Smoke trails in Israel's sky, blood trails in Gaza's dust
A single comment shifted my focus from sirens in Israel to the story behind a Gaza café and asymmetric war reporting.
Recently, I posted a brief Note: “How does Bibi expect to defeat Hamas if he is negotiating with Hamas?” As I wrote it, a missile alert sounded in the south — militants in Gaza launched two rockets at Israel. I was angry. Frustrated. Then came Mike’s comment. Not to debate negotiations, irrelevant, and pivoting focus: “Israeli airstrikes killed at least 60 Palestinians, including 22 in a single attack on a crowded café.”
I do not know if Mike meant to shame me. What I do know is that his comment shifted the focus from ceasefire talks and sirens in Israel to rubble in Gaza. But instead of deflecting, it led me here: into research that uncovered not just the story of that café, but the broader pattern of how violence is reported, judged, and morally assigned in this war.
Mike was referring to the now-infamous Israeli airstrike on a Gaza seafront café that reportedly killed around 30 civilians (according to The Guardian and AP). While this time international coverage was somewhat subdued, likely due to ongoing ceasefire negotiations, HonestReporting documented how headlines distorted the facts and accused Israel of deliberately targeting journalists, women, and children.
Absent the pressure of hostage talks, this incident might well have followed the familiar pattern: emergency sessions at the EU and UN, a wave of moral outrage, and front-page images of bloodied bodies and grieving families. Mike, in his comment, echoed that pattern by responding to my mention of missiles fired at Israel with an immediate pivot to the missile that struck Gaza.
And that pattern holds beyond this one exchange. when Hamas fired ten rockets at southern Israel in April, and Hezbollah fired 80 rockets into the north in November 2024 —deliberately targeting civilians—there were no emergency meetings. No international statements of moral outrage. No front-page profiles of victims.
The only time Israeli victims have received sustained humanizing coverage giving names, faces, and profiles, was after the Oct 7th massacre and during and after hostage-release ceremonies. But Oct 7th was an atrocity that shocked even a cynical international media. It should not take a massacre to merit empathy.
This is not a new pattern. It is a long-standing double standard that defines how the world responds to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. When Hamas breaks ceasefires, targets civilians, or instigates violence, it is often described in vague, strategic terms. When Israel responds, even with warnings and efforts to minimize civilian casualties, its actions are judged with legal scrutiny and moral condemnation.
The difference is not just in tone. It reveals a deeper asymmetry in how legitimacy, law, and victimhood are assigned in the eyes of the international community and media. Not content with general impressions, I turned to AI’s language analysis tools to compare the framing, tone, and terminology used across coverage to see if apparent trends hold up to scrutiny.
The results are presented in two tables: Table 1 show the responses of international bodies to Israeli and Hamas actions and Table 2 shows differences in media presentations.
When Hamas breaks a ceasefire by launching rockets at civilians, international statements are vague and often avoid naming the perpetrators. When Israel retaliates—often with prior warnings and surveillance—the language sharpens, and legal mechanisms are activated.
When rockets fall on Israeli cities, headlines often read like weather reports: short, factual, and quickly displaced by Israel’s military response. When Gaza is struck, the story begins with the civilian impact.
For example:
“Iran fires fewer than 100 missiles at Israel; most intercepted, Israeli military says.”
This headline is terse and analytical, treating missile launches as routine data as if “fewer than 100 missiles” is just par for the course. The neutral phrasing mirrors what we would expect from a weather report: clinical, detached, devoid of human context or emotion.
“Israel strikes pound Gaza, killing 60, ahead of US talks on ceasefire.”
While this headline doesn’t mention individual stories, the language (“killing 60,” “pound Gaza”) conveys a dramatic, powerful image. And within the article, it specifies:
“Twenty-two people, including women, children and a local journalist were killed in an Israeli airstrike on a beachfront cafe in Gaza City.”
This painting of human loss in an idyllic setting stands in stark contrast to the somber factuality of the rocket report.
These stark disparities in coverage and condemnation are not accidental; they stem from deeply entrenched factors.
Why the Disparity Exists
Several factors contribute to this asymmetry. First, Israel is a state and Hamas is a non-state actor. States are subject to legal norms that not only do not apply to terrorist groups but that no terrorist group would ever respect if it were demanded of them. This element is not taken into consideration by either international bodies or media when reporting on the war.
Secondly, the media and international bodies alike generally portray the Palestinian Arabs as eternal victims of Israeli ‘occupation,’ casting them as the ‘colonized’ party in a post-colonial morality play. This lends itself to biased reporting that excuses or even justifies the ‘underdog’s’ violence, denies them agency, and has low expectations of their ability to follow international law or uphold moral standards.
Finally, the images of urban devastation and mourning families makes for far more moving reporting than pictures of puffs of smoke in the air where a missile was intercepted before it could hit the ground.
I can only imagine the moral dilemma in which international bodies and the mainstream media would find themselves had Israel no interceptors and Israelis had no bomb shelters.
Why It Matters
When the global response teaches terrorists that targeting civilians carries no cost, when defending against those attacks invites censure, the international organizations and mainstream media embolden terror, reward the use of human shields, and delegitimize deterrence.
This is not just hypocrisy. It is complicity.
When only one side is held accountable, the rules of war are no longer rules. They become weapons.
References
Table 1:
Rare, general condemnations — Following a June 2024 incident, Reuters reported on a UNSC call for de-escalation after Hamas fire, and UN records from October 2023 show similar language.
Specific condemnations for Israeli strikes — Reuters covered UN Human Rights Office statements in June 2025 condemning civilian losses.
International law framing — Numerous UN Digital Library statements and Human Rights Watch reports address IHL violations in Gaza.
UNSC Resolutions & ICC mentions — UNSC Resolution 2712 and ICC updates in 2024 reference investigations into Israeli actions.
Muted response to Hamas violations — Al Jazeera reported in August 2022 on silence after Hamas rocket launches.
UN statements on Israeli actions — Reuters in March 2024 quoted a UN spokesman condemning Israeli airstrikes.
Neutral coverage language — BBC and CNN routinely describe Hamas attacks as “flare-ups” or “escalations.”
Moral framing of Israeli strikes — The Guardian and UN News have used terms like “indiscriminate” and “collective punishment.”
No UN inquiries into Hamas rocket fire — UNHRC and UNODA reports show no inquiry launched after Gaza rocket barrages.
Investigations into Israeli strikes — UNHRC Gaza missions and ICC prosecutor statements reference investigations into Israeli military actions.
Table 2
Minimal visuals of rocket attacks — Coverage from CNN, BBC, and AP focuses on sirens and interceptions.
Graphic Gaza imagery — The Guardian, AP, and CNN led with vivid photos of civilian suffering in Gaza.
Unnamed rocket casualties — Reuters, Times of Israel, and BBC reported Hamas rocket fire in aggregate.
Humanization in Gaza strike reports — The Guardian, Al Jazeera, and NYT included personal victim details.
Strategic terms for Hamas attacks — CNN, BBC, and Reuters refer to them as “flare-ups” or routine security events.
Emotive labels for Israeli strikes — The Guardian, Al Jazeera, and The Independent use terms like “massacre.”
Rocket attacks as background — AP, BBC, and CNN coverage of Hamas is often overshadowed by Israeli response.
Front-page Gaza coverage — NYT, CNN, and AP consistently placed Gaza strike images and stories front and center.
Scarcity of op-eds condemning Hamas — NYT Opinion Archive, The Guardian comment sections, and WaPo rarely directly condemn Hamas rocket fire.
Frequent op-eds against Israel — NYT, The Guardian, and WaPo widely published pieces accusing Israel of war crimes and apartheid.
Thank you for being here.
I try to write what others overlook — about Iranians, Alawites, sovereignty, survival, and the war over narratives.
If you're new, start here: “Why I keep writing even when it would be easier to stop.”
And if what you read moved you, consider sharing or subscribing.
Because Israel is not supported on the Substack payment platform, I have set up an alternative for those who want to support my work.
You can make one-time or repeated donations in your own currency using Paypal (click image above) or the Ko-fi payment platform here. Israelis can send me a private message for another option.
Articles will always be free for all subscribers but a one-time or repeated donation is a way to help me sustain myself while doing all the work involved in putting these articles together and would be greatly appreciated.
Thank-you to all those who have supported my work by subscribing and/or by donating to my writer’s fund.
“Mike” conveniently ignores the fact that Israel targeted and eliminated a number of high ranking terrorists in that attack.
What a shocker.
Thanks Sheri for your honesty and diligent research. I admire and appreciate your work, especially given the difficult circumstances in which you write.
I would be very interested to hear your response to the letter signed by 5 West Bank sheikhs, in support of Israel, and their desire to form an emirate within Israel. I found that news to be very encouraging but I'd love to hear your take on it. Susan