The New York Times is facing criticism for publishing a guest essay last week titled “65 Doctors, Nurses and Paramedics: What We Saw in Gaza,” which accuses Israeli soldiers of intentionally shooting Gazan children in the head. The piece included X-ray images that experts argue appear altered.

Honest Reporting, a media monitoring organization, brought attention to several expert reviews of the images, which depicted bullets lodged in the skulls and necks of children. These reviews concluded that the images were manipulated.

One particular X-ray, showing a bullet lodged in the center of a child’s skull, was examined in multiple analyses. Experts in military and forensic ballistics noted that the bullet, a 5.56 caliber round, should have caused far more severe damage to the skull than what was displayed in the image.

Colonel Richard Kemp, a former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, remarked that even if the images were authentic, the article failed to provide proof that Israeli soldiers deliberately shot the children. He pointed out that Hamas could have been responsible, or the shots could have come from ricochets.

“Nothing here is proof of war crimes by the IDF. This x-ray, which looks suspicious anyway, certainly doesn’t prove it. Who is to say the head shots were not Hamas fire, either deliberately or unintentionally aimed at their own children? Hamas do use 5.56 as well as other calibres and they do murder their own people. If Israeli, who is to say whether they were crossfire, ricochet or otherwise not deliberately targeted and therefore not necessarily war crimes? Children can and have carried out terrorist acts for Hamas and therefore can be legitimate targets, no matter how tragic that is, including for the soldiers who are forced to deal with them,” Co. Kemp wrote.

Matt Tardio, a former sniper in the U.S. military and host of the Speak the Truth podcast, shared his insights on X (formerly Twitter). He commented, “As a former Law Enforcement Officer, Ret. Special Forces Soldier (Green Beret) and Sniper, I feel confident in saying I know the effects of 5.56 NATO (M855).”

“Conclusion: The NYT lied or failed to verify the information presented to them. This is based on the MV and BC of the M855 Ball ammo currently being used by the IDF,” he wrote.

Tardio then explained that the bullet in the image could not have stopped in the child’s head as shown in the X-ray. He detailed how an M4 rifle firing the M855 round at a child’s head would result in far greater destruction, emphasizing the difficulty of hitting such a small target in combat.

“The M855 travels too fast at that range and is designed to penetrate. It would easily, without question, pass completely through a child’s skull at those ranges. This leads to the next question,” he added.

He also ruled out the possibility of the bullet being a ricochet, explaining that a ricochet would have deformed the bullet, whereas the X-ray image shows it in perfect condition.

Another expert, Cheryl E, who identifies as a forensic ballistics expert, offered her analysis on X, explaining that the type of skull damage depicted in the X-ray does not align with what would be expected from a 5.56 caliber round.

“The most important factor that determines the level of damage is velocity. And a 5.56 caliber high velocity rifle as is used by the IDF will therefore have a high degree of damage to the head and skull. None of the most obvious types of damage from any gunshot wound to the head nevertheless a 5.56 high velocity rifle shot are visible,” she explained.

She continued by detailing how a bullet passing through the skull at high speed causes significant fractures and damage, none of which are evident in the X-ray image presented.

“Once the bullet enters the head, especially at high velocity, it heats up and creates a shockwave in front of the bullet which widens as the bullet travels through the head causing more damage. The brain is a solid, soft and highly inelastic organ, which means the damage to the brain is such that it literally mushes. The shockwave on entry causes external gases to enter the head in front of the bullet and thus significant displacement of brain matter very rapidly which in turn causes the head to expand rapidly thus causing primary and secondary fractures in various areas of the skull. NONE such fractures are visible in these X-rays.”

She further explained that, for the bullets to stop in the location shown in the X-rays, they would have had to be fired from a very long distance or from a low-velocity weapon, not the high-velocity rifles typically used by the IDF.

A third expert, claiming to be a radiologist, added his perspective on X. He believed the images were doctored, noting that the edges of the bullets appeared irregular, while the bones looked smooth. He also pointed out that there was no visible entry wound along the bullet’s trajectory.

Others on social media shared authentic X-rays of skulls hit by 5.56 caliber rounds, which showed much more severe damage, including large exit wounds, further discrediting the images in the article.

In addition to critiquing the images, Honest Reporting also took issue with the article’s author, Dr. Feroze Sidhwa, accusing him of holding a pro-Hamas bias, as he has denied Hamas’ use of human shields in previous statements.

“To deny that Hamas use civilians as human shields and claim Israel does, as well as denying that ‘maximizing civilian deaths’ is in Hamas’ interests is not only delusional, it is an intentional, blatant lie. There are countries, journalists and international bodies, the UN included, which have confirmed the use of human shields. Hamas leaders, like Yahya Sinwar, have even been outspoken on the role innocent civilians play in their strategy to defeat Israel,” Honest Reporting stated.

Additionally, Honest Reporting pointed out that many of the doctors mentioned in the article were members of the Palestinian American Medical Association (PAMA), an organization that Honest Reporting claims is linked to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has faced accusations of antisemitism and ties to terrorist groups.

Honest Reporting concluded by stating that The New York Times should be more cautious when selecting sources, and that a cause, no matter how noble it may seem, should not compromise journalistic standards. “Consider your sources, and no mission that seems righteous should come at the expense of your publication’s integrity. Just because a claim fits your ideological worldview on Israel, it doesn’t remove the obligation to fact-check and do journalistic due diligence.”

In response to questions about the authenticity of the images, The New York Times defended the essay, stating, “A recent opinion essay gathered first-hand testimonies from 65 U.S.-based health professionals who worked in Gaza over the past year, who shared more than 160 photographs and videos with Times Opinion to corroborate their detailed accounts of treating preteen children who were shot in the head or chest. Following publication, some readers questioned the accuracy of the accounts and the authenticity of three CT images shown. Those criticisms are unfounded.”

The Times added, “Times Opinion rigorously edited this guest essay before publication, verifying the accounts and imagery through supporting photographic and video evidence and file metadata. We also vetted the doctors and nurses’ credentials, including that they had traveled to and worked in Gaza as claimed. When questions arose about the veracity of images included in the essay, we did additional work to review our previous findings. We presented the scans to a new round of multiple, independent experts in gunshot wounds, radiology and pediatric trauma, who attested to the images’ credibility. In addition, we again examined the images’ digital metadata and compared the images to video footage of their corresponding CT scans as well as photographs of the wounds of the three young children.

“While our editors have photographs to corroborate the CT scan images, because of their graphic nature, we decided these photos — of children with gunshot wounds to the head or neck — were too horrific for publication. We made a similar decision for the additional 40-plus photographs and videos supplied by the doctors and nurses surveyed that depicted young children with similar gunshot wounds.

“We stand behind this essay and the research underpinning it. Any implication that its images are fabricated is simply false.”

{Matzav.com}