Hamas, like other totalitarian rulers, invests heavily in propaganda. The Gaza-based terrorist group maintains strict control over the flow of information and counts on its propaganda ministry to disseminate its views. But Hamas can rest easy; the Washington Post is on the job.
The Post, like far too many other media outlets, has shown a propensity for treating Hamas claims like gospel. For example, the newspaper has frequently repeated casualty statistics supplied by the Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Ministry. Hamas has both a clear incentive to lie and a history of doing so. Moreover, Hamas’s own stats don’t include combatants. According to their “Health Ministry” everyone killed is a civilian.
Yet, the Post has been undeterred. Not only has the newspaper insisted on treating the terror group as if it were a credible source they have defended doing so. It is clearly an editorial decision.
The Post’s faith in Hamas was on full display in a May 27, 2024 article entitled, “Israeli strikes on Rafah safe zone kill at least 35, Gaza officials say.” Those “officials” are Hamas. And unsurprisingly they lied.
The dispatch, by Rachel Pannett with contributions from Niha Masih and Hajar Harb, claimed that Israeli strikes hit a “makeshift camp within Block 2371, an area that was designated a humanitarian safe zone by Israeli officials on May 22, according to Muhammad Abu Hani, a civil defense official in the Gaza Strip.” This served as the entire basis for the Post’s story and was reflected in its headline.
But Muhammad Abu Hani isn’t merely a “civil defense official in the Gaza Strip.” He’s Hamas. And it turns out that trusting claims made by Hamas makes for some remarkably poor “journalism.” The entire story came undone within hours of it being filed.
As IDF Lt. Colonel Peter Lerner noted on X on May 27, the Israeli strike “never took place in a designated humanitarian zone.” Lerner pointed out that an aerial photograph of the point of the strike compared to the humanitarian zone showed as much. Further, he pointed out that Hani, a “Hamas official,” seemed to be the chief source for the story. The Washington Post “should’ve checked this verifiable quote.” But instead, the newspaper “willingly quoted as fact Hamas lies about a strike that DIDN’T occur in the humanitarian zone.”
The Post could have waited for an investigation. At the very least they could’ve properly identified Hani or put his comments in quotes. Instead, the newspaper effectively served as part of a disinformation campaign from a U.S.-designated terrorist group. As CAMERA warned years ago: Hamas uses human shields and the Washington Post.
Within hours, the Post’s story came apart. But instead of owning up to their mistake and learning from it, the newspaper did a very revealing thing: they deleted the entire story.
The Post didn’t issue a public retraction or apology. Nor did they append a correction. Both are standard practice in journalism. Instead, they just deleted the entire article and pretended it didn’t exist.
The Post’s behavior is highly unethical and contravenes their own stated standards and ethics. But unfortunately, it isn’t surprising. Indeed, one of the contributing journalists to the story, Hajar Harb, praised Hamas’s October 7th terrorist attack on her social media.
CAMERA’s Arabic department exposed numerous posts from Harb, in which the UK-based journalist celebrated the worst slaughter of Jewish civilians since the Holocaust. The newspaper was made aware of her posts, and CAMERA’s work exposing Harb received international media attention. Yet the Post has chosen to keep relying on her and, presumably, paying her. That speaks volumes.
In January 2023, CAMERA highlighted the Post’s decision to belatedly hire and expand their standards and ethics team, asking if it would to a new era of accountability. That verdict is now in. But clearly there are no standards or ethics at a newspaper that loudly crows about “democracy dying in darkness” and which pretends that its journalists are heroic truth tellers. They aren’t. And the Washington Post is no longer a serious publication.