JNS.org – A shill is the surreptitious partner of a huckster salesman, revving up an audience to believe a sales pitch and buy a product.

Looking back at months of rioting and arson along the Gaza border with Israel and the distorted reporting of them by The New York Times, it’s undeniable that the publication has promoted Hamas propaganda, relaying to its millions of readers what the terrorist group wanted them to believe and omitting what Hamas preferred to conceal. The product sold? Israel as aggressor and the Palestinians as victims.

For example, as of this writing there has been no human-interest story devoted to what Israelis are suffering as they witness thousands of acres of farms and nature preserves, and extensive wildlife, destroyed and killed in nearly continuous fires set by flaming kites and airborne fire bombs from Gaza.

When Times Bureau Chief David Halbfinger covered the arson story on July 10, he termed the Hamas campaign “ingenious” and the impact for Israel “exasperating.” (In fact, for Israelis, the impact of the destruction can be frightening and devastating.) But the focus was overwhelmingly on criticism of Israel’s countermeasures against Gazans.

Related coverage Iranian ‘Restraint’ and ‘Small’ Cyber Attacks “Cyber winter is coming,” warned Yigal Unna, Israel’s national cyber chief, but The New York Times can’t see past the fall. In an...

Throughout the coverage, the tilt was the same: Hamas violence was discounted and Israel’s defensive actions to stop the aggression were heavily criticized.

What Hamas wanted from the outset when it launched its “Great March of Return” campaign was stepped-up world pressure on Israel, fueled by stories and images of its people — especially civilians — “protesting” at the border fence, and enduring injury and death at the hands of Israeli soldiers.

What Hamas would not have liked the world to see were the violent methods used by many Gazans and the vicious, antisemitic rantings of its leaders, scholars, and imams fanning the flames.

The Times obliged on all counts. There was no mention by its reporters of Hamas’ bigoted exhortations attacking Israel and Jews, and minimal attention was paid to the rioters’ violence. Instead, for weeks, the Times’ story line showcased strikingly romanticized Palestinian “protesters” slinging rocks at an army massed against them. The Times refused to call those hurling firebombs and flaming tires, planting IEDS and firing guns, and trying to tear down the border fence with hatchets and knives “rioters.”

Times correspondent Declan Walsh, for instance, was on the scene inside Gaza during the height of the riots in mid-May, filing stories almost entirely through Palestinian eyes — seemingly emotionally swept up himself in the story. This was conveyed in his print reports and a May 17 Times podcast interview about the death of Layla al-Ghandour, an eight-month-old baby initially reported to have been killed by tear-gas inhalation. In the reports, multiple stories offered personalized accounts of the child’s death, and its impact on the family and the wider world. A dramatic color photo cast the swaddled child and mother as Madonna and child-like figures, while grim funeral images revealed the tiny corpse.

The Times wrote: “Her story became a rallying cry for those denouncing Israel’s crackdown on Palestinian protesters.”

Of course, the Times itself helped make it a “rallying cry.” While acting as if it were a bystander in its commentary on the phenomenon of a child’s story sweeping the globe, the paper in fact became a propellant for that “story.”

In the Times podcast, Walsh spoke repeatedly and tenderly of “baby Layla” and his visits with her family, and traced her movements the day she died. He described the explosion of social media sympathy and support for her, saying that she was seen by Palestinians as a symbol of Israeli “brutality,” and even more as a sign of the “desperation” of Palestinians who at “great personal risk” go up to the fence just to make a point.

He termed the “protests” a “cry for attention,” as though the rioters were clamoring children.

When it was subsequently revealed that Layla did not die from Israeli tear gas, Walsh reported that Israelis “seized on” information from a doctor in Gaza who said that Layla had a preexisting condition that took her life. “Seized on” is a notable choice of words, reflecting the caustic treatment of Israel. Seemingly, Walsh found Israel’s swift refutation of a blood libel against the Jewish state objectionable or opportunistic.

Walsh claimed that both sides used the story “for their own purposes.” This casting of news coverage as competing narratives — not actual events and facts to be relayed as such — dominates much of the Times coverage of Israel. It’s a journalistic dodge, a pusillanimous refusal to state the facts, many of which reflect badly on the Palestinian side.

It is a fact that Hamas concocted the baby story — a gruesome falsehood to whip up hatred and violence against Israelis — and that Israel sought to neutralize it with the truth. The aim of one party was to incite hatred by whatever means and the other’s was to fend off the virulent propaganda. Walsh’s false equation glossed over the full, unpleasant facts about Hamas’ unique responsibility and callous exploitation of a baby’s death.

In addition, a major development in the story went entirely unmentioned by the Times. It was reported in other media outlets that an uncle of the child claimed that Hamas paid the family thousands of dollars to invent the story about Layla dying of tear gas inhalation at the hands of the Israelis. Covering this twist in the saga would have substantially added to public understanding of Israel’s conduct and that of its adversary.

During the riots, hundreds of Israelis living in communities close to the border knew that many rioters had maps intended to guide potential terrorists who breached the fence to Jewish homes and kindergartens. They could hear and see the daily rioting of those seeking to invade their neighborhoods, they could smell the smoke of burning tires, and they watched thousands of acres of their farmland and nature preserves destroyed. Their personal stories were invisible to readers.

The role of a shill is also to conceal any nefarious intent by the huckster, to protect the sheen of the product. Consistent with this, the Times’ highly selective attention to the facts served to conceal Hamas’ own double message. While the terror group sought to gain advantage in the global court of public opinion on the one hand, it also sought to assure its own domestic audience that its warriors were continuing the long fight to annihilate Israel.

Thus, on May 16 Hamas leader Salah al-Bardawil went on camera to counter potentially damaging claims that Hamas was exploiting women and children, and to note that 80% of those killed were affiliated with Hamas or other fighting groups. The Times never reported this key information that those killed were — despite the paper’s own dramatic focus on two young females and its constant reference to “protesters” — overwhelmingly male combatants.

Hamas incited its people to storm the borders in antisemitic mass rallies, threatening Jews with the return of Muhammad’s armies, and calling for “death to Israel” and the supplanting of Israel “from the river to the sea” (according to MEMRI). But Times reporters ignored it all. And Hamas leaders understood that they could broadcast their message to large audiences in full view of the media with little if any risk that it would reach Times readers.

For instance, correspondent Declan Walsh reported on the May 17 Times podcast, referencing an appearance by Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh near the border fence, that crowds were chanting: “No more peaceful protests. We want rocket-firing.” In fact, the language of the screaming crowd heard in the background was much more violent, and included the familiar threat that Mohammad’s armies are coming, as well as “Death to Israel.”

Walsh claimed, “We’ve had these protests that have been largely peaceful along the border fence that have brought an immense amount of sympathy to the people of Gaza, and I suppose have been a sort of public relations boon for Hamas.”

Indeed, those “protests” surely have been a PR boon for the Palestinians. And the Times has been the abettor, denying readers the full reality, and encouraging more exploitation and deception from Hamas in the next round of fighting.

Andrea Levin is executive director and president of CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America.