Terror Leader Shielded By a Hospital, Then By the NY Times

By: Gilead Ini June 13, 2025

In life, Muhammed Sinwar relied on Hamas’s tunnel network for protection. In death — he was ultimately killed in his bunker beneath a Gaza hospital — the New York Times provided another kind of shelter: a linguistic shield that cast doubt on his war crimes by treating certain unflattering facts as if they are partisan narratives.

The facts are closely linked:

  • Hamas uses civilian infrastructure as a shield for militant activity.
  • In doing so, Hamas breaks international law.

These are beyond any reasonable dispute. They aren’t accusations. They aren’t a narrative. They are, though, incriminating. Enter the New York Times.

Something to Prove?

Reporter Patrick Kingsley, at the top of his story about a tour of Sinwar’s base under Gaza’s European hospital, stated that Israel organized the tour because it hoped to prove Hamas’s use of shielding:

The military escorted a reporter from The New York Times to the tunnel on Sunday afternoon, as part of a brief and controlled visit for international journalists that the Israelis hoped would prove that Hamas uses civilian infrastructure as a shield for militant activity.

And what does the New York Times hope to prove with its phrase “hoped to prove”? In recent coverage, such language often served to instill doubt and suggest cynicism:

  • “Procter had an ulterior motive; he hoped to prove that Christie was guilty of the Evans murders, too.” (5/6/25)
  • “President Vladimir V. Putin, hoping to prove he is not the pariah that the West has tried to make him.” (10/23/24)
  • “pro-Trump activists across the country sought to gain access to Dominion machines, hoping to prove they had been used in a plot to flip votes from Mr. Trump to Mr. Biden.” (10/3/24)
  • “… the men hoped would prove a bribery allegation central to their case. But the interview backfired, undercutting the claims of bribery.” (2/16/24)

And worse. It’s not just odd, then, but also disparaging to talk of Israel “hoping” to prove what’s long been proven.

And indeed, Hamas’s use of civilian infrastructure has been well-documented — by the Washington Post, the Palestinian Authority, Palestinian journalists, Hamas prisoners, US intelligence, former USAID directors, Gaza doctors, Amnesty International, Médecins Sans Frontière staffers. It has even been plainly acknowledged in past New York Times coverage.

Could Kingsley have written it differently? Of course. Israel’s tour, to borrow one of the Times favorite words, underscored Hamas’s use of civilians as human shields. (But if in mid-2025 Israel still has to prove to journalists that Hamas uses Palestinian civilians as human shields, it is a comment on the cynicism of those attending the tour, not those giving it.)

International Law

The article gives the same treatment to the illegality of Hamas’s shielding, couching it as little more than a partisan perspective. Kingsley writes: “To the Israelis who brought us there, this hiding place … is emblematic of how Hamas has consistently endangered civilians, and broken international law….”

Kingsley could have more clearly informed readers of Sinwar’s war crime. To see how, we need only look elsewhere in the piece, when he repeatedly turns his attention to the question of Israel’s adherence to international law. He could have described the law plainly, in his own voice, as he did here: “Under the laws of war, a medical facility is considered a protected site that can be attacked only in very rare cases.”

Or he could have cited “experts,” as he did here: “But international legal experts said that any assessment of the strike’s legality needed also to take into account its effect on the wider health system in southern Gaza.”

And here: “In a territory where many hospitals are already not operational, experts said, it is harder to find legal justification for strikes that put the remaining hospitals out of service, even if militants hide beneath them.”

And again here: “If Mr. Sinwar was intentionally poisoned by gases released by such explosions, it would raise legal questions, experts on international law said.”

What accounts for the difference? Not the action. The documented war crime is treated as partisan opinion; the speculation — did Israel intend for the bombs to kill Sinwar with kinetic force or rather with fumes? —  is given the weight of hard legal analysis. The difference, then, seems to be on account of the actor.  

A look at the paper’s early coverage of the strike that killed Sinwar is illustrative. Its first story, on May 13, the day of the strike, said nothing about the illegality of Sinwar’s hiding spot. The next day, four separate Times articles avoided the question. In a fifth story, at least, one paragraph made space for a legal expert to explain, “If Hamas uses a hospital to shield a military command and control center, that is a violation of international humanitarian law.” But the passage was nestled among five other paragraphs scrutinizing the legality of Israel’s strike on the Hamas leader. The piece’s title, like the paper’s coverage in general, reveals what the reporters want emphasized: “Strike on Hospital Highlights Israeli Attacks on Gaza Health System.”

In his piece, Kingsley describes the strike on Sinwar as a kind of Rorschach test, “the embodiment of a broader narrative battle between Israelis and Palestinians over how the conflict should be portrayed.” Perhaps. But the New York Times isn’t merely describing the narrative war. It’s participating in it.

In response to CAMERA’s concerns, the paper refused to update Kingsley’s piece with more objective language, and sent the following statement to CAMERA:

We have reported extensively on the ways Hamas has used civilian infrastructure for military operations, a line of reporting that is well-known to our readers and others. However, CAMERA’s response to this piece highlights the very point made in the dispatch, which documents the broader narrative battle between Israelis and Palestinians over how the conflict should be portrayed. Western journalists have been unable to access and independently report from Gaza, and this carefully written report helps readers understand some of the reasons for inviting journalists on a controlled military visit. 

We don’t dispute that the piece was carefully written. Its dismissive reference to Israel “hoping to prove” what the paper knows to be true, and its reluctance to plainly state that Sinwar violated international law, reads like a deliberate attempt to slant reporting against Israel, in a way that effectively protects Hamas.

Some Similar New York Times Word Games:

Comments are closed.