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 controversy began with a September 14 article by Times Jerusalem correspondent Isabel Kershner discussing the documentary “NAZA,” which examines the killing of Palestinian civilians during the war in Gaza. The original text included the line: But Israelis still largely view themselves as the victims of Oct. 7,
a statement that critics argued undermined the clear reality of the attack’s atrocities.
Criticism Over Framing Israeli Victimhood as Subjective
Journalist and former IDF serviceman Eitan Fischberger condemned the wording, calling it “grotesque” for suggesting Israeli victimhood was a matter of perception. 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,’
he told Fox News Digital. Whatever one thinks about the war that followed, Israelis were absolutely the victims of horrific atrocities on October 7,
he added, drawing a parallel to U.S. historical tragedies.
NY Times deletes line questioning Israeli victimhood on Oct
Tamar Sternthal, Israel director of the media watchdog CAMERA, questioned why the Times would frame Israeli victimhood as a matter of perception. If they’re not the victims, then what are they? The perpetrators?
she wrote on social media. Her comments, alongside critiques from CNN correspondent Scott Jennings, pressured the Times to revisit the article.
Times Acknowledges Editing Error, Removes Controversial Line
In response to the backlash, the Times issued an editors’ note explaining that the line resulted from an “editing error.” The note clarified that the original version inadvertently suggested that Israelis’ experience as terror victims was a matter of perception, a framing the outlet later corrected. The revised article omitted the disputed sentence, though the exact date of the change was not specified in either source.
The editor’s note stated: “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 was posted through the Times’ communications account on X.
The controversy highlights broader scrutiny of the Times’ 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, and the newspaper faced legal threats from the Israeli government over a column alleging mass rape of Arab detainees. The latest correction underscores the outlet’s ongoing challenges in balancing nuanced reporting with accusations of ideological slant.
New York Times removes Oct. 7 victimhood line after
Context: The Documentary and Its Polarizing Impact
“NAZA,” directed by Israeli filmmakers Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, won the Special Jury Prize after premiering at the Venice International Film Festival. The documentary examines Israeli military operations and Palestinian civilian deaths in Gaza and has drawn sharp criticism from Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who called it shocking incitement.
The filmmakers have defended the documentary and their investigation.
The original Times article focused on the backlash in Israel surrounding “NAZA,” which has intensified debates over accountability and narrative control. The attack on October 7, 2023, killed about 1,200 people in Israel and took about 250 people hostage, according to the sources. The Times’ change came hours after CAMERA publicly challenged the original wording. The media watchdog said the sentence suggested that whether Israelis were victims of the Oct. 7 attack was subjective rather than an established fact.
The Times 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.
The incident also reignited discussions about how media outlets handle sensitive topics, particularly when covering conflicts with deep political and emotional stakes. The Times’ correction reflects the high stakes of journalistic accuracy in polarizing contexts. As debates over media bias persist, the episode serves as a reminder of the responsibility to present facts without implying subjectivity where none exists.