FOR FREE PEOPLE

Join Us for Our Next Book Club!

FOR FREE PEOPLE

Why Is ‘The New York Times’ Not Disclosing a Source’s Ties to Hamas?
An UNRWA employee surveys wreckage in Gaza. The New York Times has quoted Hussein Owda four times without mentioning his work history suggesting links to Hamas. (Majdi Fathi via Getty Images)

Why Is ‘The New York Times’ Not Disclosing a Source’s Ties to Hamas?

The NYT, NBC News, and Al Jazeera all called the same man to explain strife in Gaza: Hussein Owda. None revealed that he worked for the Hamas-controlled government.

On October 7, 2024—one year after Hamas invaded Israel, murdering 1,200 people—The New York Times published an episode of its flagship podcast, The Daily. It featured two men on opposite sides of the conflict: an Israeli man who’s moved from hotel to hotel after Hamas destroyed his community, and a father trying to survive in Gaza. 

But while the Israeli man was described in full—as a “liberal” 44-year-old father named Golan Abitbul, born and raised on Kibbutz Be’eri, the Palestinian man’s identity was shrouded in secrecy. The New York Times simply referred to him as “Hussein, a Palestinian man living in Gaza.” The host, Sabrina Tavernise, did not ask Hussein any follow-up questions when he revealed that, unlike most Gazans right now, he has “a good income” and is able to pay about $1,000 a month for rent. And she let him explain—uninterrupted—about why, a year later, the war ravages on.

“I’m surprised that there is humans doing this force,” Hussein said of Israeli soldiers, in broken English. “How could human became this evil, killing others, imposing collective punishment on over two million people with no reason? What are they going to gain? Why they are doing this?”

But what Tavernise did not say is that “Hussein” is Hussein Owda, whose name is listed in the show notes on audio platforms that host the podcast, including Spotify and Apple Podcasts. And what The New York Times does not reveal is that Owda’s background suggests links to Hamas. A simple Google search turns up his LinkedIn page, where he publicly lists an eight-year stretch working for the Municipality of Gaza, which sources told me is controlled by Hamas; a new job at the controversy-riddled United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (also known as UNRWA); and an eight-month stint at Muslim Hands, a nonprofit exposed by the UK’s Telegraph in 2014 for having “close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.” Hamas was originally established in the 1980s as the local Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Why Is ‘The New York Times’ Not Disclosing a Source’s Ties to Hamas?
Hussein Owda (via LinkedIn)

From September 2015 until August 2023, Owda lists his job as the head of public relations for the Municipality of Gaza. “Every government structure in Gaza was run by Hamas,” Jon Schanzer, a former terrorism analyst at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, told me. “The people that were paying his salary ultimately would’ve gone up the chain to Hamas itself.” Schanzer added that Owda, as the former head of public relations for the Municipality of Gaza, likely was “providing propaganda” to advance the mission of Hamas.

Meanwhile, three on-the-ground sources in Gaza—two of whom were provided through The Center for Peace Communications, which has a network of sources in the region—all confirmed to The Free Press that Owda has links to Hamas. One Gazan man who has met Owda said that “Employment at the municipality requires approval from the internal security, the local mosque’s emir, and Qassam Brigades intelligence,” referring to Al-Qassam Brigades, the militant wing of Hamas behind the group’s October 7 attack. Another Palestinian source in Gaza told The Free Press, “It’s impossible to get a job in the municipality unless you’re with Hamas.” (All sources in Gaza asked to withhold their names to protect them from possible retaliation by the terrorist group.)

In September 2023, one month before Hamas’s invasion of Israel, Owda’s LinkedIn page states that he left his job at the Municipality of Gaza to take a job as Multimedia Officer for UNRWA, the UN-controlled aid agency with suspected links to Hamas. In January, the U.S. State Department announced it was temporarily halting new funding to UNRWA, after being “extremely troubled” by allegations that twelve employees from the agency had participated in Hamas’s October 7 attack. 

When The Free Press asked The New York Times why its podcast concealed key parts of Owda’s identity and his Hamas ties, the paper replied with the following statement: “For the October 7, 2024 episode of ‘The Daily,’ we interviewed Mr. Owda as a father and private Gazan citizen to offer a snapshot of life on the ground, one year after the attack. We are aware of his employment with UNRWA, which we’ve disclosed in our earlier reporting,” said Danielle Rhoades Ha, SVP of external communications for the Times

In the link Rhoades Ha sent, Owda is cited as “an aid worker with UNRWA.” In total, the Times has quoted Owda four times—in two podcast episodes and two stories—citing his work for UNRWA twice but revealing no other affiliations.

When The Free Press asked Owda for comment via his Instagram account, he replied in a message, “Anyone knows me would know that I am far away from politics, and I don’t agree with Hamas. I only believe in humanity. And by the way none of the organizations I worked with is controlled by Hamas,” signing off with a laughing emoji.

Former Treasury analyst Schanzer, who is now a researcher at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said that not everyone employed by Hamas is a terrorist. Some, he said, are just trying to “put food on the table for their families.” Perhaps Owda is one of those people. And yet, for the past decade, he has been employed by entities linked to Hamas, and that ambiguity is why, Schanzer said, all cards should be laid out for the reader.

“Just saying he’s a municipal worker in this context?” he asked, referring to Owda. “It’s almost glib. Not mentioning his connection to Hamas at all? Now that’s a problem.”

Since Israel’s war against Hamas began, multiple legacy media outlets have quoted Owda as an ordinary citizen trying to survive the war. The first time The New York Times quoted Owda was last October, right after Israel launched its retaliatory ground invasion in Gaza, in which he said “every basic need for humans became a distant dream for us.” NBC News, in a report from this past March, identifies Owda as a “computer engineer” who said his home was destroyed—along with that of his parents, sister, brother, uncle, and grandfather. In January, Al Jazeera described Owda’s work as multimedia producer for UNRWA as “highlighting the plight of other displaced Palestinians and their suffering in light of the lack of safety, shelter, food, water, and healthcare.” Al Jazeera, it should be noted, is backed by the Qatari government, which harbors leaders of Hamas. NBC News and Al Jazeera did not reply to multiple requests for comment from The Free Press.

According to a new Gallup poll out last week, the media is now the least-trusted civic and political institution in America. That’s no surprise when you consider the fact that The New York Times has fallen for Hamas propaganda in the past. Or when you factor in the Timesdescription of the late Hezbollah terrorist Hassan Nasrallah as “beloved among many Shi’ite Muslims.” 

I asked New York Times spokeswoman Rhoades Ha over email if her paper would ever conceal an Israeli source’s connection to the Israeli government during a time of war. 

I did not receive an answer.

Olivia Reingold is a reporter for The Free Press. Follow her on X @Olivia_Reingold and read her piece, “How Hamas Infiltrated Europe.” 

To support The Free Press, become a subscriber today:

Subscribe now

our Comments

Use common sense here: disagree, debate, but don't be a .

the fp logo
comment bg

Welcome to The FP Community!

Our comments are an editorial product for our readers to have smart, thoughtful conversations and debates — the sort we need more of in America today. The sort of debate we love.   

We have standards in our comments section just as we do in our journalism. If you’re being a jerk, we might delete that one. And if you’re being a jerk for a long time, we might remove you from the comments section. 

Common Sense was our original name, so please use some when posting. Here are some guidelines:

  • We have a simple rule for all Free Press staff: act online the way you act in real life. We think that’s a good rule for everyone.
  • We drop an occasional F-bomb ourselves, but try to keep your profanities in check. We’re proud to have Free Press readers of every age, and we want to model good behavior for them. (Hello to Intern Julia!)
  • Speaking of obscenities, don’t hurl them at each other. Harassment, threats, and derogatory comments that derail productive conversation are a hard no.
  • Criticizing and wrestling with what you read here is great. Our rule of thumb is that smart people debate ideas, dumb people debate identity. So keep it classy. 
  • Don’t spam, solicit, or advertise here. Submit your recommendations to tips@thefp.com if you really think our audience needs to hear about it.
Close Guidelines

Latest