Israel-Palestine war: Is the US complicit in Israel's alleged use of white phosphorous in Gaza?

Experts go over the two reports on Israel's alleged use of white phosphorus, and what the US military codes on the rounds mean

White phosphorus is a chemical substance that is used by militaries in artillery shells, bombs and rockets (AFP/File photo)

By Umar A Farooq in Washington
Published date: 20 October 2023 

Within the past two weeks, after war broke out between Israel and Palestinian armed groups based in Gaza, Israel's military has been accused of a number of war crimes as it continues its relentless bombardment of Gaza's 2.3 million-strong population.

Israel has denied it has committed war crimes, and the US, which provides substantial diplomatic, political and military support to Israel, has stressed that Israel must follow the rules of war.

So far in the conflict, Israel has killed over 4,000 Palestinians including more than 1,500 children, while at least 1,400 Israelis were killed following the attacks by Palestinian armed groups.

Middle East Eye has previously provided an overview of the list of war crimes Israel has already been accused of in this war.

However, one accusation that has the potential to be forgotten about with the rapidly moving nature of the conflict, and after the devastating bombing of a hospital in Gaza City, is the allegation that Israel has used white phosphorus on the civilian population of Gaza.

Using white phosphorus in such conditions is a violation of international law, and two leading rights groups Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International have released reports on the matter.

MEE takes a closer look at these reports, and whether there are any possible US links to Israel's alleged use of this incendiary substance in Gaza.
The reports

On 12 October, HRW released a report outlining that it has verified footage showing Israel used white phosphorus rounds in both the Gaza City port as well as rural parts of southern Lebanon.

In videos reviewed by the rights group, HRW identified the round of munitions used on the port in Gaza as 155mm phosphorus artillery shells. Israel has denied the report.

The next day, Amnesty International released its own report, in which it said it had "compelling evidence documenting the use of white phosphorus artillery shells by the Israeli army in densely populated civilian areas in Gaza". The report added that many of these uses could be considered unlawful indiscriminate acts.

It also documented that the Israeli military had deployed white phosphorus artillery shells to the Israeli town of Sderot, located close to the border with Gaza. In a photo analysed by Amnesty, it found that the shells contained the label D528, the US military's identification code for white phosphorus-based rounds.

Does this mean that the US supplied white phosphorus rounds to Israel's military, which were then used in a densely populated area, a violation of international law?

Follow Middle East Eye's live coverage for the latest on the Israel-Palestine war

Experts have told MEE that the evidence to link all of it together is not yet there.

"The fact that there's a US Dodic - Department of Defense Identification Code - was evidence of what's inside, not that the United States manufactured that particular round," Brian Castner, a weapons expert and investigator with Amnesty International, told MEE.

The US military, Nato and Israel's military are all very intertwined, so Israeli arms manufacturers sometimes use American nomenclatures and codes because it's easier than creating their own codes.

Israel-Palestine war: Reports of Israeli 'white phosphorus' use in Gaza

Read More »

In order to truly find out if the rounds in question were made by the US, it would require seeing the National Stock Number (NSN), part of which includes a two-digit code denoting the country of origin. The US codes are 00 and 01.

Castner said that these NSN codes are used for everything in the military, from hubcaps to two-tonne trucks.

"I would need the national stock number which may or may not be actually stamped, pounded into the metal of the round itself. That code would tell us something."

However, it's not a mystery that Israel has white phosphorus rounds made by the US.

"The US provides so many arms and in these particular rounds, the M825 and M825A1, the US has almost certainly provided in the past," Castner said.
What is white phosphorus?

White phosphorus is a chemical substance used by militaries in artillery shells, bombs and rockets. The substance is ignited when it comes in contact with oxygen, and can then go on to burn intensely at temperatures north of 800C.

The substance was discovered more than 300 years ago by a German alchemist in Hamburg, and after using it in a number of cases, including for the ignition of matches, it began to be used for military purposes.

'White phosphorus is particularly horrific when used as a weapon'

- John Chappell, Center for Civilians in Conflict

As a weapon, white phosphorus is easily ignited, difficult to put out, burns at high temperatures and can spread fire rapidly.

"White phosphorus is particularly horrific when used as a weapon. The human suffering that comes with it is especially upsetting," John Chappell, advocacy and legal fellow at the Center for Civilians in Conflict (Civic), said.

"And then of course, there's the fact that the Israeli military is using weapons in a very densely populated area, Gaza, and that medical treatment is so limited, that the medical infrastructure has been so damaged."

For armed conflicts, militaries use white phosphorus as smokescreens, as the clouds of white smoke they generate provide cover for tank battalions or in general obscure the view of enemy troops. The substance is able to interfere with infrared technology and also weapons tracking systems, such as ground-to-air missiles.

The use of white phosphorus is not banned under international law, but the use of it in heavily populated areas is outlawed. Protocol 3 of the UN's Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons "prohibits the use of weapons primarily designed to set fire to objects or cause burn injuries against civilians".

If the substance comes into contact with people, it can cause chemical and thermal burns, even down to the bone, and can also enter the bloodstream to cause organ failure. Even after being treated, wounds could possibly reignite after being exposed to oxygen again.

Moral culpability versus legal liability

When it comes to international law applying to warfare, the details of an act are incredibly important, especially when it comes to the use of a substance like white phosphorus.

While international law states that the weapon cannot be used in densely populated areas, Castner added that there needs to be a clear lack of distinction between the targeting of armed groups and civilians.

"Attacks that fail to discriminate between civilians on one hand, and valid military targets on the other - those are indiscriminate attacks. And that's a violation of the law of war. And if civilians were injured or killed, that could be a war crime," Castner said.

"It's why white phosphorus shouldn't be used. And it's why it's so dangerous to use the rounds in a densely populated area, because the potential to harm civilians and not being able to differentiate between civilians and military targets in a densely populated area is super easy."

In terms of any US complicity in this, legal liability is hard to pin down, because of uncertainty over when the shells were given to Israel, and whether any of those white phosphorus shells the US provided were used by Israel in Gaza.

Israel-Palestine war: Senior US State Department official resigns over Biden’s approach to Gaza

Read More »

"So while there's certainly moral culpability if the US transferred white phosphorus to Israel, liability under international law gets more complicated," Chappell said.

"And because the US may have transferred white phosphorus shells significantly before the start of the current offensive, and since it's unclear whether policymakers made a transfer with the knowledge that they would be used in this way, legal liability is less clear."

The only way to concretely find out if any US-made shells were used is to go into Gaza and locate shell remnants there with US military codes and the NSN code for the US. With the access restraints, this does not seem plausible at the moment.

The International Criminal Court has an active investigation into "the situation in the State of Palestine" for alleged war crimes committed since 2014, and the ICC prosecutor says its mandate extends to the current conflict.

However, it is still clear that whatever Israel is doing in Gaza, it has the backing of the US. President Joe Biden travelled to Israel on Wednesday, where he went to Israel's war room and was given an overview of Israel's military plans in Gaza.

"The broader story is that everything that the Israeli military is doing right now is backed by the United States," Chappell said.

Israel has safer alternatives

Experts noted that while it can be difficult to pin down violations of international law, either by Israel or the US, Israel shouldn't even be using white phosphorus to begin with.

Roughly a decade ago, Israel said it would stop using the substance.

"After criticism from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups during the 2008-2009 war in Gaza, the Israeli government said they would phase out the use of white phosphorus munitions in 2013, and they clearly did not do so," Chappell said.

Israel has plenty of other weapons that could be used as smokescreens, which do the same stated purpose of white phosphorus while being less harmful. One of these is hexachloroethane (HC), a compound used in many smoke grenades in militaries around the world.

"Israel has other rounds that are smoke rounds that do the same thing. They're M150 rounds and they use HC, rather than white phosphorus. They're less harmful to civilians in the area. They have other things, but they appear to not be using it," Castner said.

 Israel-Palestine war: How US media legitimise Israel's barbarism against the Palestinians

Gregory Shupak
20 October 2023


By presenting Israel's terror campaign against Palestinians as if it were defensible, the US media are doing their part to help it continue

Palestinian women react at the Greek Orthodox Saint Porphyrius Church which was damaged by an Israeli strike, where Palestinians who fled their homes take shelter, in Gaza City on 20 October, 2023 (Reuters)

Recent editorials in leading liberal US newspapers have consistently presented the unrelenting mass terror that Israel inflicts on Palestinians as legitimate.

Media outlets have endorsed Israel's assault on Gaza, and America's funding of the attack, while criticising those who offer even mildly dissenting views. American publications have repeatedly conferred on Israel's violence a virtuousness, even as it mows people down - a generosity not afforded to its Palestinian counterpart.

On 12 October, The Washington Post ran an editorial praising US President Joe Biden for his "unreserved condemnation of Hamas's terrorism", saying: "In that respect, Mr Biden's firm words also stand in welcome contrast to the equivocations by a small number of the left-wing members of Congress in his own party, which White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre specifically repudiated."

The link to Jean-Pierre's words indicates that the "equivocations" the Post objects to are statements that "suggested the Hamas attack on Israel should be considered in context with previous actions by Israel", as well as those that "opposed US military aid for Israel on social media and called for an immediate cease-fire in the conflict."

A day before that editorial was published, the human rights groups Mezan, al-Haq, and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights jointly documented that, just in the period between midday 10 and 11 October, Israel destroyed entire neighbourhoods of al-Qarm, Ezbet Abdrabbo, and al-Sikka, with rescue teams "recover[ing] dozens of bodies" while "others are still under the rubble"; "target[ed]" Gaza's Islamic University and bombed the Al-Fakhoura Scholarship Program building", assaults that combined to kill 57 Palestinians, including 20 children. They further noted Israel's air strikes and shelling of the Middle Area District's agricultural lands and "residential areas, most notably in the three densely populated refugee camps of Al-Bureij, Al-Nusairat, and Deir al-Balah", killing at least 49 Palestinians, 15 of them children.

For the Post, "equivocati[ng]" about whether the US should fund such atrocities, or try to bring them to an end through a ceasefire, is "[un]welcome".
Rationalising 'genocidal' language

In its most recent editorial, the Post professes concern for the Palestinians but still endorses Israel's military campaign: "After the slaughter of its civilians, Israel - like any other state - has every right to respond militarily."

For the Post, the violence of the occupier is just and that of the occupied isn't: Israel can "respond militarily" to Palestinian forces killing Israelis but Palestinians don't have the same right, even after 75 years of ethnic cleansing, even under apartheid.

Western media’s parroting of official lies is paving way to genocide in Gaza

Read More »

A 14 October New York Times editorial strongly supports Israel's attacks, saying that Israel "is determined to break the power of Hamas, and in that effort it deserves the support of the United States and the rest of the world." The authors go on to say that "Ending Hamas's control over Gaza is an essential step".

The New York Times's editorial is infused with qualifiers like Israel "should not lose sight of its commitment to safeguard those who have not taken up arms".

The editorial board contradicts its own claims about Israel's supposed "commitment" to protecting civilians by citing Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant calling Palestinians "human animals", which the authors rationalise by saying that the remark occurs "in an atmosphere of intense emotion".

Of course, Gallant isn't the only Israeli official to use genocidal language since the escalation of their war on Palestine. Israeli military spokesperson Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari said that Israel had dropped "hundreds of tons of bombs" on Gaza and that "the emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy".

Israeli President Isaac Herzog said: "It is an entire nation out there that is responsible. It's not true this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved. It's absolutely not true." He added: "We are defending our homes, we are protecting our homes, that's the truth, and when a nation protects its home it fights and we will fight until we break their backbone."

Not only have Israeli leaders repeatedly signalled that they have no intention of "safeguard[ing]" non-combatants, but Israel has deliberately slaughtered them on a mass scale.

For instance, a day prior to the editorial's publication, the award-winning human rights group Defence for Children International Palestine reported that Israel had killed almost 600 Palestinian children to that point in its onslaught against Gaza, a third of the overall death toll.

Outlandish assertions

Even as Israel eschews any commitment to protecting civilians in both word and deed, The New York Times repeatedly contrasts Israeli military policy favourably with that of the Palestinian forces, writing that "Israel is preparing to send its young men and women into battle, where they will face an enemy that does not respect the same rules of warfare that they have committed to."

These fantasies about Israel's supposed non-targeting of civilians and its allegedly humane 'values' present all of its cruelty - the merciless killing, the sadism of the siege - as well-meaning mishaps

Saying that Israeli state violence is morally superior to Palestinian resistance groups carries the clear message that the former is legitimate while the latter is not.

The Times made the outlandish assertion that "What Israel is fighting to defend is a society that values human life and the rule of law."

Since no such assertion is made about Palestinian "values", the message is that slaughtering Palestinians is legitimate: if Palestinian society (or significant portions thereof) values murderous criminality, then the implication is that it's desirable for them to be wiped out by a supposedly more civilised force.

Meanwhile, two days before the editorial went to press, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said Israel had used white phosphorous - which, upon contact, can "burn people, thermally and chemically, down to the bone" - over both Gaza City's port and rural areas along the Israel-Lebanon armistice line.

HRW said that using white phosphorous in Gaza, one of the most densely populated areas in the world, "magnifies the risk to civilians and violates the international humanitarian law prohibition on putting civilians at unnecessary risk".

As HRW noted, Israel also used this weapon in Gaza in 2009 and, during the current round of fighting, Israel has "cut electricity, water, fuel and food into Gaza in violation of the international humanitarian law prohibition against collective punishment."

For "a society that values human life and the rule of law", Israel does an awful lot of human-life taking and law-breaking.
An ethical veneer

Similarly, The Los Angeles Times declared that "Israel has every right to use military force to prevent" attacks like the ones that Hamas carried out on 7 October and that Israel "must stay true to its values by doing everything possible to minimize the suffering of innocent Palestinian residents of Gaza."

Op-Ed video: The Palestinians aren't sub-human

Read More »

The piece applauds Biden for saying he will ask Congress for "an unprecedented support package for Israel's defense" and for vaguely suggesting that Israel reflect on whether killing thousands of Palestinians will help it "achieve [its] objectives".

The editorial then asserts: "That Israel does not target civilians is small comfort for the families of those killed or wounded."

Perhaps the authors think it magnanimous to mention the 3,000-some Palestinian lives Israel has snuffed out in 11 days. But such sympathies are worse than useless when they are packaged with a lie that rationalises all the killing and creates alibies for all the killing to come: for instance, two days before the editorial, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) noted:

"Multiple residential buildings in densely populated areas have been targeted and destroyed” by Israel, including a “residential building in Jabalia, northern Gaza, where ten Palestinians were killed; a residential building in the Musabah area of Rafah, where at least 11 Palestinians, including women and children, were killed; and a charity organization’s building in Rafah, where 11 Palestinians were killed, and several others were injured. On 16 October, in the morning, Israeli forces reportedly targeted a residential building in Khan Yunis, killing 22 Palestinians."

Furthermore, on 15 October, the World Health Organisation (WHO) stated: "Four hospitals in northern Gaza are no longer functioning as a result of damaging and targeting. 21 hospitals in the Gaza Strip have received instructions from Israeli forces to evacuate. The WHO reiterates that all precautions must be taken to protect health workers and health facilities, including patients and civilians sheltering in them."

These fantasies about Israel's supposed non-targeting of civilians and its allegedly humane "values" present all of its cruelty - the merciless killing, the gruesome physical and psychic wounds, the sadism of the siege - as well-meaning mishaps en route to a just cause; it is rhetoric intended to mask Israeli brutality with an ethical veneer.

But colonial violence is Israel's cause. The violence of dispossession, torture, and massacre after massacre after massacre. Because no ethno-state in which Palestinians remain a persecuted minority in their homeland is possible without ruthless, incessant violence.

By presenting all that barbarism as if it were defensible, the US media are doing their part to help it continue.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Gregory Shupak teaches English and Media Studies at the University of Guelph-Humber in Toronto. He is the author of the book, The Wrong Story: Palestine, Israel, and the Media.

Yes, There is an Israel Lobby, as any Decent Journalist Knows

by Yves Engler / October 19th, 2023

Is the idea of a “highly organized Israel lobby” antisemitic? An apartheid-promoting Globe and Mail columnist claims as much.

In attacking the Canadian Union of Public Employees for standing in solidarity with Palestinians Robyn Urback tweeted, “Points for alleging a Jewish conspiracy, but if CUPE really wanted to go full antisemitic trope, they should have mentioned something about poisoning the wells.” Below her message Urback quote tweeted a colleague stating, “CUPE Ontario says it’s targeted by ‘trolls’ – ‘a highly organized pro-Israel lobby,’ which targeted [Union president] Fred Hahn and CUPE 3906 for ‘recognition of Palestinians’ rights under international law to resist occupation through armed struggle.’”

But Urback knows full well there are many organizations backed by substantial wealth promoting Israel. This is not a trope. This is reality that is easily fact checked and should have been by any honest journalist.

In a sign of her dishonesty, Urback previously wrote about a lobby sponsored trip to Israel she participated in. Urback went on BirthRight, a program that pays for young Jews to go Israel to become “intellectual ambassadors” for the country.

The preeminent force in the “highly organized Israel lobby” is the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. CIJA has over 40 staff and a $10 million budget. In addition, B’nai B’rith has a handful of offices across the country. For its part, Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center Canada’s budget is $7-10 million annually. These groups work closely with StandWithUs Canada, CAMERA, Allied Voices for Israel, Israel on Campus, Honest Reporting Canada and other Israeli nationalist political organizations. Additionally, more than 200 registered Canadian charities assist projects in Israel and engage in at least some pro-Israel campaigning domestically. There are also numerous Jewish private schools, summer camps and community centres that actively promote Israel.

All these groups are backed by substantial wealth. Patron of CIJA, the Jewish federations of Toronto, Montréal, Winnipeg, Windsor, Calgary, Edmonton, Hamilton, London, Ottawa, Vancouver and Atlantic Canada raise $200 million annually and have over $1 billion in assets.

A large amount of private wealth strengthens Israel lobby groups’ influence. Since 2013 the chief fundraiser for the Trudeau Liberals has been Stephen Bronfman, scion of an arch Israeli nationalist family. Bronfman has millions invested in Israeli technology companies and over the years the Bronfman clan has secured arms for Israeli forces and supported its military in other ways. Bronfman openly linked his fundraising for Trudeau to Israel. In 2013 the Globe and Mail reported:

Justin Trudeau is banking on multimillionaire Stephen Bronfman to turn around the Liberal Party’s financial fortunes in order to take on the formidable Conservative fundraising machine…. Mr. Bronfman helped raise $2-million for Mr. Trudeau’s leadership campaign. Mr. Bronfman is hoping to win back the Jewish community, whose fundraising dollars have been going more and more to the Tories because of the party’s pro-Israel stand. ‘We’ll work hard on that,’ said Mr. Bronfman, adding that ‘Stephen Harper has never been to Israel and I took Justin there five years ago and he was referring at the end of the trip to Israel as ‘we.’ So I thought that was pretty good.’

Other notable Canadian moguls have long histories of ensuring ties between Israel and Canada. Worth more than $3 billion prior to his death, David Azrieli was among the richest Canadians. In his youth he served in the paramilitary Haganah group during the 1948 war. His unit was responsible for the Battle of Jerusalem, including forcibly displacing 10,000 Palestinians. Azrieli was also a real estate developer in Israel and in 2011 he made a controversial donation to Im Tirtzu, a hardline Israeli-nationalist organization (deemed a “fascist” group by an Israeli court).

Worth $1.6 billion, Gerald Schwartz and his wife Heather Reisman created the Heseg Foundation for Lone Soldiers, which provides millions of dollars annually for non-Israelis who fight in the IDF.

In recent years Canadian-Israeli billionaire Sylvan Adams has plowed hundreds of millions of dollars into various sports and cultural initiatives to rebrand Israel. 

Other Canadian billionaires Larry Tanenbaum, Mark Scheinberg, David Cheriton, Mitch Garber, Daryl Katz, Seymour Schulich, as well as the Zekelman, Reichmann and Sherman families, all back Israel. Again, none of this a conspiracy theory or antisemitic trope. It is simple reality and easily fact-checked if one is interested.

It is good, not bad, that a union leader mentions powerful lobbyists influencing Canadian politicians to take certain policy positions. Democracy requires shining a light on such lobbying. Is Urback against this very common practice of good journalists?

Canadians politicians express unmatched fidelity to a state all leading human rights groups say is committing the crime of apartheid. Trudeau’s government organized a pizza party for Canadians fighting in the Israeli military, sued to block proper labels on wines from illegal settlements and announced that should Canada win a seat on the United Nations Security Council it would act as an “asset for Israel” on the council. In recent days Canadian politicians have fallen over themselves to express support for Israel as that country obliterates Gaza, kills dozens in the West Bank and bombs Lebanon, Egypt and Syria.

There’s nothing conspiratorial or untoward about citing the role of a “highly organized Israel lobby”. In fact, there would be nothing conspiratorial or untoward to describe it as a “highly organized Jewish Israel lobby”. A slew of self-described Jewish organizations are deeply involved in anti-Palestinian campaigning and no other lobby focused on a country/ethnicity/religion is near as well-resourced or organized as the above mentioned Canadian Jewish groups.

That’s not to say there aren’t other political and cultural forces shaping Canadian backing for Israel. Zionism began in Canada in the latter half of the 1800s as a Christian movement and there’s still Christian Zionist forces. At the turn of the 20th century Canada became staunchly pro-Zionist due to its close ties to the British empire and Washington’s perspective has significant influence today. There’s also a European ‘settler solidarity’ element to Canadian Zionism and Israel advocates wield a unique and powerful stick: The ability to play victim and smear those advocating for justice as racist.

Robyn Urback knows full well there’s a “highly organized Israel lobby”. Her claim that CUPE is anti-Jewish to mention this is ridiculous. It is also bad journalism and most likely a projection of her (perhaps unintentional) anti-Palestinian racism.

See related article “Defining Racism.”

Yves Engler is the author of 12 books. His latest book is Stand on Guard for Whom?: A People's History of the Canadian Military . Read other articles by Yves.

Media Disinformation and Selective Outrage Are Key Pillars of Israel’s War Propaganda Arsenal

by Peter Bolton / October 17th, 2023

Headlines have been dominated since Saturday by the surprise Hamas attack against Israel and the Netanyahu government’s response. By Monday, Israel had formally declared war against the Islamist group and moved tens of thousands of troops toward Gaza in what looks like preparation for a full-blown ground invasion. Most controversially, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced that Israel is cutting off water, food and fuel to the Gaza strip — an area that contains about two million people, about half of whom are children — which constitutes collective punishment, a war crime prohibited under international law.

Government heads and opposition leaders alike across Western Europe and North America have been denouncing Hamas in withering terms and pledging unconditional support for Israel. The Biden administration issued a statement shortly following the attacks stating that the US “unequivocally condemns this appalling assault against Israel by Hamas terrorists from Gaza.” The statement added that the US is “ready to offer all appropriate means of support to the Government and people of Israel.”

British prime minister Rishi Sunak declared: “There are not two sides to these events. There is no question of balance. … [Hamas’] barbaric acts are acts of evil.” The Guardian had reported earlier that he has pledged “to provide diplomatic, intelligence or security support to Israel.” British Home Secretary Suella Braverman went so far as to suggest that the police should arrest people for engaging in “provocative demonstrations” that could “cause distress to UK Jewish communities.” This reportedly could include something as simple as chanting “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” Never to be outdone, opposition Labour leader Keir Starmer pledged his support for Netanyahu’s move to prevent food, water or fuel to enter Gaza during an interview on London’s LBC radio.

The corporate-owned media have been acting in lockstep — demanding unwavering support of Israel, denouncing Hamas in the harshest terms and, above all, viciously dismissing any attempt to engage in what some outlets term “equivalence.” Even the most modest of attempts to add balance are fiercely denounced as “terrorist apologetics.”

But not all is as it seems. Independent journalists and activists have begun investigating and fact-checking some of the claims that are being repeated in corporate-owned media. And all turns out that many of the claims made about Saturday’s surprise Hamas incursion are misleading or, in some cases, even outright false. Recent changes made to the social media platform X (formerly known as Twitter), meanwhile, have led to a tsunami-like spread of unverified footage and made it increasingly difficult to separate fact from fiction.

Undoubtedly the most damning accusation to be leveled against Hamas is the charge that some of its units that took part in the Saturday attack murdered 40 babies, some of whom were decapitated. This claim was quickly seized on by corporate media outlets as part of their outrage against Hamas. But increasing doubt began to surround the allegation as people looked for verification. Ultimately, it turned out that not even the Israeli military itself was willing to confirm the reports. Another claim that has been circling corporate media outlets and right-wing X accounts is the accusation that Hamas engaged in rape. But again, there has been no independent verification. By Wednesday at least one mainstream outlet had retracted the claim.

Some of the videos circulating on X is based on footage that is misrepresented or, in some cases, even of completely different conflicts in different countries. One video, for example, that was labeled “Hamas fires a salvo at Israel,” turned out to actually be footage of the conflict in Syria filmed three years earlier. One X user, far-right commentator and friend of Elon Musk, Ian Miles Cheong, posted a video with the caption: “Imagine if this was happening in our neighbourhood, to your family” that purported to depict Hamas militants killing Israeli citizens. It turned out that those in the video did not belong to Hamas but rather Israel’s own law enforcement. Other footage turned out to not even be depicting real life but rather the content of a video game. Labeled on X as “NEW VIDEO: Hamas fighters shooting down Israel war helicopter in Gaza,” it turned out to be taken from the 2013 open world tactical shooter simulation game Arma 3.

Far from representing some inventive first on the part of Israel, engaging in this kind of disinformation campaign is, in fact, a tried and trusted component of its military arsenal. And some of them come straight from the Israeli government itself. During the flair up of violence in May 2021 sparked by the Israeli raid of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, for example, an Israeli government spokesperson posted a video on X (then Twitter) purporting to depict explosions taking place in Gaza. It turned out that the footage was actually of rockets fired from Syria or Libya three years earlier. The Israeli government sometimes even enlists student groups as part of this propaganda effort. In July 2014, Electronic Intifada reported: “Israel student union sets up “war room” to sell Gaza massacre on Facebook”

Israel apologists will naturally claim that the Palestinian side engages in media manipulation as well. Though there have been some isolated examples of this (hardly surprising given the sheer number of social media users), it should be pointed out that Palestinians don’t have anywhere near the same kinds of resources that Israel does. After all, Israel is a regional superpower and the largest cumulative recipient of US aid since the end of World War II. And it has used these resources to engage in media manipulation operations even in third countries. In February of this year, for example, France24 reported: “An Israeli firm sought to influence more than 30 elections around the world for clients by hacking, sabotage and spreading disinformation, according to an undercover media investigation published Wednesday.”

In addition to outright distortion and lies, another tactic that Israel and its media allies have been employing is what some have termed “selective outrage.” For instance, in the case of rape, even if we imagine for a moment that accusations against Hamas on this charge are true, the corporate media proceeds as if this is something entirely unique to the Palestinian side of the conflict. Sexual violence against Palestinian women on the part of Israeli security forces and prison guards, however, is in fact well documented. Just last month reports emerged that Israeli soldiers in the occupied city of Al Khalil had forcibly stripped five women and paraded them naked before stealing their jewelry — all in front of their own children. A 2020 academic study exploring the experience of 20 female Palestinian prisoners in an Israeli jail found that all but one had “experienced some sort of unwanted verbal and nonverbal sexual comments or gestures, forced nudity, or forced touching by prison personnel.”

The most outrageous example of selective outrage, however, must be the killing of children. Again, even if we imagine for a moment that the accusations against Hamas are true, the Islamist group would be mere amateurs compared to the Israeli security forces when it comes to killing children. Israel’s record is far too extensive to list exhaustively here, but examples include Operation Protective Edge in 2014 during which Israeli forces murdered 495 children and Operation Cast Lead in 2008–9 during which they murdered 344 children. Israeli snipers, meanwhile, have shot dead in 2023 alone: two-year-old Mohammed al-Tamimi in June; three-year-old Muhammad Haitham al-Tamimi in June; 15-year-old Sadeel Naghniyeh in June; 14-year-old Qusai Radwan Yousef Waked in February; and 16-year-old Abdulrahman Hasan Ahmad Hardan in July. In January of this year, Israeli security forces and allied settler extremists managed to kill just under 40 Palestinian children in just one day.

To be absolutely clear, accusations against Hamas should not be automatically dismissed as Israeli disinformation. And certainly, no rape or murder on the part of Israeli forces would excuse a rape or murder by a member of Hamas. But at the same time, we must consistently stress that Israel and its minions in the corporate-owned press are adept at spreading false information against the Palestinian side and notorious for engaging in flagrant selective outrage to make Israel out as the sole victim of the conflict. As they continue to manufacture consent for what is shaping up to be an all-out war against Gaza, a heavy burden falls on independent media to call out these duplicitous actions and shameless double standards.

Peter Bolton is a New York City-based journalist, activist and scholar. He is a contributor to CounterPunch, LA Progressive and The Orinoco Tribune where he writes about global politics. He has a master’s degree from American University in Ethics, Peace and Global Affairs and is currently pursuing graduate studies in bioethics at NYU. His work has a particular focus on ethical issues in public policy and international affairs, and he aspires to bring academic analysis to a broad public audience. Follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his website here. Read other articles by Peter.

Credulous or Dishonest Journalists Regurgitate Pro-War Propaganda

by Ted Galen Carpenter Posted onOctober 17, 2023

It is a sad reality that the establishment news media’s coverage of the Israel-Hamas fighting may be even more shallow, biased, and hawkish than the coverage of the Russia-Ukraine war or previous international conflicts.  The willingness of most prominent news outlets to serve as little more than conduits for pro-war propaganda is not really a new problem.  Similar defects were evident during the Persian Gulf War, the U.S.-NATO air wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, and at least the early stages of the Vietnam and Iraq wars.  Prominent publications even tried to sell the Obama administration’s blatantly false portrayal of Syrian insurgents trying to unseat Bashar al-Assad’s government as democratic freedom fighters.  Most of those insurgents were, in fact, Sunni jihadists.  Even in the cases of Vietnam and Iraq, major players in the establishment press turned against those missions only when it became obvious to all except the most obtuse individuals that U.S. policy had become a fiasco.

However, the bias seems to have become even more shrill and crude with respect to the Ukraine conflict and the new explosion of violence in the Middle East.  Barely four days into the Russia-Ukraine war independent journalist Glenn Greenwald ruefully observed: “It is genuinely hard to overstate how overwhelming the unity and consensus in U.S. political and media circles is.  It is as close to a unanimous and dissent‐​free discourse as anything in memory, certainly since the days following 9/11.”  The same point applies with even greater validity to the media’s perspective on the current conflict in Gaza.

Some of the press accounts during the Ukraine war have proven to be downright embarrassing.  During the early weeks of the fighting, Ukrainian officials highlighted the supposed bravery of marines defending Snake Island, who allegedly died rather than surrender to a heavily armed Russian flotilla. The supposed martyrs of Snake Island, who allegedly were blown to smithereens after defying and cursing a Russian warship, turned out to be very much alive.

Other popular propaganda messages circulated in the Western press proved to be equally bogus.   Some footage of aerial combat between Ukrainian pilots and Russian aggressors were from video games.  2015’s Miss Ukraine was not taking up arms against the Russian invaders, despite a well‐​covered photo op.  A closer examination of the image even showed that she was brandishing an Airsoft gun. A widely circulated image of a Ukrainian girl verbally confronting Russian troops actually was an older clip of a Palestinian girl confronting Israeli troops.

The media’s credulity about Ukrainian government propaganda has largely remained intact despite the passage of time.  American news outlets dutifully reported a Ukrainian military account in early March 2022 that it had severely damaged, if not sunk, the Russian patrol ship Vasiliy Bykov in the Black Sea.  The credibility of Kyiv’s claim took a major hit on March 16, though, when the Vasily Bykov sailed, apparently unharmed, into the Russian port at Sevastopol in Crimea.

More recently, the U.S. press gave extensive coverage to Kyiv’s September 25, 2023, boast that Ukrainian forces had killed Viktor Sokolov, the commander of Russia’s Black Sea fleet.  Moscow easily refuted that claim when it released a video taken the following day showing Sokolov attending a navy ceremony.  Kyiv then backed off from its assertion.  In contrast to the earlier episode, at least some portions of the Western press had noted early on that the claims of Ukrainian officials could not be independently verified.

Nevertheless, too many journalists have given exposure to questionable Israeli accounts.  One story that made an especially big splash was a report that Israeli troops had found at least 40 dead babies “some beheaded,” in an Israeli kibbutz recaptured from Hamas.  That story soon became clouded with uncertainty.  At first, the Israeli government conceded that it could not confirm the report.  Then, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office presented photos of dead children, although their authenticity could not be verified by outside experts.

Whether true, false, or exaggerated, the account had served its purpose as widely circulated propaganda to generate hate toward Hamas and the Palestinians.  As pervious wartime episodes have confirmed, most readers and viewers remember the initial high-profile stories about alleged atrocities (often vividly when bloody images are used) rather than later, more restrained, less prominent analyses.  Pro-war propagandists shamelessly exploit that tendency.

Indeed, this Israeli account had a somewhat musty quality.  Hawks used a similar story in late 1990 about Iraqi troops pulling Kuwaiti babies from incubators in a Kuwait city hospital and letting them die on the floor.  The supposed witness to the atrocity turned out to be the daughter of Kuwait’s ambassador to the United States.  Subsequent investigations confirmed that the story was bogus, but by that time, it had helped shape public opinion to support President H. W. Bush’s decision to launch Operation Desert Storm.

Indeed, the tactic of using exaggerated or phony atrocity stories (frequently with innocent children as the victims) goes back much earlier.  During World War I. the British government conducted an extensive campaign to portray Imperial Germany as the epitome of evil, Kaiser Wilhelm II as “the beast of Berlin,” and German troops as homicidal monsters.  One very effective initiative was the circulation of supposed eyewitness accounts of German soldiers raping nuns and bayoneting babies.  Those phony propaganda stories were not debunked until the postwar years.

Given that history, one might think that responsible journalists would be very cautious about regurgitating accounts – especially atrocities stories – put forth by one faction waging a war.  However, with respect to both Ukrainian and Israeli accounts, most establishment media outlets have displayed very little prudent skepticism.  Such unprofessionalism has embarrassed previous generations of editors, columnists and reporters.  The same dismal outcome is likely this time.

Ted Galen Carpenter is a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute and a senior fellow at the Libertarian Institute.  He also held various senior policy posts during a 37-year career at the Cato Institute.  Dr. Carpenter is the author of 13 books and more than 1,200 articles on international affairs.  His latest book is Unreliable Watchdog: The News Media and U.S. Foreign Policy (2022).

Israel-Palestine Flare-up and the Web of Disinformation in India

Prachi Arya | 20 Oct 2023

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

The news of the alleged beheading of Jewish babies and children by the fighters of Gaza administrator Hamas in the latest flare-up between Israel and Palestine spread like wildfire and has had a worldwide impact.

Representational Image. 

Fake news about dead babies is used for rabble rousing so that the planned murder of real babies gains acceptance, writes Prachi Arya.

—

The news of the alleged beheading of Jewish babies and children by the fighters of Gaza administrator Hamas in the latest flare-up between Israel and Palestine spread like wildfire and has had a worldwide impact.

However, more recent expositions have sought to establish the falsity of videos of Hamas beheading Israeli babies and using people, including children, as shields.

In another instance, a viral video from 2016, of a Syrian rebel group beheading a boy in Aleppo, was posted on Twitter and linked to the current crisis. Upon fact-checking, similar other visuals from 2016, unrelated to the current flare-up, were also found to be falsely linked to the recent violence.

A quick search on the artificial intelligence supported platform Chat GPT indicates that reports of minors being targeted by Hamas are unverified and probably false. 

 

A recent Al Jazeera article underlines the fact that most anti-Palestine disinformation originated from India. It also highlights the rise of online disinformation spread by far-right accounts in India.

An Al Jazeera mentions that accounts allegedly linked to the ‘BJP IT cell’ have been actively spreading disinformation related to the latest Israel–Palestine flare-up.

The article mentions that accounts allegedly linked to the infamous Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ‘IT cell’ have been actively spreading disinformation on the Israel–Palestine conflict.

‘BJP IT cell’ is a broad-based term used to describe the social media and online communication wing of the Hindu right-wing party which is currently the ruling regime in India. The party’s IT cell plays a significant role in shaping its online presence, disseminating information, and engaging with supporters and critics alike.

The Indian disinformation campaign includes false claims of Hamas kidnapping a Jewish baby and a video falsely depicting Palestinians kidnapping people to be made sex slaves.

The Al Jazeera article finds that many of the accounts sharing these false videos also engaged in posting anti-Muslim comments on social media platforms. Such narratives only serve to flame hatred and disseminate Islamophobia and hate speech online.

Fake news for more views

When global crises and emergencies occur, whether it is the Covid pandemic or warring countries, technology is often co-opted to serve the narrative of powerful stakeholders.

In such situations, online sources that usually connect people around the world and provide access to critical information become a tool to manipulate public sentiment.

Accusations of people, including children, being used as shields in both Israel and Palestine are not new. In fact, the long-drawn conflict between Israel and Palestine has been marred by accusations and counter-accusations regarding the use of human shields, particularly involving children. Both sides have made such claims against each other, including in 2018 and 2007.

Israeli forces deliberately place civilians, including children, in harm’s way to deter attacks or to gain a tactical advantage, as observed by Amnesty International and the United Nations, who have documented cases where Palestinians were allegedly coerced or forced to act as human shields. On the other hand, Israel has accused Hamas of deliberately using Israelis and Palestinians, including children, as human shields.

The highly polarised nature of the conflict often leads to conflicting narratives and interpretations of events. Further, investigations into these allegations are often hindered by limited access to conflict zones and the lack of cooperation from both sides.

The highly polarised nature of the conflict often leads to conflicting narratives and interpretations of events. Further, investigations into these allegations are often hindered by limited access to conflict zones and lack of cooperation from both sides.

It is important to note that while the pervasive use of digital technologies exacerbates disinformation, it is by no means a product of information technology. False news predates the rise of the internet and the widespread use of digital platforms for news.

For instance, the news of Hamas harming babies is strikingly similar to the Gulf War reportage claiming that Iraqi soldiers had removed babies from incubators in Kuwait hospitals and left them to die. This story was widely reported and influenced public opinion, but it was later revealed to be a fabrication— part of a well-orchestrated propaganda campaign aimed at justifying military intervention.

What is the impact of false information?

In the digital age, the menace of false information is pervasive and has become a pressing concern. False information, referred to as disinformation when intentional and misinformation when unintentional, has far-reaching consequences. It does not just shape public opinion and influence events such as elections but may also incite violence.

The 2018 ‘WhatsApp Lynchings’, where messages circulated on the popular messaging platform WhatsApp spread canards about child kidnappers operating in various parts of the country and led to a wave of panic and fear among the public, perfectly illustrate this phenonemon. Tragically, multiple people lost their lives as a result of mob attacks following the false rumours.

Such disinformation can include doctored images, videos and text messages, which may be designed to manipulate emotions and provoke a sense of urgency that leads to the rapid spread of  false information.

Arguably, the perniciousness of fake news reached its zenith during the Covid pandemic, leading to an ‘infodemic’ due to the abundance of misinformation.

In the WhatsApp lynching case, the lack of verification and critical thinking, combined with the rapid spread of these messages, led to a dangerous situation where innocent lives were lost due to the dissemination of false information.

Arguably, the perniciousness of fake news reached its zenith during the Covid pandemic, leading to an ‘infodemic’ due to the abundance of misinformation. Among other things, this included false claims about unproven treatments or cures, as well as dangerous misleading information on self-medication.

Even when lives are not at stake, the psychological impact of fake news can cause profound damage. Fake news often employs emotional manipulation techniques, such as using compelling narratives or evocative imagery, to elicit strong emotional responses.

When individuals come across alarming or distressing headlines, it can trigger emotional responses such as fear, anger or anxiety, contributing to heightened stress levels that negatively impact mental health.

As individuals struggle to discern what is true and what is false, the constant exposure to misinformation can lead to a state of heightened vigilance and mistrust, contributing to a general sense of unease and anxiety in an already tense situation.

What are Indian laws regarding fake news?

In India, fake news is regulated through a complex legal framework that covers cable TV, newspapers, online platforms and films that are used to handle cases such as the 2018 WhatsApp lynching incident.

To illustrate, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Tehseen S. Poonawalla versus Union of India prescribed certain guidelines to state governments, including the registration of a first information report (FIR) “under Section 153A of the IPC and/or other relevant provisions of law, against persons who disseminate irresponsible and explosive messages and videos having content which is likely to incite mob violence and lynching of any kind.”

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) contains provisions that can be applied to cases involving fake news and misinformation. Sections such as 153 (provocation with intent to cause riot), 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion, race, etc.), and 505 (statements conducing to public mischief) can be invoked to address instances where fake news leads to violence, communal disharmony or public disorder.

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides the legal framework for investigating and prosecuting criminal offences in India. It includes provisions that can be applied to cases involving fake news, such as the power to conduct searches, seize evidence and arrest individuals involved in disseminating false information.

When individuals come across alarming or distressing headlines, it can trigger emotional responses such as fear, anger or anxiety, which contribute to heightened stress levels that negatively impacts mental health. 

More recently, Section 195(d) of the proposed Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill, 2023, which was introduced in Lok Sabha in August to revamp Indian criminal laws, seeks to punish the spreading of fake news or misleading information that jeopardises the sovereignty and security of India with jail time of up to three years or a fine, or both.

The Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) includes provisions to address various cybercrimes. The dissemination of disinformation and misinformation is primarily dealt with under Section 79 of the IT Act.

The Section provides immunity to intermediaries, such as social media platforms, from liability for any third-party content hosted on their platforms. However, intermediaries are also required to comply with certain due diligence requirements, including taking down or restricting access to unlawful content upon receiving a court order or a government directive.

Thus, while the Section offers protection to intermediaries, it does not absolve them of their responsibility to address fake news. If an intermediary receives actual knowledge or is notified by the appropriate government agency about the presence of fake news on their platform, they are required to promptly remove or disable access to such content.

In recent years, the need for intermediary liability and regulations to address the spread of fake news has been highlighted. The Indian government aimed to hold intermediaries accountable for the dissemination of false information and proposed amendments to the IT Act to address this issue more effectively.

These developments culminated in the notification of the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (Rules) in February 2021. Although they do not directly address fake news, the Rules require online intermediaries and news publications to comply with certain baseline measures for addressing the issue of fake news and misinformation.

However, due to the alleged draconian nature of the Rules, they are facing several legal challenges in Indian courts.

One problem is that the attempts by the government to regulate fake news, as exemplified by the amendment to the IT regulatory framework, have a tendency to make the government the sole arbiter of what is true and what is false. This is obviously problematic, particularly in democracies, because governments are run by political parties which have a vested interest to present one version of ‘the truth’ at the cost of others.

The Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act), includes provisions to address various cybercrimes. The dissemination of disinformation and misinformation is primarily dealt with under Section 79 of the IT Act. 

While the Indian government’s efforts to tackle fake news are commendable, several challenges persist. The sheer volume and speed at which misinformation spreads on social media platforms pose a significant challenge. The lack of awareness and media literacy among certain sections of society also hampers the effectiveness of these initiatives.

Importantly, striking a balance between curbing fake news and protecting freedom of speech is a delicate task as government overreach may cause a chilling effect on free speech and much-needed critical journalism. 

What is the response of social media and online platforms?

The response of social media platforms to disinformation has been mixed at best. It involves measures such as implementing fact-checking systems to identify and label false or misleading information as well as to provide users with additional context while directing them to verified sources of information.

Apart from partnering with fact-checkers, online platforms also undertake content moderation and removal, as well as algorithmic adjustments to reduce the visibility of false or misleading content and promote reliable sources of information from trusted sources. User reporting and flagging also help platforms identify and review potentially problematic content more efficiently.

For instance, Google’s approach to fighting misinformation online involves teams of experts working to provide users with high-quality and trusted information, while also reducing the spread of harmful content. The company has implemented rules and policies across their services to prohibit certain types of misinformation.

Google also collaborates with partners worldwide to counteract fake news and has signed agreements such as the European Union (EU) Code of Practice on Disinformation. The tech giant has also explored innovative approaches such as prebunking to build resilience against misleading narratives.

While Google and other online platforms have been collectively called out by lawmakers from the EU and United States (US), X (formerly Twitter) seems to have emerged as the biggest loser in the war against disinformation.

While Google and other online platforms have been collectively called out by lawmakers from the EU and the US, X seems to have emerged as the biggest loser in the war against disinformation.

X has faced more controversy regarding its approach to fake news since Elon Musk took over the social media company. According to their website, X aims to create a safe and informed environment by taking various actions against misleading content.

They have separate policies for crisis misinformation, synthetic and manipulated media, and election integrity. Misleading content confirmed to be false or shared in a deceptive manner may be labelled, have reduced visibility, or be removed. X also takes actions to inform and contextualise by sharing information from third-party sources.

They may prompt users when engaging with misleading posts and launch pre-bunks during important events. X is also testing features for users to report misinformation and provide additional context through ‘community notes’.

However, there has been a flood of disinformation and fake news on the platform, mainly related to the latest Israel–Palestine flare-up since the platform made changes that removed headlines while displaying articles and due to heavy layoffs in its ‘trust’ and ‘safety’ teams that oversee daily communications and mitigate the posting and spread of false content. These changes have raised concerns about X’s ability to provide reliable information.

The problem of disinformation through videos is not limited to pro-Israel propaganda. Last week, a viral video on X supposedly showed a Hamas fighter firing a shoulder-mounted rocket cannon and taking down an Israeli helicopter. Later, the footage was found to be from a video game called Arma 3. However, despite community notes pointing out its deceptive nature, the video is still up on multiple accounts on X, and even Facebook.

Who watches disinformation from the watchdogs?

BJP IT cell is known for its extensive use of social media platforms, including X, Facebook and WhatsApp, to promote the party’s agenda, counter opposition narratives, and mobilise support. Listed as the ‘IT, website and social media management’ department on the BJP website, it is often described as a well-organised strategic unit.

Members of the BJP IT cell are known for their active participation in online discussions, debates and campaigns. They often amplify the party’s messages, defend its leaders and policies, and disparage political opponents.

The problem of disinformation through videos is not limited to pro-Israel propaganda. Last week, a viral video on X supposedly showed a Hamas- armed fighter firing a shoulder-mounted rocket cannon and taking down an Israeli helicopter. Later, the footage was found to be from a video game called Arma 3.

The IT Cell is also involved in monitoring and responding to news articles, fact-checking the opposition party’s claims, and disseminating party-related information.

Increasingly, it is evident that some sections of the BJP, especially the BJP IT cell, have been involved in spreading misinformation, fake news and hate speech, although not all members of the BJP engage in such activities. For instance, a recent report found that 205 or 80 percent of the 255 documented anti-Muslim hate speech from gatherings in the first half of 2023 occurred in BJP-ruled states and Union territories.

This complicates an already divisive scenario, where sections of the political party in power may be actively involved in spreading disinformation about the ongoing Israel–Palestine flare-up.

What are some solutions to combat fake news in situations of crisis?

The availability of real solutions seems to be at its nadir, considering the magnitude of disinformation and its deleterious effects. Moreover, it is increasingly evident that politicians and powerful technology companies may ultimately profit from fake news.

Various platforms such as news agencies and ChatGPT suggest that users take matters into their own hands and verify the authenticity of news. 

Establishing fact-checking organisations specialising in verifying the accuracy of news stories. These include Snopes, FactCheck.org, and PolitiFact. Indian fact-checkers include boomlive.in and altnews.in. This should be a growing tribe.

Some suggested measures include:

1. Cross-referencing multiple sources and using well-established news organisations with a track-record of reliable reporting.

2. Evaluating the credibility of sources considering factors such as journalistic standards, editorial policies and history of accurate reporting while being cautious of sources known for spreading misinformation or having a clear bias. 3. Checking news articles for primary sources and citations that add credibility to news reports.
3. Establishing fact-checking organisations specialising in verifying the accuracy of news stories. These include Snopes, FactCheck.org, and PolitiFact. Indian fact-checkers include boomlive.in and altnews.in. This should be a growing tribe.
4. Being sceptical of sensational or clickbait headlines and reading articles fully and substantially to evaluate the content before accepting the headline as accurate.
5. Considering the presence of bias and being cautious of sources that consistently present a one-sided or extreme viewpoint.
6. Using critical thinking skills and looking for logical inconsistencies, unsupported claims or lack of evidence. 

Another solution lies with relatively neutral truth-finding bodies such as the UN. Through the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, it included East Jerusalem Palestinians and Israelis undertaking an extensive investigation of “current events and identifying those responsible for violations of international law on all sides, both those directly committing international crimes and those in positions of command responsibility.”

Undeniably, even if facts triumph over disinformation in this battle for truth, the Israel–Palestine crisis only seems to be worsening. Much like the fake news of beheaded babies, real children on both sides are its most tragic victims.

Prachi Arya is a law and policy consultant, having worked with the tech industry for a decade