The Most Photographed War in History
Is anyone taking any notice?
Warning: This story contains graphic photographs. Viewer discretion is advised.
Unlike any other, the Israel-Hamas War will be remembered for the images — the endless, unrelenting flow of graphic photos and videos captured from every side of the conflict, consumed and widely-shared on social media.
Two photographs taken on December 1, just hours after the weeklong cease-fire collapsed, are vivid examples.
Saher Alghorra’s photo, above, is a definitive image of the war — a singular moment that captures an ever-recurring scene outside of Nasser hospital in Gaza. At least a dozen cameras can be seen documenting the transport of an Israeli airstrike victim.
The details in Alghorra’s photo are remarkable: the shirtless man's dangling arm, his tilted face, how he’s being held, the onlookers (note the children on the left). Alghorra’s image evokes Raphael’s Deposition.
While the environment and atmosphere are critical in Alghorra’s photo, they’re absent in Ali Jadallah’s haunting photo of 5-month-old Muhammad Hani Al-Zahar, killed in an Israeli airstrike.
Jadallah’s photo is jarring and intimate. Once seen, impossible to forget.
And the reaction to this gut-wrenching photo? The Jerusalem Post claimed the baby was a “doll.” They later deleted the story and apologized, but the seed of doubt had been planted and the damage done. Jadallah’s photo was not published outside of social media.
Similarly, this brutally graphic photo of the charred remains of an Israeli baby killed in the October 7 attacks, first shared by the Office of the Prime Minister of Israel, was falsely branded as AI by The Palestine Chronicle.
The uncredited handout photo was widely published, appearing in the New York Post and The Times of Israel.
Multiple photographers documented the atrocities committed by Hamas militants on October 7. Ohad Zwigenberg’s photo of civilian casualties at a bus stop in Sderot symbolizes the random brutality of the attack.
Zwigenberg, a staff photographer for the Associated Press, also captured this bloody scene in Kibbutz Nir Oz, previously discussed in War Is The Most Violent Color. Like others, Zwigenberg included the toy kitchen (far left) in his frame.
Tamir Kalifa, a photographer working for The New York Times, documented another child’s bedroom at Kibbutz Be’eri. Like the toy kitchen, the toy truck is a subtle, yet crushing detail.
Ronen Zvulun of Reuters captured a wider view to include the size of the bed, emphasizing that it belonged to a child.
The toy truck is in a slightly different, less obvious spot on the floor. It’s not surprising the crime scene has been disturbed — there’s been a steady stream of journalists, politicians, and even a billionaire visiting the besieged border communities.
But the most widely viewed footage from the October 7 attacks was recorded by the terrorists themselves. This unsettling clip was extensively shared on Telegram across multiple channels linked to Hamas, including Qassam Brigades — which was recently restricted by Apple.
The Israeli Defense Forces are also sharing first-person combat footage from Gaza on their official Telegram channel.
Without question, the Israel-Hamas War is the most comprehensively documented war in history. But is it making a difference? Photos like Ali Jadallah’s image of the baby are supposed to stop wars, aren’t they?
“We risk ourselves to document what is happening,” Alghorra messaged me earlier this week. As of today, 56 Palestinian journalists have lost their lives. Would the world allow 56 Western journalists to be killed reporting on a war? These are tough questions we must continue to ask ourselves.
Still, I believe in the importance of these photos. As Don McCullin wrote, “We would be diminished if we averted our eyes.”1
Don McCullin, Is Anyone Taking Any Notice (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1973), 2.
It's paradoxical, but I think the flood of images from Gaza will have the exact opposite effect. Sociology studies on risk and vulnerability from natural disasters point to a phenomenon in which the constant call for attention from news outlets (don't know of any updated studies that consider social media) ends up "numbing" the public. For example, constant reminders of the "apocalyptic" menace of an active volcano decrease the perception of vulnerability in direct proportion to the time such reports are being broadcast without a notorious change in the status of the eruption, bringing the public to react against evacuation orders and sometimes even to return to high risk areas. The information no longer draws the attention of the people in danger, it just becomes part of the background noise of everyday life.
My guess is that the expected reaction from the public will fall victim of the avalanche of content and the war will become a footnote of everyday life.
Shall we mention Jan 6 as the most documented insurrection in the history of the United States, yet a major political party includes lawmakers and presidential candidates who claim it was a hoax, or was misrepresented by the media, or was an inside job?. Tragically, documentary influence is diminishing due to factors far outside its domain. Yet...witness we must. Else our basic humanity will be called into question.