Last week, the editorial board of Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post published a shockingly perverse article describing supposedly “luxurious Gaza cafes” that, in their estimation, “poke quite the hole in the ‘genocide’ narrative.” Accompanying the piece was a picture of “Palestinian students studying inside a cafe in Khan Younis on April 6, 2026.”
This particular “luxurious cafe” was little more than a poorly constructed tent, held up by a couple of thin wooden poles and decorated with cheap astroturf wallpaper. Even the cracked pavement beneath it remained visible at the edge of the frame.
Yet this was presented as evidence of "luxury," as though the mere sight of Palestinian youth sitting, studying or momentarily inhabiting a semblance of ordinary life, which would itself be considered substandard anywhere else in the world, were enough to discredit reports of extreme suffering.
Of course, this portrayal would make no sense if Palestinians were not presumed undeserving of even minimal human dignity. Perhaps the editorial board of the New York Post simply meant to express their disappointment at the failure to eradicate all social and intellectual life in Gaza, something Israel has pursued since Oct. 7, 2023.
Whatever the exact motivation, the implication was clear: that genocide would have rendered Palestinians incapable of any meaningful social or intellectual existence. The standard was set remarkably low – so low, in fact, that it could only be justified if Palestinians were indeed perceived as “human animals,” as former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant described them in 2023 to justify their extermination.
Another Rupert Murdoch organ, ostensibly a “paper of record” in Britain, the Times has accommodated similar “perspectives” on this subject in its coverage over the years. A genocide enthusiast is given a column to speak of the evils of “Dangerous Palestinianism” that apparently has “gripped politics” in Britain, for example.
The casual racism and, frankly, contempt displayed toward Palestinians has been a given in much of the mainstream press in the Anglosphere. It is partly this contempt that normalizes a U.S. President using the term “Palestinian” as an insult, as U.S. President Donald Trump did on multiple occasions to attack U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer.
It appears as though, as much as people like to say nowadays that mainstream press is dead, it is pretty much alive and well, especially when it is in the service of “the masters of mankind.” Its agenda-setting function has been widely discussed, and it is most evident in cases concerning matters of life and death. Crucially, this function has a “legitimizing” effect.
If a story is printed in, say, The New York Times, it is considered legitimate from that point onwards to agree with its claims. This is surely why many felt relieved at last to be able to agree with the simple facts about “the rape of Palestinians” by Israel, as the New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof laid them out in a “controversial” (meaning: accurate) piece earlier this week.
That with this legitimizing effect, extreme centrists are finally allowed to condemn Israel in some form may be beside the point. Long before Kristof’s expose, this information was amply available elsewhere. In fact, just a couple of weeks before the publication of Kristof’s article, British journalist Owen Jones was smeared for writing pretty much the same things. However, it had to be a “respectable” platform like The New York Times for the story to carry any weight. After all, it was the same New York Times that amplified the completely unfounded allegation of “40 beheaded babies” and introduced another one about “mass rape” taking place on Oct. 7, 2023. Subsequently, the political class referred to those stories in their justification for “death and destruction from the sky all day long.”
Today, however, the likes of fanatical Zionist billionaire Bill Ackman demand that The New York Times “shut down.” The cardinal sin of publishing facts unfavorable to Israel could not be forgiven. In fact, the sin is considered so grave that even the Israeli government itself had to chip in, protesting the article in very strong terms and accusing its author of invoking ancient “blood libels.”
What the general public thinks seems to have never been nearly as important as what appears on the pages of The New York Times, for it was The New York Times to which someone like the prominent early Zionist leader Elie Wiesel would turn for its coverage on Israel whenever he wanted to “feel better.” When it comes to assessing the influence of a news source, it matters not whether it is a serious one; it matters only who takes it seriously.
