Full Analysis Summary
September 2024 Lebanon attacks
In September 2024, thousands of pagers and similar devices across Lebanon were remotely triggered in a campaign that detonated or loudly malfunctioned, drawing people toward them and causing mass casualties, including during public funerals.
The assaults killed 42 people and wounded thousands, many suffering severe facial, eye, and hand injuries.
Reporting connects the attacks to Israeli operations and indicates the use of advanced targeting tools; a new biography of Palantir co-founder Alex Karp by Michael Steinberger reports that Israeli forces used Palantir software in these operations and that demand from Israel grew after the October 2023 Gaza war.
United Nations experts and rights groups have described the strikes as grave violations of international law.
Citations below summarize the accounts and the scale of harm reported.
Coverage Differences
Reporting emphasis and sourcing
Middle East Eye (Western Alternative) emphasizes Palantir's direct role and adds specific operational details reported in Michael Steinberger's biography — including a campaign codename and claims that Palantir sent engineers — while Harici (West Asian) reports the same attack and casualties but focuses on the triggering of pagers and the civilian toll without the additional company‑support detail. The Middle East Eye article explicitly 'says' or 'reports' Palantir involvement and engineers sent from London, whereas Harici 'says' the book attributes the attacks to use of the company's software without mentioning engineers.
Device attacks and casualties
Two accounts describe the method and timeline in similar terms.
On 17-18 September thousands of devices owned by Hezbollah members and many civilians exploded or emitted loud errors to lure people close, and additional devices detonated at funerals the following day.
Reports emphasize that civilians not involved in fighting were affected, underscoring the humanitarian impact and the indiscriminate nature of the campaign.
Coverage consistently reports 42 killed and thousands injured, many suffering severe facial, eye, and hand injuries.
Coverage Differences
Tone and focus on civilian harm
Harici (West Asian) frames the event as a direct attack on civilians — specifying pagers belonging to Hezbollah members including "civilians not involved in fighting" — while Middle East Eye (Western Alternative) provides similar harm detail but layers it with reporting on tech‑company involvement and reactions from U.N. experts and rights groups. Harici focuses on the triggering and casualty descriptions; Middle East Eye adds legal and corporate accountability context, including UN experts calling the strikes a "terrifying" violation of international law.
Discrepancies in reporting details
Middle East Eye provides additional operational and corporate detail from Steinberger's biography that Harici's account neither denies nor repeats.
It names a campaign codename, 'Operation Grim Beeper', and reports that Palantir engineers were sent from London to support Israeli users.
Harici cites the new book's attribution of Palantir software use but omits the codename and the engineers claim, a notable omission that highlights differences between the two narratives and renews criticism of tech companies' roles in surveillance and military operations.
Coverage Differences
Unique detail and omission
Middle East Eye (Western Alternative) uniquely reports the campaign codename 'Operation Grim Beeper' and that 'Palantir sent engineers from London to support Israeli users' — details taken from Steinberger's biography — while Harici (West Asian) reports the book's claim that Palantir software was used but omits the codename and the engineers detail. This is a difference of specific operational detail versus broader attribution.
Tech firms and scrutiny
Both sources report the revelations triggered fresh scrutiny and criticism from rights groups and U.N. officials over tech companies' involvement in military operations and surveillance.
Middle East Eye explicitly reports that United Nations experts called the strikes a 'terrifying' violation of international law and that the revelations renewed criticism of Palantir.
Harici frames the account mainly as a report on the book's claims about the use of Palantir software and the civilian toll, implying concern but without quoting the same international-law language.
Coverage Differences
Narrative framing and quoted authority
Middle East Eye (Western Alternative) uses quoted authority — 'United Nations experts called the strikes a “terrifying” violation of international law' — to frame the attacks as potential international crimes and to tie corporate responsibility into that framing. Harici (West Asian) reports the book's attribution and casualty details but does not include the UN experts' quoted designation in its snippet, resulting in a stronger legal framing in Middle East Eye's coverage compared with Harici's more descriptive report.
Comparing two reports
The two sources present a largely consistent account of a deadly September 2024 campaign that used pagers to cause civilian casualties in Lebanon and attribute Palantir software use to Israeli forces.
They differ in the level of operational and corporate detail they provide and in how they frame legal issues.
Middle East Eye (Western Alternative) supplies specific operational names and corporate-support claims from Steinberger's biography and highlights UN condemnation, while Harici (West Asian) focuses on the triggering mechanism and the human impact described in the same book.
Where details are unclear or omitted, such as independent verification of Palantir engineer deployments beyond the book's reporting, that ambiguity should be noted.
Both pieces report the book's claims rather than offering independent confirmation, so readers should treat those claims as journalistic reporting from a biography rather than definitive adjudicated fact.
Coverage Differences
Ambiguity and source dependence
Both Middle East Eye and Harici are reporting on claims made in Michael Steinberger's biography of Alex Karp; Middle East Eye includes additional biographical claims (codename, engineers) and UN reaction, while Harici limits its reporting to the book's attribution of Palantir software use and casualty details. Neither source provides independent verification beyond the book's reporting, creating ambiguity about some operational details.