On May 15, the Kingston Whig-Standard published a column by Geoffrey P. Johnston describing what he called a “catastrophic” humanitarian situation in Gaza. The commentary, citing claims of widespread famine and food scarcity, laid blame solely on Israel, attributing the crisis to the Israeli blockade and military actions. Nowhere did Johnston mention why the war began, nor did he consider the role of Hamas—the terrorist regime currently in power in Gaza and which has stolen much of the international aid—or even Egypt, which also shares a border with the Strip and which also restricts crossings.
The piece opened with a quote from the United Nations: “The UN and our partners are desperate to resume humanitarian aid at scale across Gaza in line with the fundamental principles of humanity, impartiality, independence and neutrality.” The invocation of the United Nations as a neutral actor is at best questionable, and at worst misleading. Perhaps Johnstone needs to be reminded of the close UN connection to Hamas. Last year, UNRWA, the UN agency in Gaza, fired nine of its staff after it was revealed that they participated in the October 7 massacres. This comes after UNRWA previously fired 12 staffers and put seven staffers on administrative leave without pay over the claims.
These are not just isolated incidents; they speak to a deeper problem of bias, terrorist support and compromised credibility. Yet none of this context made it into Johnston’s framing of the UN as a benevolent actor simply trying to feed the hungry.
Even as Johnston briefly cited a study that makes clear that “famine is not occurring now in the Gaza Strip,” the article strived to construct the impression of the exact opposite. This follows a pattern that has become all too familiar: for nearly 20 months, media outlets and international groups have repeatedly warned that Gaza is on the brink of famine or genocide. Despite the constant cascade of ominous headlines, these outcomes have not materialized.
Johnston quoted Abeer Etefa, senior spokesperson for the World Food Programme, who warned that the continued conflict and blockade “would lead to a critical lack of access to supplies and services that are essential to survival.” Etefa claimed that “all humanitarian aid and commercial supplies have been blocked from entering Gaza for more than 70 days,” and described a bleak situation in which markets are empty and access to basic goods is vanishing.
Yet Johnston failed to mention the primary reason for the ongoing closure of crossings and hostilities: Hamas. The terrorist group has repeatedly refused ceasefire proposals that would involve the return of Israeli hostages and its own disarmament. On multiple occasions, ceasefires were within reach but collapsed due to Hamas’ unwillingness to comply with these conditions. This is not an irrelevant detail—it is central to understanding the continued suffering in Gaza.
The article further cited an IPC (Integrated Food Security Phase Classification) report that claims a staggering 3,000% increase in the price of flour in some areas of Gaza, with a 25 kg bag now costing up to USD $520. This inflation is alarming, but again, Johnston neglected to mention a key factor: Hamas’ theft and resale of humanitarian aid. Numerous reports and eyewitness accounts have documented how Hamas seizes trucks of food and medicine, hoards supplies for its fighters, or sells them back to desperate civilians at inflated prices to fund its war machine.
Finally, if Johnston’s concern is truly with famine, it’s worth asking why he did not turn his attention to countries already experiencing verified famine conditions. In Burkina Faso, for instance, an estimated 40,000 people are living in famine—a number expected to rise. The situation is even worse in Sudan and South Sudan, where over 400,000 people face similar or worse conditions. These crises receive little media attention, perhaps because they cannot be framed as the fault of the Jewish state.
The implicit narrative in Johnston’s piece is clear: if Israel can be blamed, the story is worth telling. If not, the suffering of civilians elsewhere is simply not as compelling. This skewed moral framework not only erodes journalistic credibility but does real harm by distorting public understanding of the conflict and the broader humanitarian landscape.
The suffering of civilians—Israeli or Palestinian—should never be minimized. But a serious conversation about humanitarian aid, food insecurity, and wartime ethics must include all relevant facts, including the actions of terrorist actors like Hamas, and the challenges of operating in an area where aid agencies themselves have been infiltrated.
Selective outrage serves no one. Honest reporting demands more.
