In his investigation, the New York Times reveals that the head of Hamas had a secret police force at his disposal to repress dissent in Gaza. This secret police force, called the General Security Service (GSS), was in the service of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, and was tasked with monitoring Gazans who showed signs of dissent and suppressing any dissent. Documents seized showed that the GSS had 856 agents and that its monthly expenses amounted to 120,000 dollars. According to this investigation, before 7 October, Hamas, by constantly controlling its inhabitants, had full possession of the Gaza Strip and the seven Hamas intelligence files depict Yahya Sinwar as a Big Brother, often violently silencing any dissenting voice. However, all the information in the New York Times dates from before 7 October. The Israeli strikes have undoubtedly seriously disrupted the workings of this secret police force.

For his part, Nimrod Birsha speaks of an adulterous secret police. ‘Among the thousands of files seized from the Hamas tunnels is documentation on a secret police of an Islamic kind.... Islamic. Like any self-respecting secret police, this one was under the exclusive direction of Sinwar’.

In his article Nimrod Birsha mentions ‘what was reported in a New York Times article, based on intelligence sources and a series of documents obtained by the American newspaper from Israeli intelligence officials, discovered during the war in the Gaza Strip’. It goes on to say that the General Security Service (GSS) ‘obtained its information from a network of whistle-blowers. Some of them informed on the actions of their neighbours. Files were opened in the unit (the GSS) for Gazans who took part in demonstrations against the government, publicly criticised Hamas - and in more unusual cases, the Gaza authorities even followed citizens to check whether they were having extramarital affairs.’

According to Nimrod Birsha, some of the documents ‘include information on at least 10,000 Gazan citizens who have become targets of surveillance and data collection by Hamas intelligence services.’ The New York Times had the opportunity to examine seven different files - compiled between October 2016 and August 2023. One of the participants in the compiling task was a journalist from Gaza, Ihab Passos, who told the newspaper about several incidents in which he had come into contact with members of the unit: ‘We are being bombarded by the occupation and intimidated by the local authorities’, he wrote, describing the current situation of the inhabitants of Gaza.

In particular, he refers to a document obtained by the Nord American newspaper which ‘is a 62-slide presentation dealing with the activities of the Hamas unit. It was compiled a few weeks before 7 October and shows the extent to which the Hamas GSS has penetrated the lives of the citizens of Gaza. Members of the unit followed journalists or those who behaved in an ‘immoral’ manner, led to the deletion of messages containing criticism on social networks and saw any political protest as a threat that had to be wiped off the face of the earth’.

Hamas's GSS is thus ‘one of the three powerful weapons that the organisation uses in the Gaza Strip. To this must be added the military intelligence mechanism that deals with Israel and the internal security mechanism of the Gaza government, which is subordinate to the Ministry of the Interior. Documents seized in the Gaza Strip reveal that the terrorist organisation's general security organisation had 856 members before the war - and a monthly budget of 120,000 dollars. Among the militants, 160 were responsible for disseminating Hamas propaganda and attacking the terrorist organisation's opponents at home and abroad. The fate of the unit is currently uncertain - partly in the light of the damage caused by Israel to the Hamas regime’.

The activities of the GSS, in addition to providing personal security for senior Hamas officials, were allegedly used to suppress the ‘Badna Na'ish’ - we want to live - demonstrations that broke out (2014) in the Gaza Strip because of the lack of electricity and the cost of living, and also to monitor members of Islamic Jihad, the smallest organisation in Gaza, which very often collaborates with Hamas.

One of the documents contains ‘the name of Ihab Pasfus, a Gazan journalist. The document states that he was arrested last August (2024) on his way to a demonstration, ordered to leave and his mobile phone confiscated. After searching his phone, the document states that he has contacts with ‘suspicious persons’ in Israel. The document also states: ‘We propose to muzzle him. He is a man full of hatred, who only exacerbates the problems in the Gaza Strip’. Members of the GSS then allegedly ‘used his phone to send flirtatious messages to a colleague. They wanted to make me a moral offender, he said’. The document lists several ways of dealing with a problem, the first of which is defamation. ‘If you are not with them, you become an atheist, an infidel and a sinner’, said the Gazan journalist, who confirmed that he supported the demonstrations and criticism of Hamas, but rejected allegations that he was in contact with people in Israel.

‘In any case - and although it is not clear from the documents that Hamas continues to run its general security organisation, according to the Gazan journalist - its influence continues to be significant on what happens in the Gaza Strip, even after the war began. When he filmed Hamas members beating civilians who were fighting for a place in front of the bakery, his camera was confiscated. When he complained, he was asked to stop his reports, which were compromising the stability of the home front; ‘I said I was reporting the truth - and that it wouldn't hurt anyone - but it fell on deaf ears. We cannot live here while these criminals remain in power.’

David Cameron, former British Prime Minister and current Foreign Secretary, criticised the BBC for its reluctance to describe Hamas as a terrorist group. Cameron described the actions of Hamas as ‘inhumane’ and urged the BBC to reconsider its editorial stance, saying: ‘They are terrorists. If you kidnap grandmothers, kidnap babies, rape people, kill children in front of their parents... what more do you need for the BBC to say: these are terrorists?’

The BBC, for its part, defended its editorial policy, saying it only uses the term ‘terrorist’ when it is attributed to others, such as to the UK government, in order to maintain neutrality in its news coverage. A spokesman said: ‘No one can ignore the horrific nature of Hamas's actions from BBC news’. For many years the BBC avoided using the term ‘terrorist organisation’ to describe Hamas by calling them Militants, but for some time now the BBC has been calling them just ‘Hamas’.

In reality, it is difficult to be equidistant when there is a conflict, especially if the violence expresses the hatred on both sides. In any case, what should sway opinion is the misery of the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip, their dependence on outside aid and all the money spent on building hundreds of kilometres of tunnels and amassing sophisticated weapons.