Covering Hamas in Gaza: The Evolution of Questions
By Erin Plusher
For over a decade, I've reported on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, covering the Hamas movement in Gaza for major American media outlets. My latest trip, in January 2009, followed a shocking event that ended a war between Israel and Hamas, leaving unnecessary death and destruction in its wake. In 2014, I wrote for Time about a subsequent, even more deadly 50-day conflict between Israel and Hamas, which was fought primarily in southern Israel, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem.
On almost every visit to Gaza, I meet with Hamas leaders, as any good journalist does. I long to hear their perspective, and if peace talks were on the horizon and Israel were to cede territory to the Palestinian Autonomous Authority, I'd be eager to learn why they weren't signing on to the Oslo Accords.
The late Yasser Arafat, chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, tepidly supported the Oslo Process, which involved dividing land with Israel to create an autonomous Palestinian region and perhaps a state. But Hamas, Israel's main Palestinian rival, has fundamentally opposed peace with Israel, believing that armed resistance is the only path forward, aimed at eliminating Israel. While the peace process advanced in the 1990s, Hamas tried to sabotage it by bombing Israeli buses and cafes. As the peace process stalled in the early 2000s, Hamas murdered hundreds of Israeli civilians to further split the Israeli and Palestinian societies.
In interviews with Hamas leaders, I've found they rarely resemble the stereotypical terror organization figures we might expect. They are well-spoken individuals with logical complaints and impressive educations, often in engineering or medicine. They present themselves as members of a "political wing" of Hamas that allegedly has no idea what the secretive military wing is up to. The men maintain that they often had no idea when an attack was imminent.
We journalists are always curious. Our editors wanted us to gain access to this shady group and explain their appeal to ordinary Palestinians, particularly the strategic challenge they pose to Arafat. By claiming that their right hand didn't know what their left hand was doing, Hamas elegantly skirted difficult questions, such as why they targeted civilians instead of military targets. This left many of us with the sense that we were tapping into the pulse of Palestine rather than collaborating with terrorists and sharing tea.
So, we drank their bitter brew and had an enjoyable conversation. "Listen, we're not happy that Israeli civilians are bombarded," a speaker said – their most deadly weapons at the time were suicide bombers in urban areas – and then emphasized that these attacks were the only response to Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. When I asked Hamas why they didn't try negotiating, they answered that it made no sense to talk to Israel – and that Israel showed no interest in talking to Hamas. The spokesman insisted that I not mention his name to preserve the faintly empathetic statement that he didn't enjoy killing Israelis. Reflecting on it later, I wondered if he had said that to appeal to Western audiences.
Hamas has played language games and attempted to justify its leaders' claims of supporting a long-term "Hudna" – a ceasefire – with Israel. Their words sound convincing – who wouldn't prefer a lasting truth over the horrible slaughter and destruction we've witnessed? – but the reality is that Hamas will never sign a lasting agreement with Israel because, as their leaders told me, Islam prohibits it.
Then comes the dramatic about-face. Before October 7, Hamas deceived Israel by suggesting that they had no intention of escalating the situation and were interested in improving the lives of Gaza residents. In light of this background, Israel did in fact loosen border crossings into the Gaza Strip at the end of September, allowing more Palestinian workers into Israel. Unfortunately, the opening turned Israel into an information sieve, from which Hamas reportedly gathered information about the previous month's attacks.
Hamas is unpredictable when it comes to the facts it supplies to reporters. During the first major war between Israel and Hamas, known as Operation "Cast Lead," in 2008–2009, Hamas claimed that fewer than 50 of the 1,400 deaths in Gaza were combatants. But over a year later, the Hamas Interior Minister admitted in an interview with London media that 600–700 militants had been killed during this war. Since then, Rakets have landed in Gaza unintentionally, often killing their own people, but rarely admitting fault and instead blaming Israel for the deaths.
But how often does that hold us back from reporting what they tell us? This dynamic was evident last month, as many mainstream media outlets immediately repeated Hamas's claim that an Israeli air strike had destroyed a hospital, killing 500 Palestinians. Further details emerged later, suggesting that an errant rocket, likely fired by Hamas' rival Islamic Jihad, had struck the hospital, causing far fewer casualties. The hospital once again became a focal point of the conflict after Israel claimed that Hamas was conducting operations there and besieging the Shifa Hospital. Hamas has long denied using hospitals for military purposes, despite evidence to the contrary.
Journalists often feel they have no other choice but to rely on Hamas' numbers and denials, as there are so few journalists in Gaza and few opportunities for independent fact-checking. Many journalists could be more transparent about their lack of independent verification and provide a context for how unreliable Hamas's statements have been in the past.
One thing that has become clear since October 7 is that Hamas members don't seem to genuinely regret having killed more than 1,200 Israelis and over 200 hostages. Eyewitnesses report that the Hamas gunman laughed as he carried out the attack and reveled in the chaos he caused in Israeli homes.
Has Hamas changed? Or are Western media too willing to see it as something else than what it once was?
Although Hamas was founded in 1987 as a purely Palestinian organization, there are signs that it has been influenced by the style and brutality of global jihadist groups, particularly ISIS. However, the focus of Hamas remains on the "Zionist enterprise" rather than Western targets or other religions. And while there used to be a political faction with different ambitions, the October 7th events made it clear that the military wing is now at the center of Hamas' power and strategy.
Most of us in the media do not see Hamas as innocent or benevolent. But many of us have viewed the group for years as an opposition party that occasionally resort to violence. In the mid–1990s, during my training with Reuters, I learned that we should never refer to Hamas or Islamic Jihad as terrorists but only as militants. Event during the October 7 massacre, some media adhered to this policy, which fits snugly within the definition of terrorism.
Sign up for our free weekly newsletter ###
- Subscribe to the CNN Opinion Newsletter
- Follow us on Twitter and Facebook
Journalists in conflict zones often punch above their weight to appear neutral or to keep the favor of the accountable party. On many of the questions that are now plaguing me, there are no easy answers. But the ultimate goal of many in the media is to ensure we regularly receive up-to-date information, rather than pondering whether the people we're talking to are good actors or reliable sources. While it's important for readers and viewers to hear the voices of Palestinians and Israelis, portraying Hamas as a legitimate government might be the worst form of both-sides fallacy.
In 2014, a German journalist faced heavy criticism for appearing in a documentary with ISIS. Critics argued that attempting to explain such a deplorable group of murderers went too far. But is there not some subset of performers whose behavior is so repugnant that they deserve neither a platform nor a quotation that might lend them undeserved legitimacy?
Should we do that with Hamas, or should we continue as we have? In an ideal world, yes, but in the dystopian world we live in, that might be asking too much. However, when interviewing Hamas members, we should be more critical in our reporting and rely less on their words. We should provide a context for the fact that their information is unreliable and unverifiable, and we should not hesitate to question whether our interviews grant them too much legitimacy or provide them with an excessive platform.
![November 25, 2023: In Tel Aviv, Israel, Hamas and Israel reached an agreement on a prisoner exchange deal. People held signs and waited for news of hostages expected to be released by Hamas.]
Read also:
Source:
Enrichment Data: + Hamas' stance on peace negotiations with Israel is complex and influenced by its charter and historical context. Here are the key points: - Hamas Charter: - The updated Hamas charter does not recognize Israel, sees peace with Israel as impossible, and advocates for the liberation of all of Palestine, including Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank. Jerusalem is to be the capital of Palestine, and all Palestinian refugees are entitled to the right to return and reparations. - Armed Resistance: - Hamas has historically prioritized armed resistance against Israel. This stance is rooted in its charter and the belief that armed struggle is necessary to achieve Palestinian independence and liberation. The group has built its identity around the conflict with Israel, diverting significant resources into building weapons and tunnels. - Pragmatism and Concessions: - Despite its hardline positions, Hamas has shown a more pragmatic approach in recent times. For example, after the killing of its leader Yahya Sinwar, Hamas made concessions, such as agreeing to an Egyptian proposal for an independent governing committee in Gaza, which includes coordination with the Palestinian Authority and rival Fatah. - Conditions for Ceasefire: - Hamas has stated that it would disarm and agree to a truce if a Palestinian state were founded on 1967 borders. However, there are no guarantees that Israel would not attack again, which makes Hamas hesitant to disarm completely. - Popular Support: - In Gaza, there is significant popular support for Hamas, with many Gazans believing that armed resistance is the best way to achieve an independent state. This support is reflected in the high percentage of Gazans who support Hamas and its methods.
In summary, Hamas' stance on peace negotiations with Israel is characterized by a commitment to armed resistance as a means to achieve Palestinian independence and liberation. While there have been pragmatic concessions, the group's core ideology remains rooted in its charter and the belief in the necessity of armed struggle.
