Republican presidential nominee and former US President Donald Trump points towards Democratic presidential nominee and US Vice President Kamala Harris, during a presidential debate hosted by ABC in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US, Sept. 10, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder

What is it about Western media journalists and legitimizing Hamas numbers and figures?

ABC broadcast journalist and Trump-Harris debate moderator Linsey Davis may appear professional and well-composed, but her coverage of Israel leaves a lot to be desire.

One of the hot-button issues brought forth in the Tuesday night debate was the candidates’ position on the Israel-Hamas war and how they would negotiate an end to it.

Davis posed the following question to Harris first:

In December you said, “Israel has a right to defend itself” but you added, “It matters how.” Saying international humanitarian law must be respected, Israel must do more to protect innocent civilians. You said that nine months ago. Now an estimated 40,000 Palestinians are dead. Nearly 100 hostages remain. Just last week Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said there’s not a deal in the making. President Biden has not been able to break through the stalemate. How would you do it?

Let’s break this down, and evaluate what is inherently wrong and biased or leading about this.

The fact that Davis did not credit the 40,000 death toll figure to Hamas is obvious. She also did not make a distinction that even Western media tends to make — Hamas numbers never differentiate between civilians and terrorists. Further, after nearly a year of continued war and death, she places most of the fault on Israel rather than Hamas.

So, why is it important to clarify that these are Hamas numbers and, therefore, are unreliable?

Because Hamas, as a terror organization, has a history of inflating numbers and cannot be trusted. One example came as recently as Monday. Hamas claimed 40 dead civilians as a result of an Israeli strike. The strike targeted three senior Hamas commanders directly involved in the October 7 massacre. They were conveniently embedded in a designated humanitarian zone. However, after rolling out the initial number, Hamas later revised it to “at least 19.”

Suggesting that Israel does not do enough to protect civilians

Saying international humanitarian law must be respected, Israel must do more to protect innocent civilians. You said that nine months ago. Now an estimated 40,000 Palestinians are dead.

Let’s focus a bit more on the insinuation here.

This is a biased and misleading question. Davis is implying that Israel isn’t respecting or abiding by international humanitarian law. But it is. In fact, the IDF does more than necessary under international law.

When urban military experts like John Spencer as well as lawyers corroborate this, who is this American journalist to suggest Israel is not doing enough to prevent civilian casualties to an audience of approximately 67 million viewers?

Moreover, suggesting that the onus of civilian deaths and continuation of the war belongs to Israel alone is dangerous and despicable. What about Hamas? They could have continued the ceasefire nine months ago by releasing the rest of the hostages under the previous deal.

But they didn’t.

This could have been over long ago. Instead, negotiators have been bending over backwards and pulling teeth to close a new deal for months. Civilians on both sides continue to suffer the consequences.

Yes, civilians on both sides. That’s something often ignored, and ignored by Davis as well in the phrasing of her question. Do Gaza civilians reserve the only right to claim displacement and death? Absolutely not.

Failing to acknowledge that nearly 100,000 Israelis are still displaced since October 7, and that Israelis are still killed by either Hezbollah rockets, West Bank terror, etc. is to ignore the facts on the ground.

Israel’s hostage numbers: a minor correction

Nearly 100 hostages remain.

This estimated digit alludes to the 97 hostages left who were taken on October 7 only. While it is not incorrect in that sense, there are also four Israelis who were taken captive in 2014 and 2015 — Hadar Goldin, Avera Mengistu, Hisham al-Sayed and Oron Shaul. Two of them are still believed to be alive. This brings the real number to 101.

It’s an important distinction to make, and minimizing the number voluntarily to fit a narrative or for any other reason misleads the audience and minimizes the suffering of their families.

Is Netanyahu the reason for a ceasefire and hostage deal stalemate?

Just last week Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said there’s not a deal in the making. President Biden has not been able to break through the stalemate.

False statements again.

Accusing Israel, like much of Western media, for being the hold-up to a deal. In the press conference Davis is referring to, Prime Minister Netanyahu actually said the following:

I’m willing to make a deal. The real obstacle to making a deal is not Israel and it’s not me. It [is] Hamas…. I put forward a proposal by Israel, which Secretary Blinken called extremely generous. On May 31st, having met Blinken again, I said, we agreed to the US-backed proposal, and Hamas refused. On August 16th, the US brought forth what they called the final bridging proposal. Again, we accepted, Hamas refused. On August 19th, Secretary Blinken said, Israel accepted the US proposal, now Hamas has to do the same.

Furthermore, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby recently said Hamas was the reason there is no deal — not Israel. That is the official statement of the US government, and it was ignored in the debate.

Davis’ follow-up question for Trump

President Trump, how would you negotiate with Netanyahu and also Hamas in order to get the hostages out and prevent the killing of more innocent civilians in Gaza?

By phrasing her question in this way, Davis equates Netanyahu, the prime minister of a democratic country, with a terror organization that brutally massacred 1,200 people, burned down homes, looted and raped, and took 251 women, children, the elderly, and men hostage.

Additionally, she is putting a potential US president in the position of negotiating directly with terrorists, when that is against US policy. The US generally speaks with third parties only when dealing with terror organizations like Hamas.

Bottom line: Americans deserve better from their media, and certainly from a moderator of such a high-profile debate.

The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.