The New York Times, on Gaza, 16 September 2026

3.5

out of 10, scored on 5 of 11 checks. Few checks applied, so read it with that in mind.

Why Israel Wants More One-Ton Bombs From the U.S.

Select an underlined passage to see the reasoning.

View all 3 checks

The Trump administration’s decision to send 60,000 powerful one-ton bombs to Israel as part of a $2.8 billion deal — one of the largest arms agreements ever — will allow Israel to replenish its supply of a munition it considers vital. The weapons became the focus of great tension between the Biden administration and Israel after one-ton bombs were widely used in densely populated areas of Gaza where Israel had steered civilians for their safety . With opposition to military assistance to Israel growing in Washington, such a huge sale of heavy bombs, paid for by the U.S. government, could be an effort by the administration to stock up the Israeli arsenal before political shifts make such shipments impossible, analysts said. The Israeli military pivoted toward the use of the one-ton bombs after the Hamas-led attack against southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, drastically changing its shopping list, U.S. government data show. In 2025, Israel bought nearly eight times as many one-ton bombs from the United States as it did from 2012 to 2015. Israel’s emphasis on buying and using some of the largest bombs currently made runs counter to that of most other modern militaries, which have been making their aerial munitions smaller and even more accurate in the hopes of limiting civilian casualties during combat. Israel has used a vast amount of the one-ton bombs in large part to target the tunnel network Hamas developed in Gaza for its fighters, weapons and command centers. Israeli officials have said that Hamas fighters intentionally embed themselves among civilians, forcing the Israeli military to risk killing civilians. We are having trouble retrieving the article content. Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? Log in . Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

Read the original article on nytimes.com (opens in a new tab)
Watchdog assessment and method

The headline editorialises, and one side gets far more space.

The double standard

The article names Hamas as the active agent behind civilian risk while leaving Israeli agency over civilian deaths in the passive or institutional voice, applying a stricter standard of attribution to Hamas's conduct than to Israel's.

How it builds, in Hamas embedding claim versus Gaza civilian deaths framing

  1. No actor named for bomb use; passive voice hides agent

    one-ton bombs were widely used in densely populated areas of Gaza where Israel had steered civilians for their safety

    Agentless passive: who used the bombs is not the grammatical subject

  2. Israel named but purpose framed as military necessity

    Israel has used a vast amount of the one-ton bombs in large part to target the tunnel network Hamas developed in Gaza for its fighters, weapons and command centers

    Actor named but immediately contextualised by legitimate military rationale

  3. Hamas named as deliberate agent; Israel cast as reluctant

    Israeli officials have said that Hamas fighters intentionally embed themselves among civilians, forcing the Israeli military to risk killing civilians

    Named actor with stated intent; sourced only to Israeli officials, presented without counter-attribution

The same decision, both sides

Attribution of agency over civilian deaths

Israel's role in civilian deaths is rendered in the passive voice, with no named actor pulling the trigger.

one-ton bombs were widely used in densely populated areas of Gaza where Israel had steered civilians for their safety

Hamas is named as the deliberate agent whose choices produce civilian casualties, with intent explicitly stated.

Hamas fighters intentionally embed themselves among civilians, forcing the Israeli military to risk killing civilians

Source qualification for claims about civilian harm

The assertion that Israel directed civilians to the bombed areas is stated as plain fact with no attributed source.

densely populated areas of Gaza where Israel had steered civilians for their safety

The claim that Hamas deliberately uses civilians as cover is attributed to Israeli officials, yet no opposing or independent source is offered to qualify or contest it.

Israeli officials have said that Hamas fighters intentionally embed themselves among civilians, forcing the Israeli military to risk killing civilians

What a reader is left with. A reader is left with the impression that Hamas bears deliberate, named, intentional responsibility for civilian deaths, while Israel's role is either grammatically absent or immediately softened by military rationale, making the two sides' conduct appear morally asymmetric in Israel's favour.

How the Watchdog checks articles

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from The New York Times

  1. 9 OctNavi Pillay, South African Jurist, Is Awarded the Nobel Peace Prize3.0
  2. 9 OctIsrael Denounces the Decision to Award the Nobel Peace Prize to Navi Pillay3.0
  3. 7 OctOn This Day, Oct. 7: In 2023, Hamas-led Militants Launched Surprise Attacks on Israel3.0
  4. 6 OctWhat Went Wrong in the Effort to Free the Oct. 7 Hostages?0.0
  5. 2 OctIsrael Lists 170 Killed in Gaza It Says Were Militants Posing as Media Workers3.0

Everything we scored from The New York Times

See how 62 outlets covered this story