The New York Times Tries to Walk Back Despicable Article About Israel-Gaza War Documentary

The New York Times published an article yesterday about the documentary "NAZA" which premiered at the Venice Film Festival. That documentary is getting backlash in Israel, as it reportedly documents interviews with 24 people the directors claim are Israeli intelligence officers and soldiers. The film's summary states that the people being interviewed detail “the systems behind Israel’s calculated mass killing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza.” 

Israeli Military Chief Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir said the film is "based on blood libels" and "deliberate distortions of reality." Miki Zohar, the Israeli Minister of Culture, is looking into whether or not filmmakers Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor can be stripped of their citizenship for "betraying the state of Israel."

In that article, here's what The New York Times wrote about the film and the backlash.

What the f**k is this, @nytimes? pic.twitter.com/ncXTtDvQnL

— Eitan Fischberger (@EFischberger) September 16, 2026

The paragraph in question reads (emphasis added):

Israelis are deeply divided over how to apportion blame for the policy, military, and intelligence failures that preceded the attack and the war. But Israelis still largely view themselves as the victims of Oct. 7. The militants' attack killed about 1,200 people in Israel, and about 250 more were taken hostage, according to Israeli authorities. It was the deadliest day in the country's history.

Gee, we wonder why Israelis see themselves as the victims of October 7 after 1,200 of their fellow countrymen and women were slaughtered by Hamas terrorists.

Many of the hostages died, including the Bibas children and their mother, who were strangled by their Hamas captors.

Now The New York Times is trying to walk back that despicable article by editing it and adding a note.

We have added the following Editors' Note to our recent coverage of the Israeli government's reaction to the NAZA documentary: "Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this article included a statement that was intended to convey Israelis’ perception of the…

— NYTimes Communications (@NYTimesPR) September 16, 2026

"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 reads.

Shameful.

But that isn't the only awful thing in the article.

And yet this part is still up and it’s not much better, taking issue with how “only a small minority” are taking issue with the conduct of what not just IS viewed as “self-defense,” but actually is, especially but not only after October 7! 🤷‍♀️ pic.twitter.com/1yOUeISj9W

— Rebecca Downs ✝️🙏🏻💕✡️ (@RebeccaRoseGold) September 16, 2026

The highlighted portion reads:

Only a small minority of Israelis have protested against the military's conduct in the war, with most viewing it as just a campaign of self-defense.

"Why don't more Israelis want to let Hamas wipe them off the map?" is essentially what The New York Times is saying.

I have been a journalist for 25 years — a writer, an editor, a straight news reporter, and commentator. There is nothing “inadvertent” about this line. https://t.co/krYxt9WAll pic.twitter.com/xLAc5xBvM6

— Philip Klein (@philipaklein) September 16, 2026

There was nothing inadvertent about it. And it wasn't an "editing error." It went through a writer, an editor, and probably more staff before being published.

That was nothing more than a disingenuous attempt to seek attention and stoke outrage by misrepresenting the events of October 7th. In the 3 years since that day, you have led the way on misreporting on the event, its human toll, and resulting societal shifts and growing…

— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) September 16, 2026

By design.

Are you also correcting the reference to Hamas terrorists as “militants,” or is @nytimes intentionally trying to legitimize a US-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization?

— Israel War Room (@IsraelWarRoom) September 16, 2026

That's intentional too.

Same day a study revealed your bias and you couldn’t do a proper editorial. SMH pic.twitter.com/yEqZ7cAoMw

— Claire (@Claire_V0ltaire) September 16, 2026

And this is why.

Remember when you printed pictures of terminally ill Gaza children and said that Israel is murdering them? Fun times.

— Katya Sedgwick (@KatyaSedgwick) September 16, 2026

We do not hate the media enough.

The New York Times knew exactly what it was doing with that "NAZA" article, because it's exactly what The New York Times has been doing for three years: attacking Israel, minimizing Jewish suffering, and legitimizing Hamas. Remember, this is the same publication that ran a poorly written, scantily fact-checked "op-ed" about Israel using dogs to rape captors. There's no reason to believe anything they write, and even less reason to trust them when they say stuff like this was an "editing error."

Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Townhall's conservative reporting exposing the radical left and woke media? Support our work so we can keep bringing you the truth.

Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.