Where is the line between journalism and propaganda? Reuters blurs it in its June 10 article, “Israel commits ‘extermination’ in Gaza by killing in schools, UN experts say,” by Francois Murphy, which uncritically amplifies the United Nations’s Commission of Inquiry’s (COI) flawed and biased claims of Israeli war crimes.
The absurdity of reporting, with any amount of seriousness, the COI’s conclusions should be readily apparent to any credible journalist. For those with less familiarity with the UN and the COI, consider the following.
Allegations of war crimes demand evidence that is both credible and verifiable. The COI, however, provides neither. It withholds its source list, fails to explain its methodology, and disproportionately relies on anti-Israel activists while ignoring pro-Israel evidence and testimony.
Much of the evidence relied upon by the COI is unverifiable because it refuses to make public the list of “sources consulted” for the report. Nor has the COI explained what process it uses to determine who it consults, whether as a fact witness or an expert witness, or how it went about searching, collecting, and verifying the evidence.
We do know, however, that the COI has prioritized anti-Israel activist organizations while ignoring evidence and witnesses in support of Israel.
With that lack of verifiability, the public is left only to trust the credibility of the source: the COI itself. Such trust is entirely undeserved for reasons that have already been well established. For example, every single commissioner has a record of antisemitic remarks and conduct, leading to widespread condemnation from governments and civil society alike. The COI’s mandate predetermined Israel’s guilt. The terms of reference – guiding the COI’s methodology – are beyond farcical. It applies a “reasonable grounds” standard of proof, which is far below the threshold used even for civil litigation (a preponderance of the evidence), let alone the criminal standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt). The terms even allow the COI to deem themselves to be a “reliable source” in order to “corroborate” evidence.
The quality of the COI’s output matches the quality of its “investigative” process. Its reports regularly get basic facts wrong in its transparently partisan pursuit of prosecuting Israel.
All of this holds true for the COI’s latest report. Consider, for example, how the COI treats evidence in two alleged incidents of Israeli wrongdoing.
Incident One: Alleged Burning of a School
The COI accuses Israel of intentionally burning a school based on little more than the presence of IDF vehicles near the fire. No forensic evidence, eyewitness testimony, or independent confirmation is provided. The COI simply writes:
Following reports of intense shelling, Israeli security forces surrounded the area and ordered civilians to leave. A video from the scene shows two Israeli armoured vehicles leaving the school in flames…Israeli security forces reportedly claimed that the school was serving as a shelter for militants and that, after the evacuation of the civilians, dozens of militants had been arrested there and brought to Israel for questioning. They claimed that the fire had been ignited as a result of the military activity.
The COI then concludes: “On the basis of the available information, the Commission finds that the fire was ignited intentionally.”
Incident Two: Al-Ansar Mosque Strike
In contrast, the COI doubts Israel’s claim that the Al-Ansar Mosque in Jenin, which Israel struck on October 22, 2023, housed a terror compound, despite photographic and video evidence, including underground tunnels and arms caches. Even earlier footage of terrorists firing from the mosque is dismissed.
The report states:
Israeli security forces referred to the mosque as a “terror compound” containing a “terror cell”, and presented photographs and videos of weapons allegedly found on the site. The Commission could not independently verify those claims.
One of the entrances to an underground compound at Al-Ansar Mosque in Jenin. (Courtesy: IDF)
To be clear, the videos did not simply show “weapons allegedly found,” and the IDF did not simply describe the mosque as a “terror compound.” The IDF said it struck an “underground terror compound in the Al-Ansar mosque” (emphasis added), and video and images taken at the mosque show the underground compound, including the multiple entrances dug into the mosque, at least one of which led to a kindergarten. The imagery also showed that the compound did not simply contain weapons, but also explosives, military gear, and surveillance infrastructure. Additional footage appears to show a Palestinian terrorist firing on Israeli soldiers from the very same mosque just three months earlier.
In Incident One, the COI conclusively determined that the IDF intentionally ignited a school on fire merely based on a single video showing IDF vehicles at the scene, even as they acknowledge reports of fighting and the presence of terrorists at the scene. In Incident Two, the COI could not determine that a mosque was being used by terrorists despite the availability of video and photographic evidence. How the COI decided it could verify the former, but not the latter, is baffling.
How the COI handles the critical legal question of “intent” further exposes its lack of professionalism and competence. For example, in paragraph 16, the commissioners concoct a conspiracy that the IDF erroneously identified an Al-Azhar University building as an Israa University building to “retrospectively” justify the demolition of part of the latter university. The sole evidence for the conspiracy is just that: a mistaken identification on an IDF press release and map. An evil intent is assumed, while the plethora of reasonable alternative explanations are simply ignored without any explanation.
That’s the quality of deductive reasoning one expects from an episode of “Ancient Aliens,” not from a serious investigative body.
The truth is that the COI is simply a propaganda outfit. Neither the facts nor due process matter to it – only Israeli guilt. On top of that, the COI has little, if any, actual relevance to the course of events. So unimportant is it that even the Palestinian Authority didn’t bother responding to the commissioners ahead of its latest report (see paragraph 3).
So why would any credible journalist amplify its allegations, other than simply to fuel anti-Israel propaganda? Journalistic integrity requires more than a platform—it demands skepticism, fact-checking, and fairness. By amplifying the COI’s discredited and partisan findings, Reuters fails this standard.