David Collier: The Truth Behind the Viral Gazan Famine Photo
Muhammad Zakariya Ayyoub al-Matouq /Mutawwaq (was born with serious genetic disorders. He has needed specialist medical supplements since birth. Like previous examples of the media using ‘starving children’ going back to summer 2024 – the image is of a child suffering underlying (and hidden) health issues.John Spencer: “Finishing the Job” in Gaza: What It Means and What It Takes
A medical report issued in May 2025 by the Basma Association for Relief in Gaza states that Mohammed, has been diagnosed with cerebral palsy – a group of neurological disorders affecting movement, muscle tone, and posture. The report notes that Mohammed suffers from hypoxemia (low oxygen in the blood), possibly linked to a suspected genetic disorder inherited in an ‘autosomal recessive pattern.’
There is no argument here. I have seen a copy of this report (but obviously won’t produce in full here a child’s medical diagnosis). It was signed by Dr Saeed Mohammed Al Nassan on 20th May 2025:
This revelation raises serious issues of media integrity. The Daily Express picked up a viral image circulating online and published it without verification or context – a textbook example of clickbait journalism, where emotional impact is prioritised over everything else.
The BBC – as per usual went a step further. The BBC *spoke* to his mother, Huda Yassin Al-Matouq / Mutawwaq – and produced a 64 second interview that somehow failed to disclose that Mohammed was a child born with genetic problems and complex medical dependencies. Even in the BBC video, the mother alludes to this – referencing a prolonged struggle, including physiotherapy sessions that had helped him stand. The curvature of the spine another key clue tying the child to a CP diagnosis. But the BBC narrator never addresses this – leaving the audience to believe the heartbreaking physical condition we are seeing is the result of widespread famine.
This is not journalism. This is the UK’s state media deliberately pushing a deceptive narrative that only serves to benefit Hamas and create fake news.
How Mohammed’s Father Was Used to Paint a Narrative
The story being told through legacy media outlets such as the NYT is that Mohammed’s father was killed while going out to collect food. Again, to underline the Gaza hunger tragedy narrative.
This has been reported without any attempt at verification. From the death certificate I can see the father Zakaria Ayoub Al-Matouq / Mutawwaq (زكريا أيوب المطوق) was killed on 28 October 2024:
From online sources it turns out that Mohammed’s father, was killed in Jabalia, in what appears to be a targeted strike on ‘al Qassabeeb’ street.
We can also see that Hamas were attacking the IDF in precisely that spot at the time (posts from 26 & 27th October).
Between the 25th October and the 29th, Israel lost six soldiers in the area. In this Hamas footage, which shows wide angle views of part of the same ‘street’ on 26th October, it is not possible to see exactly where Mohammed’s father would have been looking for food:
Whether or not he was armed, Mohammed’s father died on a battlefield where Hamas was actively attacking Israeli forces. Whatever the truth about ‘looking for food’, Hamas bears responsibility for bringing the conflict to that street and the media ignored this context entirely.
A Personal Note
Digging for the truth behind images like this is not easy. We’re dealing with a live war zone – real people, real pain, and tragic situations like Mohammed’s. These kinds of personal tragedies happen in every war, in every era.
What is unique – and toxic – is how images of the tragic consequences of urban warfare are being weaponised to build false global narratives. In this case, the lie is of a Gaza gripped by mass famine and children dying from hunger.
And here’s the bitter truth: I shouldn’t have to do this. It shouldn’t fall on me to call out the world’s biggest media outlets for their failure to act like journalists. Why are almost all of them functioning as Hamas’ useful idiots, amplifying propaganda with no effort to verify the facts? Is it really too much to expect them to do their jobs?
Hamas has refused to negotiate the return of hostages or discuss disarmament. President Trump recently said, "It got to a point where you're gonna have to finish the job." But what does "finishing the job" in Gaza actually mean?Andrew Fox: What next for Gaza?
Global recognition of Israel's legitimate and just war objectives must be the starting point. Many voices calling for an immediate ceasefire argue that the war can end without removing Hamas's military capabilities or political power. That position is fundamentally flawed. Any resolution that allows Hamas to retain power, even partially, ensures that the group will rebuild and repeat this cycle of violence in the future. Only the full military and political removal of Hamas from Gaza can create the conditions necessary for peace.
Humanitarian assistance must be delivered through mechanisms that do not rely on or empower Hamas. By restoring food access outside of Hamas control, Israel helps shift civilian reliance away from Hamas's shadow governance.
While headlines often focus on warnings of famine, more food is now flowing into Gaza. Hundreds of UN aid trucks are being distributed daily. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) continues to deliver up to two million meals a day across four sites. It has also established a system that allows approved groups to pick up aid and deliver it to the most vulnerable areas.
The Israel Defense Forces will continue to enter contested areas to systematically target Hamas fighters, dismantle Hamas infrastructure, and clear Gaza of their military presence. This is a slow, deliberate, and dangerous process involving close-quarters combat and tunnel detection and destruction. This cannot and should not be rushed.
This is not a call for a forever war in Gaza. This is a clear-eyed statement of what it will take to take the guns from Hamas. This is the essential first step. Before anything meaningful can be built, the threat must be removed. Once areas are cleared of Hamas, Israel can begin to explore what force will provide security, and which Palestinian actors can help stabilize areas. But none of that is possible if Hamas remains intact.
Conclusion
Each party is manoeuvring to influence what happens next, but none can determine the outcome independently. The military stalemate has shown that neither Israel nor Hamas can fully accomplish their war objectives through force alone. Israel can devastate Gaza and weaken Hamas, but cannot entirely eliminate the notion of Hamas or secure lasting peace through military power. Hamas can survive and extract limited concessions, such as prisoner exchanges, but it cannot militarily defeat Israel or achieve significant improvements for Palestinians by continuing the fight. This mutual deadlock underscores the need for diplomacy and strategic political manoeuvring to prevail in the long run.
In Jerusalem, the harsh truth policymakers face is that even “victory” over Hamas would be pyrrhic without a plan for who governs Gaza afterwards. The Gaza Strip’s future will not be decided in isolation from the broader Palestinian and regional context. Simply put, Gaza’s fate is linked to the West Bank and to Arab-Israeli relations. A sustainable solution probably involves reintegrating Gaza with the Palestinian Authority and international support, effectively undoing Hamas’s 16-year rule. That outcome will require coordination between bitter rivals, strong security arrangements to prevent Hamas’s return, and substantial reconstruction efforts. It is a tall order, but anything less risks Gaza remaining a powder keg.
Hamas, for its part, will attempt to wait out Israeli and American resolve. If faced with imminent destruction or a loss of control, Hamas might adjust its stance, perhaps agreeing to a longer ceasefire or accepting a third-party security presence in exchange for its political survival. However, Hamas’s ideology and history suggest it will not disarm or relinquish control voluntarily. The endgame could therefore involve forcing Hamas’s compliance or fragmenting the organisation, rather than securing its cooperative agreement. How this is done remains a much more challenging question.
Any ceasefire will need to address core needs: guarantees for Israel that Hamas will not re-arm or carry out attacks again, and guarantees for Palestinians that they will not continue living under siege and bombardment. This might involve creative measures, such as international monitors at Gaza’s crossings or a multinational force (perhaps from Arab countries). These are all challenging but achievable if key stakeholders agree to support it.
Saudi Arabia’s involvement will be crucial in this context. As the leader of the Arab world’s move towards a new regional order, Saudi Arabia could help legitimise a new Gaza arrangement by offering political support and funding. The Kingdom has proposed a major donors' conference for Gaza reconstruction once the war concludes, presumably linking contributions to specific political outcomes (such as no Hamas in power). These incentives, along with US pressure and Israeli public fatigue, may ultimately lead to a shift toward a negotiated resolution.
Nevertheless, significant uncertainties remain. Will Israel’s government, pressed domestically and internationally, choose to cut losses and shift to diplomacy, or will it intensify military actions again? Will Hamas’s gamble on international intervention succeed, or will the group become isolated if regional patience runs out? Can the moderate Palestinian leadership step in, despite its diminished credibility, or will Gaza descend into chaos if Hamas is removed? These questions currently lack clear answers.
What is clear is that the status quo is unsustainable. “The war in Gaza must end now,” as a joint statement by 28 nations urged in July 2025. The next phase is probably going to be crucial. If a ceasefire agreement can be negotiated that exchanges the final hostages for an Israeli withdrawal under international guarantees, it might open the way for a new chapter for Gaza and the region. Hamas would be left greatly weakened and possibly sidelined in governance, while Israel could claim it has crippled the group and brought its people home. Israel’s security would then depend on new arrangements (border monitors, anti-smuggling measures, etc.) to prevent Hamas’s return, supported by US and regional commitments. Palestinians in Gaza, at last, would see the bombs cease and the difficult work of rebuilding begin, ideally with global support.
On the other hand, if the current trajectory continues with neither side compromising, the outcome could be either a bloody fight to the end (with Israel eventually overrunning Gaza amid severe losses), or a breakdown of negotiations that leaves Gaza in a state of perpetual low-level conflict. The former would be a humanitarian and diplomatic catastrophe, and the latter a recipe for another war in the future. Neither is a future anyone wants.
In the final analysis, both sides have something to gain from a responsible end to this war and much to lose from its indefinite continuation. Israel can secure its border and international standing only by ending the carnage and enabling a stable Gaza to take root, rather than owning an impoverished open-air prison next door. Hamas’s best hope for relevance is to stop the war before it is utterly destroyed, even if that means yielding governance to others, because Gazans’ anger at their suffering could yet turn against Hamas itself if fighting persists. The United States and its allies know that peace and progress in the Middle East cannot advance until Gaza is no longer a war zone. Regional powers from Saudi Arabia to Egypt to Qatar recognise that the legitimacy of their leadership and the security of the region hinges on alleviating the Gaza tragedy and moving towards a just political solution.
The path to that solution is challenging, but the general outlines are clear: a ceasefire in exchange for the return of hostages, the marginalisation of extremists (on the Israeli side as well – a whole other matter), and Gazans given a chance at normal life under a new authority. Achieving this will require unprecedented levels of coordination and goodwill, considering the scale of bloodshed. As the smoke gradually clears over Gaza’s devastated skyline, the world will watch to see if leaders on all sides can take the opportunity to create a better future from the ruins of war.













.jpg)










