New York Times Sparks Firestorm With Claim Israelis ‘Still Largely View Themselves as the Victims’ of Oct. 7, Later Removes Line
The New York Times came under intense criticism Wednesday over a passage in a report about Israel that stated that Israelis “still largely view themselves as the victims of Oct. 7,” language that critics said appeared to cast their status as victims of the Hamas massacre as a matter of perception rather than fact.
Following the backlash, the Times removed the sentence and appended an editor’s note acknowledging that the wording had “inadvertently suggested that Israelis’ experience as terror victims was a matter of perception.”
The controversy stemmed from a Sept. 14 article by longtime Times Jerusalem correspondent Isabel Kershner about “NAZA,” an Israeli documentary focused on Palestinian civilian deaths during the Gaza war. The film, directed by Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, recently received the Special Jury Prize at the Venice Film Festival and has generated a fierce debate in Israel over its allegations concerning IDF operations in Gaza.
In discussing the reaction to the documentary, the original Times article noted that Israelis remain deeply divided over responsibility for the political, military and intelligence failures preceding the Hamas-led assault of Oct. 7, 2023.
The report then included the sentence that ignited the controversy:
“But Israelis still largely view themselves as the victims of Oct. 7.”
The article itself went on to acknowledge that approximately 1,200 people were killed in the Hamas-led attack and some 250 people were abducted into Gaza, describing Oct. 7 as “the deadliest day in Israel’s history.”
Critics quickly seized on the juxtaposition, arguing that the sentence appeared to frame Israelis’ victimhood in the Oct. 7 attack as a subjective Israeli belief.
Journalist Eitan Fischberger, who previously served in the IDF, sharply criticized the wording.
“What’s so grotesque about this sentence is that it portrays an objective fact as some sort of Israeli victimhood mentality. Imagine the Times writing that Americans ‘still largely view themselves as the victims of 9/11,’ or that Americans ‘still largely view themselves as the victims of Pearl Harbor,’” Fischberger told Fox News Digital.
“Whatever one thinks about the war that followed, Israelis were absolutely the victims of horrific atrocities on October 7,” he continued. “Just like Americans were the victims of 9/11 and the attack on Pearl Harbor.”
CNN commentator Scott Jennings also condemned the passage, posting a screenshot of the Times article on social media and writing, “No words for this abomination.”
Other critics similarly drew comparisons to the Sept. 11 attacks, with one sarcastically writing, “Yes, and equally curiously, Americans overwhelmingly still see themselves as the victim of 9/11. The nerve!” Another asked, “If Israel wasn’t the Oct 7 victim, who does the NYTimes propose is?”
Hours after the criticism spread online, the Times removed the disputed sentence and published an editor’s note explaining what it said had gone wrong.
“Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this article included a statement that was intended to convey Israelis’ perception of the government’s military response to the Oct. 7 terror attack in relation to the attacks, but inadvertently suggested that Israelis’ experience as terror victims was a matter of perception. It has been removed from the article.”
The Times’ explanation indicated that the intended point concerned how Israelis perceive the country’s subsequent military response to Oct. 7, rather than whether Israelis were themselves victims of the Hamas-led attack.
The original article centered on the growing controversy surrounding “NAZA,” an 80-minute documentary that examines Israeli military operations in Gaza and includes interviews with 24 purported Israeli intelligence personnel and soldiers who spoke anonymously. Israeli officials and military figures have strongly disputed the film’s allegations and condemned its portrayal of the IDF.
The Guardian, which co-produced the documentary, defended the filmmakers amid the Israeli backlash, saying it was “disturbed to see the authoritarian response to ‘NAZA’ in Israel” and pledging to “robustly defend” the filmmakers and others involved against “any attacks or attempts at censorship.”
The Times controversy comes just days after the publication of a peer-reviewed academic study examining the newspaper’s coverage during the early months of the Gaza war. The study, authored by Yale School of Management professor Edieal Pinker and published in Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, analyzed 1,559 Times articles published between Oct. 7, 2023, and June 7, 2024.
Pinker argued that the newspaper’s coverage frequently emphasized Palestinian suffering while giving comparatively less attention to Israeli military casualties, Hamas casualties and Palestinian violence following Oct. 7. The study concluded that the coverage tended to assign disproportionate agency and responsibility to Israel while minimizing Hamas’ continuing role in the conflict.
The New York Times rejected that characterization when responding to the study, saying it “has covered this war with more rigor than virtually any other US news organization, reporting on the conflict from all angles.”
“Our editors make careful and deliberate choices about every story we publish to ensure our language, framing, prominence and tone remain true to our mission of independent journalism,” a Times spokesperson said. “We remain open to good-faith disagreement but will not change our coverage to buttress entrenched perspectives. Our commitment is to independent reporting that our readers can trust.”
The newspaper has faced criticism from both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian activists over its coverage of the war, with the two sides accusing it of bias in opposite directions.
In the latest controversy, however, the Times itself acknowledged that the original wording conveyed something it had not intended to say. By Wednesday afternoon, the disputed sentence was gone, replaced by the editor’s note conceding that the language had mistakenly made Israelis’ status as victims of the Oct. 7 terror attack appear to be a question of perception.
{Matzav.com}