The New York Times removed a sentence from an article about the anti-Israel documentary “NAZA" after the wording sparked criticism over its characterization of Israelis’ status as victims of the October 7 Hamas massacre.
The sentence appeared in a Monday article by Times reporter Isabel Kershner. The story, which discussed the controversial film after it received the Special Jury Prize at this year’s Venice Film Festival, initially stated that “Israelis are deeply divided over how to apportion blame for the policy, military and intelligence failures that preceded the attack and the war," before adding: “But Israelis still largely view themselves as the victims of Oct. 7."
Journalist and former IDF serviceman Eitan Fischberger criticized the wording, arguing that it appeared to frame the fact that Israelis were victims of the attack as a matter of perception.
"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."
Tamar Sternthal, Israel director of the media watchdog CAMERA, also objected to the passage. “Wait, what? That Israelis are victims of the Oct. 7 massacre is a matter of Israeli ‘perception’ and not simply fact?" she wrote on social media. “If they’re not the victims, then what are they? The perpetrators?"
CNN correspondent Scott Jennings likewise criticized the wording, writing: “No words for this abomination," alongside a screenshot of the passage.
In response to an inquiry from Fox News Digital, the newspaper said the sentence resulted from an "editing error" and was subsequently removed. The newspaper also added an editors' note to the online article explaining the change.
"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 note states.
The controversy is the latest involving the Times and its coverage of Israel. Earlier this month, Edieal Pinker of the Yale School of Management reviewed the newspaper’s coverage during the early months of the Israel-Gaza war and found a clear bias against Israel.
The newspaper also faced criticism in May over a column by Nick Kristof that accused Israel of the mass rape of Arab prisoners and included a claim that dogs had allegedly been trained to rape detainees. Critics challenged the piece over its evidentiary basis, its reliance on anonymous testimony and its use of sources they described as unreliable, including an NGO accused of promoting false conspiracy theories about alleged Israeli crimes.
The Israeli government subsequently announced that it would sue The New York Times over the column.