In today’s hyper-digital age, where fleeting visuals often dictate public sentiment and emotionally charged narratives overshadow verified facts, the greatest victim in any conflict is the truth. Nowhere is this more evident than in the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict, a prolonged crisis that has become fertile ground for carefully engineered propaganda and media manipulation.
While accusations of bias and selective reporting have surrounded international coverage of the region for decades, recent developments mark an alarming descent into a new realm of disinformation, one that involves the calculated exploitation of a disabled child to manufacture outrage and vilify Israel on the global stage.
At the centre of this propaganda storm is the image of a frail, visibly ill Palestinian boy, Muhammad Zakariya Ayyoub al-Matouq. His haunting photograph, eyes sunken, ribs protruding, has been shared thousands of times across platforms by prominent international media outlets and activists as alleged evidence of Israeli-inflicted starvation in Gaza. Emotive headlines such as “Gaza is starving,” “Netanyahu is committing genocide,” and “Children are dying every hour in besieged Palestine” have accompanied the image, further fuelling a wave of anti-Israel sentiment in the global psyche.
But a closer investigation into the boy’s condition reveals a different reality, one that major media houses have either willfully ignored or deliberately suppressed. Far from being a victim of Israeli blockade-induced famine, Muhammad suffers from a rare and chronic genetic disorder, neuromuscular atrophy, which causes severe muscle wasting, progressive weakness, and visible signs of malnourishment irrespective of food availability.
This fact, confirmed by medical records, local reports, and even by family members in non-public domains, demolishes the central claim that Israel’s military or humanitarian policy directly caused his suffering.
Yet, this truth was conveniently omitted. Instead, Western outlets chose to push a powerful image, stripped of medical context, detached from factual background, because it served a political purpose. The child’s image was not just news; it became weaponised content, recycled to provoke outrage, shape international discourse, and reinforce the narrative of a genocidal Israel. This move transcends mere journalistic negligence; it points to a deliberate act of emotional manipulation designed to influence public opinion through deceit.
Misuse of Muhammad Zakariya Ayyoub al-Matouq’s image
Prominent Western outlets like The New York Times (NYT), NBC News, CNN, The Guardian, BBC, Daily Express, Daily Mail, Seattle Times, The Age (Australia), and Osservatore Romano (official newspaper of the Vatican) widely circulated an image of Muhammad Zakariya cradled in his mother’s arms. This photograph, originally clicked by Ahmed Jihad Ibrahim Al-arini for Turkey-based Anadolu Agency, became emblematic of Gaza’s so-called “famine crisis” allegedly caused by Israeli attacks and blockades.
The NYT ran a piece stating, “Gazans Are Dying of Starvation. After 21 months of devastating conflict with Israel, Gaza’s most vulnerable civilians, the young, the old and the sick, are facing what aid groups say is impending famine.”
The Guardian echoed a similar sentiment with the article, “Starvation in Gaza is destroying communities and will leave generational scars” (23 July 2025). NBC News added emotional heft with its title, “A baby boy dies as starvation spreads across Gaza,” while Daily Express ran a glaring headline: “The suffering of little Muhammad clinging on to life in Gaza hell shames us all.”
All these narratives took a moral high ground, implicitly blaming Israel for the child’s condition. What none of them disclosed initially was that Muhammad Zakariya’s severe malnutrition was due to a rare genetic disorder, not because of food scarcity. In a rare instance of honesty, his mother told CNN that her child suffers from a rare muscle disorder, receives specialised nutrition, and undergoes physical therapy. Medical reports later confirmed that Muhammad suffers from cerebral palsy, hypoxemia, and other complications stemming from a genetic condition.
In a blatant display of selective storytelling, none of these media outlets included the photograph showing Muhammad’s older brother, who appears well-fed and healthy. This omission alone punctures the carefully curated narrative of a Gaza-wide starvation crisis caused solely by Israel.
Narrative manipulation is a modern-day blood libel
By portraying a disabled child as a victim of Israeli cruelty, these media outlets commit what many have called a modern-day blood libel, a historically anti-Semitic trope repackaged for contemporary audiences. The emotional impact of an emaciated child is enormous. It bypasses rational thinking and tugs at the heartstrings. For propaganda purposes, it is a goldmine. And yet, in this case, it is not only factually incorrect but also morally repugnant.
This is not mere sloppy journalism. It is a calculated manipulation. Platforms like Anadolu Agency, which have known Islamist leanings, became the primary sources of these images. Yet the Western media picked up these photos without verifying the context or investigating the child’s medical history. Instead, they used them to demonise Israel and exonerate Hamas, the very group responsible for plunging Gaza into perpetual war.
The bigger picture: Gaza’s crisis is real, but so is the misreporting
The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is indeed severe. There are food shortages, a lack of essential supplies, and devastating destruction. However, pinning all the blame on Israel is intellectually dishonest. Hamas, which continues to hold Israeli hostages and uses civilians as human shields, is the primary driver of the chaos. Despite this, it receives barely any criticism from these same media outlets.
In reality, the blockade on Gaza exists because Hamas has repeatedly used humanitarian aid to smuggle arms and fund terror infrastructure. By ignoring this context, the media shifts global sympathy away from the actual victims, including Israelis targeted by Hamas, to a distorted caricature of Israeli brutality.
Media’s pattern of pro-Hamas bias: From hiring Hitler sympathisers to concealing Hamas ties
This incident is not isolated. It follows a disturbing pattern of media houses abandoning journalistic ethics to amplify Hamas propaganda. In October 2023, shortly after Hamas massacred Israeli civilians, The New York Times rehired Soliman Hijjy, a Gaza-based journalist known for praising Adolf Hitler. Despite his record, NYT defended its decision, stating that Hijjy had taken steps to adhere to journalistic standards.
Unsurprisingly, Hijjy was part of NYT’s coverage, accusing Israel of bombing the Al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza. That report, which heavily relied on Hamas sources, turned out to be false. NYT later issued a muted clarification, but the damage was already done.
BBC, too, has had its fair share of controversies. In July 2025, it admitted that its documentary “Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone” violated editorial guidelines. The narrator of the film was a 13-year-old boy, the son of a Hamas official. This critical conflict of interest was never disclosed, not even after multiple internal queries. The documentary was pulled only after widespread outrage and complaints.
The CEO of BBC News, Deborah Turness, acknowledged the oversight, promising tighter editorial controls and vetting mechanisms. Yet, the incident exposed the BBC’s deep-rooted editorial negligence when it comes to Hamas-linked content.
Another controversial film, “Gaza: Doctors Under Attack,” was also shelved by the BBC due to impartiality concerns. Lead journalist Ramita Navai publicly called Israel a “rogue state committing war crimes” on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme, violating the broadcaster’s impartiality norms. The BBC ultimately deemed her language incompatible with its journalistic standards.
BBC’s double standards on religious violence: The case of Bangladesh Hindus
The BBC’s bias is not confined to Israel. When Islamist mobs attacked Hindu minorities in Bangladesh, the BBC downplayed the religious motivation behind the violence. On 18 August, the BBC published an article titled, “Far-right spreads false claims about Muslim attacks in Bangladesh”. The piece co-authored by Jacqui Wakefield and Shruti Menon claimed that videos and accounts depicting Hindu persecution were false or exaggerated.
Even as over 200 attacks on Hindu temples and shops were documented, the BBC focused on defending Muslim perpetrators and politicising the violence as merely fallout from Bangladesh’s political tensions. It conveniently ignored the fact that Hindus make up less than 9 percent of Bangladesh’s population and that attacks were targeted specifically at Hindu religious institutions, not political figures.
Further, the BBC showcased Muslims allegedly guarding temples as a sign of harmony, without addressing the irony that such protection was needed only because other Muslims were attacking them. The attackers’ religious identity was downplayed, while that of the so-called protectors was highlighted, a textbook case of narrative bias.
A consistent pattern of bias and narrative engineering
The use of Muhammad Zakariya’s image as a propaganda tool in Gaza, the hiring of Hitler-praising journalists, the concealment of Hamas connections in documentaries, and the whitewashing of Islamist violence in Bangladesh all point to a systematic bias. Western media giants like the NYT, BBC, and CNN have time and again manipulated facts, concealed critical information, and used emotional imagery to paint a one-sided picture.
The question arises: why? One reason may be ideological alignment with Islamo-leftist worldviews, which see Israel as a colonial oppressor and Hamas as freedom fighters. Another reason could be the need for sensationalism and clicks, nothing sells like suffering children, especially when a politically convenient villain can be found.
However, this biased journalism comes at a cost. It fuels antisemitism, undermines factual discourse, and disrespects real victims, be it a disabled child being used as a pawn or Hindu minorities being erased from global attention.
Journalism or Jihadism by proxy?
The media, in any civilised democracy, holds immense power; it can be the voice of the voiceless, the watchdog of truth, and the pillar of accountability. But that same power, when misused, becomes a tool of distortion, capable of obscuring reality, inciting hatred, and enabling destructive narratives.
In the case of the Israel-Gaza conflict, this power has been recklessly wielded by global media giants such as the BBC, The New York Times, and CNN. Once respected for their journalistic rigour, these institutions have increasingly shed the mantle of objectivity and embraced a role far removed from responsible reporting. They no longer act as impartial observers; instead, they have become narrative engineers, activists cloaked in the garb of journalists, serving agendas that, at times, overlap dangerously with extremist ideologies and terror-linked causes.
The time has come for accountability. If journalism is to reclaim its credibility, global media institutions must answer for their role in fuelling misinformation, distorting public perception, and eroding the very foundation of informed discourse. The world deserves facts, not fiction masquerading as news. And the families of children like Muhammad deserve dignity, not exploitation at the hands of agenda-driven editorial boards.
Comments