New York Times report under fire for questioning whether Israelis

The New York Times didn’t need to reinvent the wheel here. Oct. 7 was a massacre. Israelis didn’t “view themselves” as victims the way someone “views themselves” as a misunderstood artist. They were victims. When a paper drops a sentence suggesting Israelis still largely view themselves as the victims, it doesn’t read like insight. It reads like a scold.

The backlash makes sense because that wording smuggles in a sneer. “Still” implies they ought to have moved on. “Largely” suggests there’s some debate. And “view themselves” turns a real event into a matter of perception, as if the main story is Israeli psychology instead of Hamas terrorism. If you want to criticize Israel’s government, do it straight. Don’t do it by softening what happened to civilians and then acting surprised when people notice.

This is also the press habit that keeps blowing up in its face: it can’t resist the little framing tricks. A loaded clause here, a careful hedge there, and suddenly the reader is being guided toward the “right” emotional conclusion. Words like that aren’t neutral. They carry judgment, and not the honest kind.

If the Times wants credibility, it should start by writing plain truth about plain facts, even when those facts make the wrong people look sympathetic. Israelis don’t need a newspaper’s permission to feel attacked after a terror assault. Stop litigating victimhood and start reporting reality..