Chora, Hawija, and the al-Ahli hospital blast: a case of Dutch media bias

Does the name Chora mean anything to you? How about Hawija? Unless you are Dutch, an Afghan or an Iraqi – and that might not matter much more either – these names will not ring any bells. But if I asked you about the al-Ahli hospital blast, many more people across the globe will remember what that means. In fact, most will probably say this about al-Ahli: an Israeli bombing of a hospital in Gaza that caused hundreds of deaths in October 2023.

Chora refers to a battle waged by the Dutch military in Afghanistan in 2007. The Taliban were about to encircle the area and a Dutch retreat would have meant that this strategic location would have fallen into enemy hands. The battle of Chora started on June 15^th and ended on June 19^th with a victory for Dutch forces. However, during the course of this battle, tens of civilians were killed when the military shelled the Chora valley, believing the Taliban to be operating in this region.

Hawija refers to a city in Iraq that was held by Daesh in 2015. The Netherlands were part of the international coalition fighting the brutal Islamic State and were tasked with providing air support to Iraqi ground forces, both the army and loyalist militias. Though the Dutch contribution was much smaller than the American effort, it was still significant. In 2015, the Dutch Air Force was tasked with striking a Daesh weapons factory in Hawija. It did do this succcesfully, however, the industrial complex was close to a neighborhood. After the attack, more than 70 civilians were killed.

After reading John Meister’s latest post about Hamas manipulating casualty rates and the international media’s readiness to use them uncritically, I wanted to show an example of this media bias by looking at the Dutch public broadcaster NOS. It is a respected news source, ostensibly unbiased, and its evening news has been a staple for decades. Every day, it ranks among the top watched programs. By comparing coverage of actions of the Dutch military to the reporting on the al-Ahli hospital blast, I will attempt to show this media bias. For this post I will mostly rely on Dutch articles, published on the NOS website.

The battle of Chora

Let us start with Dutch forces in Chora. As part of ISAF, Dutch troops were stationed in the Afghan province of Uruzgan. The Chora Valley was part of the territory they needed to protect. The Dutch mission was supposed to protect the local population against the Taliban, by providing security and offering support through the building of roads, digging of wells, and establishing schools. In fact, the Dutch forces were appreciated by the local population and when the potential retreat of Dutch forces was discussed in 2010, the local population signed a petition to request the Dutch to stay. Roughly 100-150 signatures were gathered and the Dutch military was credited with helping reduce the opium trade as well.

In 2011, the NOS obtained WikiLeaks documents about the battle of Chora. In these documents, American generals lauded the Dutch offensive against the Taliban. An initial report about 30 civilian casualties was dismissed by the US as exaggerated, but it also noted that Afghan leaders understood that they should not criticize the Dutch too much, otherwise they might leave the region. However, based on the documents, the NOS concluded that the Dutch military had adhered to the international laws of war and that, therefore, there was no reason for Dutch prosecutors to investigate. This is four years after the battle of Chora when civilian casualties – not deaths, casualties – are mentioned by the NOS for the first time.

Fast forward to 2021, ten years after the last article about Chora on the NOS website. Now, it shares information produced by the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant on how NATO command warned Dutch forces three times about harm to civilians in Chora in 2007. By now, it becomes clear that in the battle of Chora, Dutch forces killed 50 to 80 civilians. The Dutch commander argued that civilians were warned to leave the combat area beforehand and reiterated that Dutch forces, numbering roughly 80 in total, were at risk of being surrounded and overrun by 800 to 1000 Taliban fighters. Dutch prosecutors, as well as a UN and an Afghan human rights organization, argued that the strikes were lawful. Nonetheless, a Dutch court requested that the Defense Ministry would, once again, explain its actions during the battle, as bereaved families had hired a Dutch lawyer to sue the government, claiming that the strikes were disproportionate and that no warning was received. The Defense Ministry stressed again that a warning was given and argued that most civilians had evacuated the area. However, during the trial military documents showed that ISAF was no longer fired upon from the valley on the night of June 17, 2007, yet the order was given to shell the valley, resulting in the civilian deaths and wounded. In 2022, the NOS published an article about one strike on a compound that killed 20 members of one family in 2007. This strike was considered unlawful by the Dutch court, but not a war crime. In 2023, the Defense Ministry decided not to appeal the court’s verdict, but reiterated that it was not a war crime. Financial compensation was offered to the victims, on top of voluntary government compensation years earlier.

What is striking is how much time has passed since the battle of Chora before all the facts about civilian casualties come to light. The military’s reasoning is questioned by Dutch media, though not necessarily by the NOS in this case, and it can take years to conduct a thorough investigation. For instance, in 2016 the Dutch network VARA aired a documentary about Chora, where Afghan civilians were interviewed who had been in the combat zone in 2007. It also appeared that the Australian military refused to participate in the offensive against the Taliban, citing that the risk of hitting civilians was too high. All in all, the fog of war seems to have been lifted for the first time by the NOS via an article four years after the battle and then the next significant article appears in 2021, 14 years after the battle.

The Hawija strike

In 2014, the gruesome terrorist organization Daesh created its so-called Islamic State and reached the pinnacle of its power, conquering land in Iraq and Syria. We all remember the horrible stories of Yazidi persecution, mass execution of prisoners of war, its reign of terror in cities like Mosul, and numerous international terror attacks, many of them in France. An international coalition was formed, led by the United States, in which the Dutch Air Force participated as well. This coalition, which consisted of Iraqi government and militia ground forces too, was launched to destroy Islamic State and free the region and its people from the tyranny of Daesh. The Western part of the coalition was supposed to provide aerial support in the form of air strikes, of course. Considering that the IDF had fought Hamas in the summer of 2014 in a war that caused roughly 2,000 Palestinian deaths – without the media, including the NOS, distinguishing between combatants and civilians – I was wondering how Israel’s Western allies would conduct themselves in Iraq and Syria. I remember John Kerry being caught on an open mic, sarcastically saying that Israel was conducting “a hell of a pinpoint operation” in 2014. It seemed that they would now show the world how it should be done. To be fair, I have never believed in “clean” wars. War is always tragic, which is why you must do everything in your power to prevent it from happening in the first place. Sometimes, that is impossible. However, the destructive force of air power has always killed civilians in the process, from the Second World War to the present. Even with the introduction of precision strikes and laser-guided munitions, the risk of civilian casualties can and must be reduced as much as possible, but it cannot be eliminated, unfortunately. However, I remember being astonished that Western media, including the NOS, provided us with very little information about the air campaign against Daesh. It was almost as if they took government press releases at face value. Numerous strikes were launched on heavily built up areas, such as Raqqa and Mosul. In general, we were told that Daesh was being pounded by the Americans, the French, and the Dutch, among others. No doubt this was the objective and absolutely necessary, but in terms of casualties we were notified of very little. By comparison, whenever hostilities erupted between Hamas and Israel, we received daily updates of casualties, provided by the Hamas-controlled Gazan Health Ministry. Now, however, no daily updates. Regular, generally short notifications, such as “today the French Air Force struck Daesh targets in Raqqa.” All right, how many casualties? The discrepancy in reporting was significant, at least to me. While the international coalition warned people to leave combat zones, I imagined that it would be ridiculous to expect that all would heed this order. But media reports about casualties were rare, which brings me to Hawija.

In 2015 the Dutch Air Force struck a Daesh weapons factory in Hawija. The strike itself was successful. This time, the NOS would conduct its own investigation of the strike in cooperation with Dutch newspaper NRC, which would take years. The first article on the NOS website about an issue with the strike in Hawija again took a long time: four years after the fact. In 2019, the NOS shared that the government had informed parliament for the first time about 70 civilians killed in the Dutch strike on Hawija. In 2020, an article was posted that stated that intelligence was lacking, as the amount of explosives in the factory was much larger than anticipated. In addition, it now turned out that the strike had destroyed 137 buildings, 25 of which were in a residential area. The NOS and NRC obtained this information from an investigation conducted by the American Department of Defense. The intelligence concerning the weapons factory had been provided by the CIA, which already before the strike had warned of a high civilian casualty risk.

In 2020, the NOS received an award for its investigative journalism concerning the Hawija strike. In addition, the Dutch government allowed an independent committee – but a Dutch committee, led by former minister Winnie Sorgdrager – to investigate the strike, which was an exceptional move. Also, the Dutch government awarded four million euros to rebuild the destroyed residential area in Hawija in 2020. The reconstruction was to be carried out by two NGOs, but the mayor of Hawija argued in 2021 that nothing had been done – this is the last update from the NOS about this issue.

Fast forward to 2023. The committee is still in the midst of conducting its investigation and for the first time, since 2015, the Dutch Defense Ministry agreed to share data about air strikes in the war against Daesh. By now, several media have reported that as many as thousands of civilian casualties had occurred during international air strikes, but the Dutch government had kept arguing that its strikes were the exception. Only in 2018, the government acknowledged that some civilians had probably died.

We have arrived in 2025, as the NOS reports that the committee has wrapped up its investigation. It concludes that then-Defense Minister Jeanine Hennis informed the Dutch parliament too late and incorrectly on numerous occasions concerning the Hawija strike. In fact, the committee states that after the strike Hennis was already aware of possible civilian casualties, but chose not to share this information, because it had not been confirmed. When she received confirmation, she proceeded to inform parliament too late and incorrectly. Moreover, she and Defense brass maintained that the pilot could have chosen to abort the strike, but this was contested as the missile was fired from a large distance, making it impossible for the pilot to identify the situation on the ground. The current government has issued an apology to the bereaved families, but does not take responsibility, as the strike was considered lawful. Indeed, the strike was aimed at a terror target, a Daesh car bomb factory, and a massive secondary explosion seems to have destroyed the adjacent residential area.

But this is not the end of the story. Last month, the Volkskrant made a reconstruction of the strike, which led to a new search for footage of the strike. Dutch fighter jets are equipped with cameras, just like those of the IAF. Suddenly, the footage reappeared at an air base in Leeuwarden. The committee responded to this find angrily, as it had requested this footage from the Defense Ministry for a year and a half during its investigation, only to be told that it no longer existed, in the end. After reviewing the footage, the committee concluded that the commander knew of the civilian casualties, but did not add this to the official report. This is based on the fact that the footage shows that the residential area has been completely wiped out. Moreover, the pilot knew about the massive damage. For this reason, the committee now wishes to question everyone involved under oath, so no stone will be left unturned. The investigation into a strike conducted nearly ten years ago is still ongoing.

What matters is the way the NOS reports about this. First of all, it starts reporting about issues with Chora and Hawija years after the fact. Moreover, in both cases articles are produced even ten years after the events took place, with the NOS actively investigating Hawija too, even receiving an award for its work. For one thing, it shows how an investigation into a strike can take years as there are long gaps between updates given on the website. Secondly, the frequency of these reports is much lower when compared to NOS reporting about Israeli strikes, despite the fact that these are two Dutch examples of bombardments and strikes that killed civilians. Thirdly, the language is important, too, as the NOS provides very nuanced articles. Finally, in almost all articles about Chora and Hawija, civilian deaths are not categorized. There is hardly any mention made of the number of women and children among the dead.

The NOS articles are very balanced, nuanced, calmly quoting the government and other sources. Now, let us look at its reporting about the al-Ahli hospital blast.

NOS reporting about the al-Ahli hospital blast

Like most of the Western media, the NOS reported on the blast on the day itself, October 17, 2023. First of all, the article is much longer than anything produced about Chora or Hawija. The headline is revealing: “Many killed in strike on hospital in Gaza, Israel denies responsibility.” You see? Israel is immediately considered suspect. The article contains an Israeli explanation as to why it is not responsible, arguing that a failed PIJ rocket launch has caused the destruction. It then proceeds to include statements from PIJ and Hamas who both accuse Israel of lying, without providing any evidence. The NOS correspondent in Israel explains that Human Rights Watch even confirmed that Palestinian rocket misfires have occurred more often, but it is not certain if that was the case here. An investigation needs to be conducted, however, Israel usually refuses those, she adds. Then, the article contains numerous statements from multiple sources, many of whom implicate Israel. It quotes al-Jazeera, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Mahmoud Abbas, and the Gazan Health Ministry, without even once mentioning that it is controlled by Hamas. In addition, it includes shocking footage of the scene and it mentions a death toll of 500, even stating that authorities fear that “hundreds more” might be buried under the rubble.

The second article appears on the website on October 18, 2023. Again, the headline is telling: “This is what we now know about the bloodbath near the hospital in Gaza.” Interestingly enough, in none of the articles about Chora or Hawija does the NOS refer to a “bloodbath,” despite the relatively high civilian death toll. In this article, more details are provided concerning the casualties, verified footage is discussed and, for the first time, it mentions that the Gazan Health Ministry is controlled by Hamas. However, it again notes that the ministry claims that an Israeli missile was responsible. When mentioning the Israeli conclusion that PIJ was responsible, it follows up by quoting the latter’s spokesman, who calls the conclusion “nonsense.” It then proceeds to list all of the people taking to the streets in protest worldwide, including in Dutch cities. Again, a rather long article.

The third article appears on October 18^th as well, a few hours after the second one. The headline now reads that an air strike is unlikely, although it is mentioned in quotation marks. By now, it mentions that the parking lot was struck, where many Gazans were sheltering. It even quotes a Dutch defense specialist, who explains that an Israeli air strike is unlikely, because the impact crater would have been large and cars would have been blown away, none of which has happened. An image of the parking lot by day is included. The defense specialist questions the high death toll as well, and researchers from OSINT and Bellingcat consider it reasonable to state that the damage and casualties were caused by a Palestinian failed rocket launch. Again, the word “bloodbath” is used.

However, the second part of the article is an attempt by the NOS to clear its name. It mentions that every expert states that it is impossible to determine Israel’s innocence, without an independent investigation. This is fair, as the experts named in a Times of Israel article argue that they cannot determine with absolute certainty that a PIJ rocket was responsible either, though they consider it to be the most plausible explanation. But the NOS proceeds to use suggestive language again. For instance, when sharing the audio recordings released by the IDF, it states that Israel is “pulling out all the stops” on social media – wat kind of sarcastic language is this? It quotes a self-proclaimed Dutch Israel expert and historian, who says that Israel “lies so much, that it has lost all credibility.” In other words, it is Israel’s own fault that international media accuse them without producing clear evidence. The NOS continues by wading into a discussion on an information war, quoting the same expert who says that Hamas’ communications reach fewer people in the West than Israel – yes, I could not believe this either – while Israel’s strategy is efficient and “slick.” As far as I can remember, Hamas does reach plenty of people in the West, but it does not even have to do so itself. On October 17, 2023 it could rely on its trusted megaphone al-Jazeera, which immediately accused Israel of a massacre and it was amplified by Western news outlets, from the NOS to the New York Times, BBC and countless other outlets, all of whom insinuated that Israel was responsible.  Because of this, people took to the streets across the globe immediately. This was the final article about the hospital blast on the NOS website and while the New York Times would later issue an apology to its readers and BBC’s international editor would much later admit mistakes, without expressing regret, the NOS never apologized. On the contrary, as I have shown it tried to absolve itself, by insinuating that Israeli authorities constantly lie and repeatedly mentioning that Israeli innocence can be proven by an independent investigation only.

Just one example of media bias

I have attempted to show how the NOS, one of the biggest news broadcasters in the Netherlands, uses a very different reporting style when discussing Dutch military actions resulting in civilian casualties, as opposed to reporting about Israel. Indeed, reports about civilian casualties concerning Chora and Hawija were published for the first time four years after the events. In fact, the NOS received an award for its investigation of Hawija, showing that it does know how to report professionally. In both cases, the Dutch government’s narrative was accepted rather easily by the NOS, initially. And, it needs to be mentioned, Dutch soldiers risked their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq fighting terrorism and in the latter contributed to the fall of the Daesh terror regime. But mistakes can be made, unfortunately. For too long media have accepted that the international coalition against Daesh was successful in launching air strikes without causing any civilian casualties. But, even now, Western media outlets pay significantly less attention to these air strikes, when compared to Israel. Do you know how many articles the BBC’s website provides about the Dutch air strike in Hawija? One, that is it. It shows that when Dutch military strikes cause substantial civilian casualties, international media outlets tend to ignore them, or accept press releases at face value. And in the case of Hawija, the Dutch government kept civilian casualties secret from the public for years. Oh, and Jeanine Hennis, the minister who kept this information from parliament? She is now the UN Special Coordinator for Lebanon and last year repeatedly cautioned and criticized Israel. Go figure.

When the NOS reports about Israeli strikes it is much more frequent, uses very different language, and takes much less time to report, than in the case of these two Dutch events I explained. Moreover, the fact that the NOS quotes an expert who argues that Israel is no longer credible, betrays something else – the NOS simply suspects Israel and everything it shares, while Hamas apparently gets the benefit of the doubt. In fact, when the Israeli embassy in the Netherlands organized a screening of the horrifying footage from October 7th in 2023 , the NOS declined the invitation. The reason? It was footage provided by a government authority. It shows that the NOS simply distrusts Israel while they, as professional journalists, should study the footage and then they can make a critical analysis, if they wish. It is what a journalist is supposed to do. But refusing to view it altogether, shows an anti-Israel bias. It was apparent in its reporting about al-Ahli, too.

So much for unbiased reporting.