Why Does the NYT Keep Lying About Biden “Trying to End the War”?

Partisan wishcasting from the paper of record is in direct contradiction with the White House’s own statements.

What does the New York Times know about White House policy that no one else does?

In three separate instances, the Times has broken major news—that the Biden administration has done a 180 and no longer opposes Hamas remaining in power in Gaza—but treated this major story like a throw-away line, a given, something that is not news. But it very much would be. 

Let’s look at some examples. New York Times White House correspondent Peter Baker has twice claimed in his articles that Biden seeks to “end the war” or some variation thereof. The first example was from April 29 when Baker wrote, “President Biden and his national security team see a narrow window to finally seal an agreement that would at least temporarily halt the war in Gaza and possibly end it for good.” 

Then, on May 6, Baker wrote an article, “Inside the White House Scramble to Broker a Deal in Gaza.” The sub-bheadline reads, “The flurry of actions underscores how fluid the situation in the region is as President Biden and his team try to ultimately end the war that has devastated Gaza.”

Then, on May 10, Nicholas Nehamas and Reid J. Epstein published an article, “Inside Biden’s Broken Relationship With Muslim and Arab American Leaders” about Arab and Muslim voters writing off the Biden campaign off that, again, re-asserted this benevolent goal, framing the conflict in the sub-headline as such: “Even as the president piles new pressure on Israel to end the war in Gaza, those who have called most passionately for him to change course say it is too little, too late.” 

This is not a trivial distinction. This copy isn’t just implying, it’s explicitly telling the reader the White House’s policy is to “end the war” and that this aim is simply being stopped by some mysterious ceasefire negotiations or Israel’s stubbornness.

But here’s the thing: this isn’t true. And if it is true, it’s major news the Times should be reporting out and explaining, not just throwing around like a given.

The White House has repeatedly made clear that its goal is that of the Israeli government’s: to “eliminate” or “defeat” Hamas. The White House, at no point, has publicly said it is willing to accept a post-War Gaza with Hamas still in power, which is what “ending the war” today would entail—by definition. 

At best, the latest deal the U.S. has signed off on is being framed by chief U.S. negotiator and head of the CIA William Burns as a “comma,” (as opposed to a period) rather than an “end to the war.” In his May 6 press briefing, U.S. National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications, John Kirby, conceded that an ideology could not be defeated militarily. But he went on to reaffirm that the U.S. is “aligned with Israel in its intention to eliminate the terrorist threat posed by Hamas” which wouldn’t be possible so long as Hamas remains a military threat in Gaza which they presently, very much are.

Kirby made it clear in February that the U.S. policy is to support a temporary pause that can facilitate aid flows and hostage exchanges, but they reject, on principle, a ceasefire as it’s normally understood. “We still don’t support a general ceasefire that would leave Hamas in charge,” Kirby told The New Yorker’s Isaac Chotiner. “What we do support is a temporary ceasefire, to get these hostages out and get the aid in.”

This is a PR cup-and-ball game the White House has been playing for months, but there’s no indication that its position has changed. And, again, if it has—this itself would be a major story. But it’s a story the Times, mysteriously, hasn’t seen fit to publish or even bring up beyond casually throwing it around in related coverage. 

Israel has said on a number of occasions that defeating Hamas will take “months,” and there’s no indication we are remotely close to this reality (if it ever could be one that doesn’t involve full-blown ethnic cleansing.) So if, as Baker, Nehamas, and Epstein indicate, Biden is pushing to “end the war,” this means one of two things is true: (1) The New York Times is simply making up a goal to “end the war” that the White House does not actually have; or (2) The White House quietly changed its position on Gaza and no one noticed or bothered to report out this significant change in policy. 

The obvious implication of (2) of course being that if the White House is okay with Hamas remaining in power, why didn’t it say so in October before 16,000 Palestinian children were killed? What was the point of the past seven months of carnage if the political dynamics will be exactly the same except a Gaza that is uninhabitable and tens of thousands dead from bombing, preventable disease, and starvation? What did the U.S. sign off to support if not a gratuitous campaign of revenge? 

What, by their own standards, has been achieved? If the White House is okay returning back to the pre-October 7 status quo (an inevitable outcome, as I noted in December) then what is the point of sending another $26 billion to Israel other than to back its unrelenting Bronze Age war of revenge?

Just the same, the Times’ extensive reporting on U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the White House’s “day after” scenarios makes no mention of Hamas remaining in power in Gaza. Do the “Biden wants to end the war” reporters talk to the “day after” reporters? Should they meet at a water cooler in the Times office and compare notes? Because these two alleged policies are in direct contradiction. 

The stakes of this lie—or, at best, wishful thinking based on vibes and assumptions of White House necessary doublespeak—could not be higher. It’s not a small fact. Because if the Biden team can paint themselves as good-faith peacemakers “trying to end the war” simply running into headstrong Hamas and Israeli negotiators, then they morally and optically wash their hands of the on-going carnage. If they can show good intention, if not results, they can stem off the ever-growing anger of their arming, funding, and supporting Israel’s campaign of de-population and mass killing. When a 1,500-word article about Arab and Muslim anger over Biden begins by asserting that they’re mad despite “the president piling new pressure on Israel to end the war,” it makes those refusing to back him seem hot-headed, irrational and unmovable, which is entirely the point. But they have no reason to believe he’s actually trying to end the war, because—despite assertions made by the New York Times over and over again—the White House doesn’t claim it is. And if it is, indeed, secretly fine with Israel calling it, and leaving Hamas in Gaza, then this would be an explosive, 180-degree shift in policy the Times should probably dedicate a few reporters to clarifying and laying out. Absent this actual news reporting, their reporters and editors should probably stop making up peace-loving White House policy goals that we have no evidence exist.