The Press Reactions to Israel Rescuing the Hostages Will Make Your Blood Boil

There are three things certain in life: Death, taxes, and the mainstream press being the worst people on earth. The sheer ability of the journalistic class to take any issue and come down on the wrong side of it is legendary. That dynamic didn't change after Israel rescued four hostages on Saturday morning. 

As RedState reported, a joint operation between the IDF, ISA, and police forces entered the city of Nuseirat, a supposed "refugee camp," after discovering their location. The hostages were being held in "civilian" homes, with Hamas fighters responding to an all-call to attack the area after the rescue attempt was discovered. That led to a tense firefight in the streets, with a helicopter eventually providing evac from the nearby beach. 

---

SEE: Israel Rescues Hostages Despite Biden Insistence They Leave Gaza

---

Now, you'd think the press would be very interested to know why hostages were being held in "civilian" homes in the middle of a "refugee camp." That would seem the most prudent question when discussing casualties as a result of the rescue operation. Instead, they simply went to bat for Hamas. 

Here's a primer from The Washington Post before we get to one of the more unbelievable examples. 

Everything about that headline is carefully crafted to mislead. For one, the claim that "more than 200 Palestinians killed" is completely unverified. Those numbers come directly from the Hamas-controlled "Gaza Ministry of Health." Also absent in them is any admission of how many of the dead were combatants, either because they were members of Hamas or chose to fire on the Israeli forces.

Then there's the labeling of the operation as an "Israeli hostage raid." This was not a "raid," a word that typically produces impressions of aggression (i.e. a bombing raid). It was a rescue in which self-defense was used while securing the safety of the four hostages. 

That's nothing, though, compared to what one BBC reporter did while interviewing Jonathan Conricus, a former IDF spokesman. 

After allowing Conricus to share his reaction to the rescue, the reporter's first question wasn't about why these hostages were being held by civilians. It wasn't about how the families felt when their loved ones returned after such a daring mission. It was to immediately pivot to "the death toll among Palestinians."

REPORTER: Jonathan, there is concern about the death toll among Palestinians. Do you think Israeli forces anticipated the level of casualties incurred? 

CONRICUS: Yeah, I think the whole civilian issue here needs to be analyzed impartially and understood. According to the reports that I have gotten and also to the testimonies and even statements made by Hamas spokesperson, the Israeli hostages were held and jailed by Palestinian civilians in a Palestinian civilian area, and as regrettable as any loss of life is, I think that we would have to investigate, really, who were the people who jailed these Israeli civilians for eight months, why did they do it, what was the role of the surrounding community and the hundreds, if not thousands of Palestinians who, for sure, were aware of the fact that the Israeli hostages were being held in their midst, and why were they complicit with Hamas?

Let's take a step back and admire how absurd that question is (and to be sure, her next one is even worse). How would a force sent to rescue hostages in an urban combat environment anticipate the number of casualties? Were they supposed to somehow know they'd be ambushed on the streets? 

This is the kind of idiocy that constantly plagues discussions around Israeli military action. It's the idea that no matter what the Palestinians do, they are never responsible for their actions. If casualties were a concern, all Hamas and these "civilians" had to do was release the hostages. You don't get to take people captive from a music festival during a murderous invasion and then be the victim when the consequences arrive. 

Don't worry, though, things are about to get much dumber.

REPORTER: Jonathan, we don't know that they were necessarily complicit with Hamas. All of the casualties that were incurred, there were reports of women, of children who are among the dead. It is appearing to be a high civilian death toll. Would there have been a warning to those civilians for them to get out on time. 

CONRICUS: For sure, of course we can't not anticipate Israel to be warning ahead of a raid to extract or to save hostages because then, what the terrorists would do is kill the hostages, and that would defeat the purpose. So of course, we can not expect that. 

Yes, that's a reporter, one of our supposed intellectual betters, asking if Israel should have warned the "civilians" holding the hostages that they were coming. Putting aside how nonsensical that is because it would have led to the failure of the mission, her question is centered on the continued infantilization of Palestinians. They can take hostages and hold them in civilian homes in a "refugee camp," and the press will still insist that it's up to Israel to bear all responsibility for casualties as a result. 

The reporter then did what the press often does, which is to suggest that reports from Israel are unverified while continuing to parrot reports from Hamas uncritically.

REPORTER: Jonathan, we do have to say, that we haven't been able to establish that at this stage, and as you pointed out, there will have to be a further investigation. I do want to get your thoughts as to whether you are concerned about the potential for this to jeopardize a ceasefire plan, and of course, as well, the potential to see the rest of those hostages released. 

What a sick question. What was Israel supposed to do? Not rescue the hostages out of some blind hope that Hamas will eventually agree to a ceasefire despite it rejecting every ceasefire proposal up to this point (including the White House's joke of a deal last week)? 

To his credit, Conricus didn't back down. Instead, he touted the need for victory while rejecting the ceasefire talking points. 

Long story short: The mainstream press is awful. There is no low its members won't stoop to, and that includes becoming propagandists for terrorists.