An astounding feature of anti-Israel bias in the New York Times is the way it infects nearly every corner of the news organization—not only front-page foreign coverage or the opinion pages, but even the movie reviews, the food section, the dance criticism in the arts section. The latest department of the newspaper to join the anti-Israel chorus is the Times‘ Science section.

That section of the Times is usually a mixture of two main things. There’s rare-animal and outer-space photography destined for middle-school science class bulletin boards. And there’s exercise and wellness tips aimed at prolonging the longevity of, and subscription revenue from, the Times‘ aging readers.

Yet under the online headline “The Plight of the Palestinian Scientist,” a recent Times science section featured profiles of “four Palestinian researchers” who “describe how conflict in Gaza and the West Bank has hindered their careers in science and medicine.”

This is a fine example of how instead of writing a straight-down-the-middle, evenhanded article describing how the conflict has adversely affected both Israeli and Palestinian scientists, the Times is instead emphasizing articles that are designed to be clicked on and shared on social media by sympathizers to one side of the conflict or the other. The Times may argue that altogether its coverage presents a balanced and complete picture of the costs on both sides of the war. But because many people consume the coverage “off platform” — going directly to an individual story via social media or email sharing, rather than reading all Times coverage on a topic — the decision to highlight four Palestinians instead of, say, two Palestinian scientists and two Israeli scientists, gives readers only part of the story.

Israeli scientists, too, after all, have had their work disrupted by military obligations, by incoming rocket, drone, and missile attacks, by having students and family members kidnapped and killed in battle and called up for military service. The Times article mentions none of that, focusing only on the problems of the Palestinians.

For people whose careers have supposedly been “hindered,” some of the Times-interviewed scientists seem to be doing fairly well for themselves. One is a surgeon who the Times says studied and researched at Oxford and Harvard. Maybe without all the hindering he could have made it to train at some more genuinely impressive institution, like Yeshiva University?

The Times coverage is remarkably naive, and seems to think Times readers are, too. The paper writes that “experimental tools can be difficult to import into the West Bank and Gaza, because some equipment needed for research can also be used for military purposes. Israel classifies such goods as ‘dual use’ and requires special permission for civilians in the Palestinian territories to procure them.”

It’s not only Israel, though, that classifies goods as dual use. The United Kingdom, European Union, and United States all have similar systems. The Times doesn’t inform its readers of that, instead making it sound like Israel is uniquely cruel. And the Israeli concern is not merely theoretical, abstract, or imaginary. Israel has been attacked in deadly fashion and in recent years with rockets and through tunnels made from metal and concrete diverted from civilian purposes to military use.

The Times features a 50-year-old organic chemist at the Islamic University of Gaza complaining he’s had a hard time obtaining “chemicals with which to conduct sophisticated experiments.”

The Times does report that “last year, the Islamic University of Gaza, accused by the Israel Defense Forces of being a training camp for Hamas, was destroyed by Israeli airstrikes. Dr. Morjan’s teaching and research have since come to a halt.” The Times has the scientist discuss how “the lack of resources in Gaza has limited his research output,” but it doesn’t ask him to discuss whether Hamas was indeed putting his university at risk by using it as a training camp, or whether one reason for the “lack of resources” is that Hamas has devoted so many of Gaza’s resources to waging terrorist warfare against Israel.

Can the Israelis really be reasonably faulted for restricting the flow of chemicals to the Islamic University of Gaza, in light of the real risks that they might be diverted and used to develop chemical or biological weapons for use against Israel? The Times sure tries, but it is quite a stretch.

There are lots of good reasons to pray for an Israeli complete victory followed by peace in the Middle East. Somewhere low down on the list, but nonetheless there, is the hope that the Times science section can revert to its prewar practices of covering pandas and planets, penicillin and prostates, rather than accusing Israel of causing Palestinians pain.

Ira Stoll was managing editor of The Forward and North American editor of The Jerusalem Post. His media critique, a regular Algemeiner feature, can be found here.

The post New York Times Tackles ‘The Plight of the Palestinian Scientist’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.