Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is fed up with The New York Times and its Gaza coverage, and he’s not afraid to throw a legal punch.
The New York Post reported that Netanyahu accuses the outlet of defaming Israel with a July 24, 2025, article spotlighting starvation in Gaza, prompting him to consider a lawsuit. The piece, featuring a malnourished toddler, sparked outrage when it initially omitted the child’s pre-existing health issues.
The article showcased Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq, an 18-month-old boy whose emaciated image dominated the front page.
His mother’s claim that he was “born healthy” painted a grim picture of Gaza’s humanitarian crisis. Yet, the story conveniently left out Mohammed’s cerebral palsy and genetic disorder complications.
Six days later, on July 30, 2025, The New York Times issued an editor’s note clarifying Mohammed’s medical history.
The note, which Netanyahu called “the size of a postage stamp,” also axed the mother’s misleading claim. Critics argue this tiny correction failed to undo the damage of the initial narrative.
Netanyahu didn’t mince words, telling Fox News’ Bill Hemmer, “The New York Times should be sued.” He slammed the paper for implying Israel deliberately starves Gaza’s civilians. To him, this is “clear defamation” and a boldfaced lie.
“Israel is presented as though we are applying a campaign of starvation in Gaza,” Netanyahu fumed. He insists there’s no starvation policy, and any shortages stem from Hamas diverting aid. The Times’ framing, he argues, distorts reality to vilify Israel.
The New York Times stood by its reporting, claiming the editor’s note addressed new information about Mohammed’s health.
A spokesperson sniffed, “Children in Gaza are malnourished and starving, as New York Times reporters and others have documented.” But this defense rings hollow when key details are buried or ignored.
Pro-Israel groups and some U.S. lawmakers rallied behind Netanyahu, accusing the Times of pushing a biased narrative. They argue the paper’s omission fueled perceptions of a man-made famine orchestrated by Israel. Such selective reporting, they say, borders on propaganda.
Meanwhile, Times supporters cry foul, claiming Netanyahu’s lawsuit threats are a bully tactic to silence critical journalism.
A representative jabbed, “[Netanyahu’s] attempts to threaten independent media providing vital information and accountability to the public [are] unfortunately an increasingly common playbook.” Yet, when corrections are postage-stamp-sized, who’s playing games?
This isn’t the first time an Israeli leader has tangled with the media over defamation. In 1983, then-Defense Minister Ariel Sharon sued Time magazine over a report tying him to the Sabra and Shatila massacre.
Jurors found the report false but ruled Time lacked “actual malice,” leaving Sharon empty-handed. Netanyahu’s current gripe echoes Sharon’s battle, raising questions about whether a lawsuit could succeed.
The Times’ initial failure to disclose Mohammed’s medical conditions misled readers, but proving malice is a steep hill to climb. Still, the threat alone puts the paper on notice.
Aid agencies and the United Nations have flagged dire shortages of food, water, and medicine in Gaza.
Israel points the finger at Hamas, accusing the group of stealing or misdirecting aid. Critics, however, pin the crisis on Israel’s military actions and restrictions, a narrative the Times seems eager to amplify.
The New York Times building in Manhattan has become a lightning rod in this dispute, drawing global attention. The paper’s defenders argue it’s merely shining a light on Gaza’s suffering. But when key facts are omitted, that light looks more like a spotlight on
