Hamas Fighters Disappeared: A Study Compromising the Anti-Israel Newspaper
A new study using Claude code analyzed all war-related headlines in the New York Times and found that the newspaper adopted the Hamas narrative regarding Gaza casualties, primarily because Hamas militants were almost entirely absent from the reports.
How is a newspaper supposed to report on war casualties? This question is worth asking, especially when it comes to a publication that promises its readers professional journalism without fear or favor, and defines itself as a "newspaper of record." Such a media outlet's information archive is supposed to serve as a historical document, reflecting events accurately and reliably.
The question is important because casualties in Gaza have become a central topic in the discourse on the October 7 war. This discourse has influenced global public opinion, commercial companies, academic circles, and political leaders. Although never convicted, Israel was accused of genocide at the International Court of Justice in The Hague as early as December 2023, in a lawsuit filed by South Africa, which was suspected of indirect funding by Iran. Many young people, fed by social media, believe Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
In the post-truth era, many rely on narratives with a loose connection to reality. In the chaos of information, someone must take responsibility for accurate reporting. We analyzed how Gaza casualties have been reported over two years in one of the world's most influential newspapers.
Analysis of Headlines
Between October 7, 2023, and October 10, 2025, the New York Times published 6,696 headlines about the war in Gaza—about 7% of its total output. Of these, 1,305 dealt with casualties, with 653 headlines specifically concerning Palestinians in Gaza.
The analysis focused on three aspects: the total scope, internal classification (civilians vs. combatants), and responsibility. The cumulative number of casualties (10,000, 25,000, 30,000, etc.) appeared in 11 headlines. None of these distinguished between militants and civilians, nor did they mention that the figures included Hamas fighters, those killed by failed terrorist rocket launches, or executions. Readers were led to believe that only civilians were involved.
Where Did the Fighters Disappear?
Of the 653 casualty headlines, 100 referred to Hamas members, but 86% of these specifically concerned the elimination of leaders (Al-Arouri, Deif, Sinwar, Haniyeh). Only 14 headlines (2% of the total) referred to the killing of rank-and-file Hamas fighters on the battlefield. This creates the impression that only civilians are being killed in Israeli strikes.
This aligns with Hamas's declared strategy of not distinguishing between militants and civilians, using the latter as human shields. The newspaper not only hides the presence of fighters but also casts doubt on IDF estimates regarding the number of terrorists killed, rarely publishing them.
Responsibility and Credibility
Regarding responsibility, the New York Times consistently frames Israel as the culprit. In 62% of headlines, Israel is presented as responsible, while Hamas and Islamic Jihad are presented as responsible in only three instances.
The primary source of information remains the Gaza Ministry of Health, which is controlled by Hamas. In 69% of cases, the newspaper did not indicate the source, presenting the data as fact. Even after the scandal involving the false report on the Al-Ahli hospital explosion on October 17, 2023, where the paper promised to be more cautious, the practice of citing Hamas data without caveats continued.
Even after the war's active phase, this trend persists. Recent articles continue to use euphemisms, calling terrorists "people who are not civilians," and broadcasting unverified casualty figures. One must ask: is the editorial staff driven by truth, or by the opportunity to repeat the word "genocide"?
