Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused the New York Times of defaming Israel over its coverage of starvation in Gaza and is weighing a lawsuit against the Gray Lady.
“The New York Times should be sued,” Netanyahu told Bill Hemmer of Fox News on Thursday, adding: “I am actually looking into whether a country can sue the New York Times … I think it’s such clear defamation.”
Netanyahu’s anger stems from a July 24 Times story on hunger in Gaza that ran with a prominent front-page photo of an emaciated 18-month-old boy, Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq.
He described the original presentation as an intentional attempt to smear Israel by implying it was starving Gaza’s population.
The child’s mother was quoted as saying he had been “born healthy” before suffering severe malnutrition.
Later reporting revealed Mohammed suffered from cerebral palsy and complications linked to a genetic disorder, details absent from the original article and caption.
The paper faced backlash for misleading readers into believing the boy’s condition was the result of Israeli policy.
The Times updated the story on July 30 with an editor’s note clarifying the boy’s medical history and removing the mother’s claim that he was born healthy.
The correction was buried deep in the paper, “the size of a postage stamp,” Netanyahu said, and argued it failed to undo the damage caused by the initial coverage.
The controversy has become a flashpoint in the larger debate over how the war in Gaza is portrayed internationally.
“Israel is presented as though we are applying a campaign of starvation in Gaza,” Netanyahu said.
“What a boldfaced lie. There is no policy of starvation in Gaza, and there is no starvation in Gaza.”
He said Israel has allowed humanitarian aid into the territory “throughout the duration of the war” and that shortages are caused by Hamas stealing or diverting supplies.
The Times has defended its work, saying the editor’s note reflected new information discovered after publication and that the core reporting on Gaza’s humanitarian crisis remains accurate.
“Children in Gaza are malnourished and starving, as New York Times reporters and others have documented,” a spokesperson for the paper said.
It also pushed back on the Israeli leader’s criticism over appending its story.
“Mr. Netanyahu is referring to an update we made to a story about how the food crisis is affecting the civilian population,” the rep said in a statement.
“After publication, we learned that a child shown in that story — in addition to being severely malnourished — also had pre-existing health problems. That additional information gave readers a greater understanding of his situation.”
The Times rep blasted Netanyahu’s “attempts to threaten independent media providing vital information and accountability to the public,” saying it was “unfortunately an increasingly common playbook.”
The dispute comes as aid agencies and the United Nations continue to report widespread hunger and malnutrition in Gaza.
Relief groups describe catastrophic shortages of food, clean water and medicine, conditions they say are worsening as the war grinds on.
Israel blames Hamas for worsening the situation by seizing shipments, while its critics point to Israeli restrictions and military actions as the primary cause.
Pro-Israel groups and some US lawmakers have backed Netanyahu’s criticism, accusing the Times of bias and of pushing a narrative that unfairly paints Israel as responsible for a man-made famine.
Supporters of the paper argue that such attacks are aimed at intimidating journalists and discouraging critical coverage of Israeli policy.
If Netanyahu follows through on his threat to take legal action against the Times, it would not be the first time an Israeli leader has taken an American media outlet to court.
In 1983, Ariel Sharon, who was defense minister during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, filed a libel lawsuit against Time magazine.
That case revolved around a paragraph suggesting Sharon had urged Lebanese Christian militia leaders to seek revenge shortly before the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre, in which hundreds of Palestinian refugees were killed.
Sharon insisted the claim was false and defamatory.
Jurors concluded the disputed paragraph was defamatory and false but also found Time had not acted with “actual malice,” the legal standard public figures must meet to collect damages in the United States.
Sharon received no monetary award, and Time avoided financial liability, even though the jury agreed the reporting harmed his reputation and was untrue.
Both sides claimed victory — Sharon for proving the statement false, and Time for preserving a key First Amendment protection.
Credit: Source link
