How AFP Is Disrupting the World of Information

"For fans and players, Tuesday's match in the Jabalia refugee camp was a welcome distraction from the pangs of hunger and exhaustion endured over nearly 300 days of the Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip. …

We will play despite hunger and thirst, we will compete because we love life," read one child's sign in both English and Arabic. …

Residents have told AFP there is barely any food left in the north, and what little reaches them comes at an astronomical cost.

For the footballers, the match offered a rare escape from concerns about food and water shortages.

Residents might have claimed there is barely any food left in the north, but AFP's alleged commitment to impartiality requires it to cite Israeli sources on this disputed allegation. As Times of Israel reported in recent days ("COGAT: Amount of aid entering Gaza means there's no longer a humanitarian crisis in northern Strip"):

Israel’s civilian coordination agency for the Palestinian territories COGAT states that there is no longer a humanitarian crisis in northern Gaza due to the practically unfettered access of humanitarian aid to the region in recent weeks and months.

Head of COGAT Gen. Ghassan Alian tells the High Court of Justice that on average, 30 trucks of aid per day enter through two out of three crossings between Israel and northern Gaza, and that as a result northern Gaza “is no longer part of the discussion” regarding humanitarian concerns in Gaza.

International organizations warned earlier this year that “a full blown famine” had developed specifically in northern Gaza but those determinations were found to have been incorrect.

Moving on to China's Palestinian unity plan, there too AFP manages to obscure and skew, fueling the very disruption of truth which the news agency claims to oppose ("Beijing deal for post-war Gaza leaves analysts sceptical").

AFP's tilted coverage is tainted by what it omits as it faults Israel as the primary obstacle for Palestinian unity. Under the heading "What are the obstacles?" AFP reports that International Crisis Group Middle East director Joost

Hiltermann said determined Israeli opposition to any future role for Hamas was the most serious of an array of obstacles to the deal.

"An ideal deal would see Hamas enter the Palestine Liberation Organization in exchange for allowing the Palestinian Authority to return to Gaza and oversee humanitarian aid and reconstruction," he said.

The PLO is an alliance of largely secular Palestinian factions historically regarded by the international community as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.

"Of course, there are many obstacles in the way of such a scenario, Israel being the main one," Hiltermann told AFP.

Embracing ICC's Israel is the main obstacle line, AFP fails to disclose that Hamas is a designated terror organization committed to the destruction of Israel which has carried out the most deadly and barbaric mass slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust. Hamas' character, some would say, is the primary obstacle precluding the terror organization from becoming a legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, but AFP conceals this fact.

As State Department Spokesman Matthew Miller stated in yesterday's press briefing when asked about the Beijing proposal:

So we have not yet reviewed the text of the so-called Beijing declaration. Of course, we will do that. But as we have made clear for months, Hamas is a terrorist organization – something that we obviously made clear before October 7th. But when it comes to governance of Gaza at the end of the conflict, there can’t be a role for a terrorist organization. Hamas has long been a terrorist organization. They have the blood of innocent civilians – both Israeli and Palestinian – on their hands. And so when you look at the post-conflict governance of Gaza, we do see – as we have made clear, we want to see the Palestinian Authority governing a unified Gaza and the West Bank. But no, we do not support a role for Hamas.

When pressed further about a possible future role for Hamas in the Palestine Liberation Organization, Miller added that Hamas has 

not announced that they accept the principles of the PLO. That is an important point that you make. Hamas has not renounced terrorism; it has not renounced the use of violence to achieve its political aims; it has not renounced the destruction of the state of Israel – something the PLO has done. It remains a terrorist organization. It remains committed to killing civilians. It remains committed to bringing about the destruction of the state of Israel. So no, we do not see an organization that believes in those tactics and believes in carrying out terrorism as a suitable organization to govern the Palestinian people.

In response to a reporter who insisted that some Hamas spokespeople had indicated that they would accept PLO principles, Miller continued:

They have not in any way committed to a two-state solution. And I – let’s just to make clear, they could have, in the context of this declaration today, signed onto the principles of the PLO, and they did not. …

So maybe a spokesman makes statements from time to time, but Hamas as an organization has not renounced its support for violence, its support for terrorism, or its commitment to the destruction of the state of Israel, and that’s an important point.

It's an important point indeed, and yet it's one that AFP egregiously failed to make. Indeed, the Hamas charter calling for Israel's destruction is still very much in place.

As for AFP's charter calls for "accurate, balanced and impartial coverage," it too is still officially in place. Unlike Hamas, though, AFP journalists lack fealty to their stated mission.