristof’s recent response to his readers regarding his Gaza coverage reveals troubling patterns in contemporary journalism’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While Kristof acknowledges criticism from “pained readers” who believe he “judges Israel far too harshly,” his defensive response demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of both the strategic realities facing Israel and the moral frameworks necessary for evaluating warfare in the 21st century. This present analysis examines Kristof’s arguments through the lens of just war theory, international law, and historical precedent to reveal the inadequacies of his position.
The Strategic Threat Assessment: Retired Officials vs. Current Reality
Kristof begins his defense by citing “more than 600 retired Israeli security officials” who claim that “Hamas no longer poses a strategic threat to Israel.” This appeal to authority contains several fundamental flaws that undermine his entire argument.
Until journalists like Kristof are willing to report honestly about Hamas’s crimes and Israel’s restraint, they will continue to contribute to the perpetuation of a conflict that has already caused far too much suffering on all sides.
First, the emphasis on “retired“ officials is telling. These individuals, however distinguished their past service, no longer have access to current intelligence, operational capabilities, or real-time threat assessments. Their opinions, while worthy of consideration, cannot supersede the judgment of those currently responsible for Israel’s security. As military strategist Carl von Clausewitz observed in his On War, the fog of war creates uncertainties that can only be properly assessed at best by those actively engaged in the conflict.
Second, Kristof’s interpretation ignores the fundamental nature of Hamas as both a military organization and an ideological movement. Hamas’s 1988 Covenant, which remains officially unrevoked despite claims of moderation, explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel and contains language that can only be described as genocidal in intent. Article Seven of the Covenant states:
The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: ‘O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.'” This is not merely political rhetoric but a religious imperative that places all Jews, not just Israelis, in mortal danger.
The continued existence of Hamas’s military infrastructure, tunnel networks, and rocket capabilities, combined with their ideological commitment to Israel’s destruction, constitutes an existential threat that transcends conventional strategic calculations. As terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman notes, organizations like Hamas cannot be evaluated solely through traditional military metrics but must be understood as hybrid entities combining state-like capabilities with non-state flexibility.
Casualty Statistics: The Problem of Source Credibility
Kristof expresses horror at “the deaths of 18,000 children,“ relying uncritically on statistics provided by Hamas-controlled authorities. This approach demonstrates a troubling lack of journalistic skepticism regarding source credibility and methodological rigor.
The Gaza Health Ministry, which provides these figures, is directly controlled by Hamas, a designated terrorist organization with clear incentives to inflate casualty numbers and minimize distinctions between combatants and civilians. Intelligence analyst Jonathan Schanzer and others have noted that Hamas has consistently employed disinformation campaigns as part of its broader strategic approach, making their casualty claims inherently suspect.
Furthermore, these statistics fail to account for several critical factors:
Age Classification Issues: Hamas statistics may include 17-year-olds who died while engaged in combat operations. Under international humanitarian law, individuals who directly participate in hostilities lose their protected status as civilians, regardless of age.
Combatant-Civilian Distinctions: Hamas systematically fails to distinguish between its fighters and civilian casualties, making accurate assessment impossible. This is not merely a methodological oversight but a deliberate strategy to maximize international pressure on Israel.
Verification Challenges: The fog of war makes independent verification of casualty figures extremely difficult. As demonstrated during conflicts in Syria and Iraq, initial casualty reports often prove significantly inaccurate once independent investigation becomes possible.
It is worth noting that the United Nations, normally hostile toward Israel’s military operations in Gaza, had to revise downward its initial estimates of child and female casualties from the war. In May 2024, the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs released updated figures that listed 7,797 children as killed in Gaza — a large drop from its initial estimates of around 14,500. At the same time, the reported number of women killed was revised downward too — from over 9,500 to about 4,959.
Urban combat environments make precise casualty assessment nearly impossible during active operations, requiring post-conflict forensic investigation for accuracy.
The Doctrine of Double Effect and Moral Responsibility
The question of moral responsibility for civilian casualties in Gaza requires careful application of established ethical frameworks, particularly the Doctrine of Double Effect (effectus duplex) as articulated by Thomas Aquinas and refined by modern bellum justum (just war) theorists.
Under this doctrine, an action with harmful consequences may be morally permissible if four conditions are met:
The action itself must be morally neutral or good
The actor must intend only the good effect
The bad effect must not be a means to achieving the good effect
The good effect must outweigh the bad effect
Applied to the Gaza conflict, Israel’s military operations clearly satisfy these conditions. The IDF’s primary intention is the legitimate military objective of degrading Hamas’s capability to launch attacks against Israeli civilians. Civilian casualties, while tragic, are neither intended nor used as means to achieve military objectives.
Conversely, Hamas’s strategy of using civilian infrastructure for military purposes violates the principle of distinction, one of the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law. By positioning rocket launchers in hospitals, schools, and residential areas, Hamas deliberately creates situations where civilian casualties become inevitable during legitimate military operations.
The moral responsibility for these deaths lies with Hamas, not Israel. When combatants deliberately blur the distinction between military and civilian targets, they bear responsibility for the civilian casualties that result from defensive actions.
The Starvation Allegation: Evidence vs. Propaganda
Kristof’s acceptance of starvation allegations demonstrates another failure of critical analysis. The claim that Israel is deliberately starving Gaza’s population lacks credible evidence and contradicts observable facts. Here we must ask the fundamental question: cui bono (who benefits)?
First, the only visibly malnourished individuals seen in media coverage have been Israeli hostages upon their release, not Gazan civilians. This stark contrast suggests that if starvation is occurring, it is being perpetrated by Hamas against Israeli captives, not by Israel against Gazan civilians.
Second, Israel has facilitated the delivery of thousands of tons of humanitarian aid throughout the conflict. The Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) reports that between October 2023 and August 2025, over 50,000 aid trucks entered Gaza through Israeli-controlled crossings. The bottleneck in aid distribution appears to be Hamas’s systematic commandeering of supplies to maintain political control and support military operations.
Third, historical precedent does not support the claim that military forces have obligations to feed enemy civilian populations during active hostilities. During World War II, Allied forces were not expected to provide food aid to German, Italian, or Japanese civilians while combat operations continued. The expectation that Israel should bear this burden while Hamas continues military operations represents a double standard applied to no other nation.
The aid diversion problem has been documented by multiple international organizations. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs noted in its February 2025 report that “significant quantities of humanitarian assistance are being diverted for military purposes,” though it diplomatically avoided directly naming Hamas as responsible.
Historical Precedent and Surrender
Kristof dismisses the reasonable suggestion that Hamas should surrender to end civilian suffering, arguing that “enemies rarely oblige.” This response demonstrates a troubling ignorance of historical precedent and moral reasoning.
Germany, Italy, and Japan all “obliged” to surrender in World War II when continued resistance threatened greater harm to their civilian populations. These decisions by Axis leaders, however belated, demonstrated a minimal concern for their people’s welfare that is entirely absent from Hamas leadership.
The comparison reveals Hamas’s moral bankruptcy. Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo, despite their crimes, eventually recognized that continued resistance was futile and would only increase civilian suffering. Hamas leadership shows no such concern, preferring to sacrifice Gaza’s population for propaganda purposes rather than accept military defeat.
This comparison also highlights the absurdity of expecting Israel to coexist with an organization that explicitly seeks its destruction. The Allied powers correctly concluded that Nazi ideology and Japanese militarism were incompatible with peaceful coexistence. Similarly, Hamas’s ideological commitment to Israel’s destruction makes any long-term accommodation impossible.
Urban Warfare and Infrastructure Destruction
Kristof expresses outrage at “the leveling of entire neighborhoods“ and notes that “at least 70 percent of Gaza’s buildings have been damaged or destroyed.” This criticism ignores the realities of urban warfare and Hamas’s deliberate militarization of civilian infrastructure.
Hamas has spent years converting Gaza’s civilian infrastructure into military assets. Hospitals serve as command centers, schools house weapons caches, and residential buildings contain rocket launchers and tunnel entrances. The Israel Defense Force has documented thousands of instances of Hamas military use of protected civilian facilities.
When civilian structures are used for military purposes, they lose their protected status under international humanitarian law. The IDF’s destruction of these militarized buildings represents legitimate military action, not wanton destruction.
Furthermore, Hamas’s systematic booby-trapping of buildings as they retreat creates additional dangers for both IDF forces and returning civilians. The extensive damage to Gaza’s infrastructure reflects both the intensity of urban combat and Hamas’s deliberate strategy of fighting from within civilian areas.
Military historian John Spencer’s analysis of the Battle of Mosul provides useful comparison. Coalition forces fighting ISIS in Iraq’s second-largest city also caused extensive infrastructure damage, with approximately 65 percent of buildings in eastern Mosul requiring major repairs or reconstruction. The parallels between ISIS’s use of civilian infrastructure and Hamas’s tactics are striking and suggest that high levels of infrastructure damage are inevitable when confronting enemies who deliberately militarize civilian areas.
The Proportionality Standard
Kristof’s critique implicitly applies a proportionality standard that has no basis in international law or military ethics. The principle of proportionality in armed conflict does not require that casualties be equal on both sides, but rather that military actions be proportional to their legitimate military objectives.
The IDF’s civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio in Gaza represents one of the lowest in the history of urban warfare. Independent analysis by the International Institute for Strategic Studies suggests a ratio of approximately 1.5 civilians killed for every Hamas combatant, far below the historical average of 9:1 in urban combat environments.
This extraordinary restraint demonstrates Israel’s commitment to minimizing civilian casualties while achieving legitimate military objectives. The IDF’s practices of roof-knocking, leaflet drops, and phone warnings to civilian populations represent unprecedented efforts to reduce non-combatant casualties.
By contrast, Hamas’s deliberate targeting of Israeli civilians through rocket attacks, suicide bombings, and the October 7 massacre demonstrates complete disregard for the principle of distinction. The moral equivalence implied in Kristof’s analysis ignores these fundamental differences in targeting doctrine and operational conduct.
The Land Rights Question
Kristof mentions “Palestinians in their decades enduring dispossession,” accepting without question the Palestinian narrative of victimization. This historical claim requires careful examination through the lens of property rights theory and historical fact.
Applying John Locke’s homesteading principle, the strongest legal claim to the land belongs to the Jewish people, who established continuous settlement and development beginning approximately 3,000 years ago. Archaeological evidence confirms extensive Jewish presence and development throughout the region during antiquity.
The Arab presence in the region, while also ancient, postdates Jewish settlement by approximately two millennia. Moreover, the Ottoman Empire’s land tenure system created complex questions of ownership that were never satisfactorily resolved during the British Mandate period.
The 1947 UN Partition Plan represented an attempt at compromise, offering both peoples sovereign territory. Jewish acceptance and Arab rejection of this proposal led directly to the current conflict. Palestinian claims of “dispossession” ignore this crucial historical context and their leadership’s consistent rejection of compromise solutions.
Modern property rights theory, as developed by economists like Harold Demsetz and legal scholars like Richard Epstein, emphasizes the importance of productive use and development in establishing legitimate ownership claims. The transformation of previously underdeveloped or abandoned land through intensive agriculture, urban development, and technological innovation strengthens rather than weakens Jewish ownership claims.
Media Responsibility and Anti-Semitic Violence
Kristof’s readers correctly identify his “inflammatory language” as contributing to anti-Semitic attacks worldwide. His defensive response demonstrates a troubling unwillingness to acknowledge journalism’s role in shaping public opinion and potentially inciting violence.
The correlation between negative media coverage of Israel and increased anti-Semitic incidents has been documented by organizations including the Anti-Defamation League and the Community Security Trust. When journalists present one-sided narratives that demonize Israel while excusing Hamas terrorism, they contribute to an environment where attacks on Jewish civilians become more likely.
Kristof’s claim that “a Palestinian child is the moral equivalent of an Israeli child” misses the point entirely. The issue is not the moral worth of individual children but the responsibility for their deaths. When Hamas deliberately places children in harm’s way to score propaganda points, and Israel makes unprecedented efforts to minimize civilian casualties, moral equivalence becomes morally obtuse.
The analogy of a murderer’s children suffering due to their parent’s crimes is apt. We should feel sympathy for these innocent victims while maintaining clarity about responsibility. The suffering of Gazan children is tragic, but Hamas leadership bears sole responsibility for their plight.
The Price of Moral Clarity
Nicholas Kristof’s response to his critics reveals the intellectual and moral confusion that characterizes much contemporary journalism about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His uncritical acceptance of Hamas propaganda, historical ignorance, and false moral equivalencies do a disservice to his readers and contribute to public misunderstanding of one of the world’s most complex conflicts.
The path forward requires moral clarity, not false equivalence. Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to genocide that deliberately maximizes civilian casualties on both sides to advance its political objectives. Israel is a civilized nation defending itself against an existential threat while making unprecedented efforts to minimize civilian casualties.
This moral clarity does not require indifference to Palestinian suffering or blind support for all Israeli policies. It does require honest acknowledgment of who bears responsibility for the current situation and what actions would actually improve conditions for all parties.
Until journalists like Kristof are willing to report honestly about Hamas’s crimes and Israel’s restraint, they will continue to contribute to the perpetuation of a conflict that has already caused far too much suffering on all sides.
The ultimate tragedy is that Kristof’s influence could have been used to promote understanding and peace. Instead, his biased reporting contributes to the very hatred and misunderstanding that make resolution more difficult. His readers deserve better, and so do the people of both Israel and Gaza.
READ MORE from Faran and Block:
Why Some Jews Support Their Enemies
Who Is to Blame for Civilian Deaths in Gaza?
It’s Not Fair! Disproportionate Deaths in the Middle East
New Posts (Home)
ChatBox
Popular Posts 
Game Zone
Top PodCasts
