An aerial view shows the bodies of victims of an attack following a mass infiltration by Hamas gunmen from the Gaza Strip lying on the ground in Kibbutz Kfar Aza, in southern Israel, Oct. 10, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Ilan Rosenberg

Over the last few weeks, a pattern has emerged in the media coverage of a possible deal being ironed out to end hostilities between Israel and Hamas. Israel is being frequently condemned as the primary obstacle to a ceasefire being implemented (See here, here, here, here, and here).

But what’s never noted is that, for one thing, the October 7, 2023, Hamas invasion of Israel occurred during a ceasefire.

More broadly, Israel and Hamas have agreed to over a dozen ceasefire agreements in the past. They were all violated by Hamas.

Also missing from the reportage is the fact that Hamas has vowed to carry out similar assaults repeatedly in the future with the goal of eliminating Israel.

Such crucial background information could at least partly explain the Israeli government’s serious reservations about agreeing to yet another ceasefire with Gaza’s iron-fisted rulers.

Yet because most casual news consumers are not being made aware of Hamas’ long history of ceasefire violations, they are likely to think that the side that is pushing for a ceasefire today supports peace (Hamas), while the side that is opposed to a ceasefire is only interested in making war (Israel).

Whitewashing Hamas’ Genocidal Goals

This is a quote from a January 6, 2025, article in The Guardian, titled, “Reports of optimism about Gaza ceasefire and hostage release deal“:

Despite the latest talks, Israel has stepped up airstrikes on the Palestinian territory that killed at least 100 people over the weekend.

This piece and others depicting Israel as ceasefire obstructionists do mention the October 7 attacks, but they don’t describe Hamas’ motivations and goals. Instead, Hamas is regularly depicted as a rational, quasi-political organization that happens to include a military wing, and wants Israel to leave the Gaza Strip for no other reason than to be able to finally establish an independent Palestinian state.

As such, Israel’s perceived intransigence to a negotiated settlement is derided as counterproductive to the cause of peace.

In fact, Hamas has no interest in living side by side with Israel. From its founding, the terrorist outfit has been openly dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish State through jihad. Hamas states outright that it does not accept Israel’s right to exist, and pays lip service to the establishment of a Palestinian state as a mere temporary measure.

And while you’ll never see the words religious, or Jihadist used by top-tier media companies to describe Hamas, the organization’s entire raison d’etre is shaped by a fundamentalist, apocalyptic interpretation of Islam.

The below quote is from the Hamas Charter, or Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement:

The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.

Media Memory-holes All Previous Israel-Hamas Ceasefires

It’s nothing short of amazing, considering the widespread coverage of developments related to a prospective ceasefire deal, that no mention is made of the many previous attempts at a cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hamas. That’s because they all failed.

This is why history matters.

There is something appealing about a ceasefire in Gaza — especially in light of the hostage situation and suffering endured by Gazans who just happen to be ruled by a genocidal terrorist group.

But it would be foolhardy to ignore the fact that there is a long history of Hamas breaking ceasefire agreements.

Hamas has used Iranian support to launch several wars against Israel from its base in Gaza. So, to protect millions of Israeli citizens, the Jewish State was forced each time to respond militarily, including 2008’s Operation Cast Lead, 2012’s Operation Pillar of Defense, 2014’s Operation Protective Edge, and 2021’s Operation Guardian of the Walls.

And, of course, by committing the October 7, 2023 attacks, Hamas violated a previous ceasefire with Israel by launching thousands of rockets toward Israeli population centers, infiltrating the country, murdering Israelis, taking hostages, and using their own people as human shields.

Media Stifling Public Debate

One of journalism’s key functions is to help create forums for public debate. By not providing their readers with important background information about previous ceasefire attempts, and Hamas’ oft-stated goals that could be facilitated by another ceasefire, the world’s leading news publications are preventing a robust discourse on the issue from taking place.

Inside of Israel, that debate began on October 7. Reasonable men and women have divergent opinions as to the efficacy of a ceasefire deal. It’s the right of every Israeli citizen living in a democratic society to weigh in on this monumentally important topic.

Because they are well-informed, Israelis who support a ceasefire policy are also aware — from knowing about the previous ceasefires that went wrong — of the heavy price their country may well have to pay.

By not contributing to an honest public debate, news outlets around the world are effectively picking sides. That’s not good for journalism. And that’s not good for any democratic society that relies on an informed citizenry to survive.

Gidon Ben-Zvi, former Jerusalem Correspondent for The Algemeiner, is an accomplished writer who left Hollywood for Jerusalem in 2009. He and his wife are raising their four children to speak fluent English – with an Israeli accent. Ben-Zvi’s work has appeared in The Jerusalem Post, The Times of Israel, The Algemeiner, American Thinker, The Jewish Journal, Israel Hayom, and United with Israel. Ben-Zvi blogs at Jerusalem State of Mind (jsmstateofmind.com).  He 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.