The @NYTimes anti-Israel bias is entrenched - and AI proves it ~ Elder Of Ziyon

Monday, July 21, 2025

The @NYTimes anti-Israel bias is entrenched - and AI proves it

Today, there was yet another New York Times article saying that dozens of civilians were directly shot over the weekend by IDF troops.

Palestinians trying to secure food were shot and killed in the Gaza Strip in two separate episodes over the weekend when Israeli forces opened fire on crowds.

On Saturday, the soldiers shot Palestinians near a food distribution site in Rafah, in southern Gaza. A day later, they fired at crowds who had gathered near a border crossing used by aid trucks to enter the enclave.

Palestinian health officials said that more than 60 people were killed in the episode on Sunday. On Saturday, near an aid distribution site run by American contractors and backed by Israel and the United States, at least 32 people were killed, according to local health officials.

The violence added to the mounting death toll for hungry Palestinians killed while seeking food since late May, when Israel lifted a blockade, in place for roughly 80 days, on humanitarian assistance entering Gaza.

The article does not even consider various facts:

Hamas considers GHF to be a threat and does everything it can to stop the food distribution, including documented incidents of shootings within the crowd and threatening and killing GHF workers.
Hamas and its health ministry has a history of inflating casualty figures, like the Al Ahli Hospital incident where no independent media supported their claims of hundreds killed in what ended up being an Islamic Jihad rocket
Previous GHF and Israeli denials of the Hamas and health ministry casualty numbers

But there are other layers that show the bias in these reports.

If we accept that there are dozens killed daily at food distribution sites, we must accept other premises that are exceedingly unlikely.

It is really difficult to kill that many civilians at once with small arms. As soon as the first gunshot would go off, the crowd would panic and disperse. This means that the IDF is shooting at civilians even as they are running away. Not only one soldier - one crazed soldier could not possibly kill that many in one incident. It means that that the IDF, which has strict rules against shooting civilians who are not a threat, an army with discipline and whose soldiers are taught the laws of armed conflict in detail, are all deciding consciously to murder dozens of people at once.

If you accept the narrative at face value - that dozens are killed daily at aid sites - you must believe that the Israeli army is engaged in a mass execution campaign of hungry civilians, every single day, for weeks. That’s not just a war crime. That’s a conspiracy. A conspiracy requiring silence from hundreds of IDF soldiers, total abandonment of IDF engagement rules, and an institutional policy to murder people trying to eat. You must believe this has happened with no whistleblowers - not one soldier willing to come forward and say that he was instructed to murder civilians. Not even anonymously.

This is what it means to accept the narrative. You are required to believe in evil so absolute and disciplined it becomes practically theological.

If you accept as a premise that the IDF is a single minded genocidal monster, then all of this makes sense. But if you are not already an antisemite, nothing about these stories add up - except that Hamas and the health ministry is lying, and casualties that do happen are because of Hamas actions, not deliberate IDF policy.

Given that Hamas' entire military strategy is to maximize dead Gazans - real or imagined - that is a lot more consistent with what we are seeing than an IDF conspiracy to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to feed Gazans only to decide to murder them when they gather to get their food aid.

These are the problems in this article alone. But I fed seven New York Times articles that discussed the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation over the past month or so into an AI tool I built to detect media bias - not anti-Israel bias but any bias - and asked the AI to find narrative patterns in the articles as a whole.

Here were its findings (emphasis from the AI tool):

All articles reinforce a moral trajectory wherein:
Israel and GHF are the structural initiators of a fatal aid system.
Palestinians are portrayed almost exclusively as passive victims seeking food.
The moral culpability of aid-site deaths is consistently attributed to Israeli or GHF actions, with minimal exploration of alternate causal agents (e.g., Hamas sabotage, stampede dynamics, crowd infiltration).
Rating: High Narrative Convergence Bias
II. Role Framing Asymmetry Index
Israeli actors (IDF, GHF, government) are consistently framed as:
Aggressors (e.g., “opened fire on crowds,” “militarized aid”).
System designers of lethal policies (“conceived in Israeli strategy forums”).
Untrustworthy or evasive (e.g., “denied responsibility,” “statements not independently verified”).
Palestinian actors are presented as:
Victims (e.g., “suffocated,” “shot while seeking flour”).
Civilians only — no sustained mention of Hamas-as-sabotage agent.
Passive moral figures (e.g., children, mothers, mourners) with high visual and emotive priming.
Rating: Consistent Moral Role Reversal + Red Team Clause Failure
III. Source Calibration Pattern
Gaza Health Ministry and Red Crescent data is used repeatedly without epistemic caveats, despite:
Past misreporting (e.g., Al Ahli Hospital).
Lack of verification mechanisms.
GHF and IDF statements are either:
Presented with caveats (“claims could not be independently verified”), or
Immediately followed by critical or contradictory framing.
Rating: Violates Source Contamination Rule and Reputational Inflation Symmetry
IV. Counterposition Frequency Mapping
Alternative hypotheses are largely absent, including:
Hamas presence or provocation in crowds (mentioned only once, marginalized).
Tactical implausibility of mass shootings by IDF with no internal dissent.
Aid group political alignment or U.N. operational failures.
Rare defenses (e.g., U.S. funding statement) are presented with dilution phrases like “the foundation has been criticized…” immediately adjacent.
Rating: Structural Counterposition Suppression (CPS)
V. Visual and Emotional Priming Continuity
All articles contain graphic visual descriptions or captions that:
Reinforce emotional associations of Israeli culpability.
Use photographic priming to elevate victimhood narratives.
Rarely balance imagery with depictions of complexity, crowd violence, or Israeli aid logistics.
Rating: Persistent Visual Priming Assertion (VPA)
🧠 Summary Integrity Conclusion
This corpus displays a systemic narrative convergence toward framing Israel and GHF as primary culpable agents in a humanitarian disaster, with near-total omission of adversarial sabotage, causal ambiguity, or strategic complexity. The editorial structure, repetition of framing, source asymmetry, and emotive visual alignment indicate medium-to-high ideological entrenchment.

This proves a consistent pattern across all New York Times coverage of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.

The bias isn't just in the imagination of Zionists. It is the way that the New York Times decides to cover a specific story - the narrative was set early and once it is there, it cannot be changed. The patterns of the stories are eerily consistent, choosing to give more credibility to a terrorist organization, its subsidiaries and people whose lives are under implicit threat for not doing what it wants, than to a democratic state and its institutions that follow standards of transparency and honesty.