The New York Times building in New York City. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

The New York Times came in with a big editorial denouncing antisemitism and infuriating the Jew-hating readers who populate its comment section — but its news pages keep spreading falsehoods about Israel.

Three recent examples show how Times reporters lack historical or even recent context.

A Times news article about Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and Norway imposing sanctions on Israeli ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich includes this passage:

“Britain has already tried once to prevent us from settling the cradle of our homeland, and we will not allow it to do it again,” Mr. Smotrich posted on social media in Hebrew, referring to Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

The intended reference there actually seems to be not “Jewish settlements in the West Bank” but rather the infamous British “White Paper” of 1939 that sharply limited Jewish immigration into the British controlled mandate of Palestine. The White Paper capped Jewish migration at 75,000 over five years, during a moment when millions of Jews were desperately seeking to escape the Nazi onslaught. “After the period of five years, no further Jewish immigration will be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are prepared to acquiesce in it,” the White Paper said. It’s astonishing that this has somehow vanished from the Times‘ historical memory.

Another Times news article claimed, “The toll and imposition of a blockade, now partially lifted, in the territory [Gaza] have provoked growing international outrage, including among European states like France and Britain little inclined to sharp criticism of Israel in the past.” The idea that the outrage is “provoked” by Israeli actions rather than motivated by the growing and restive Muslim populations in France and Britain is questionable. There’s no outrage against Egypt, which also borders Gaza. And it’s inaccurate to say that France and Britain have been “little inclined to sharp criticism of Israel in the past.”

For example, in 2019 a French diplomatic statement said, “France condemns the decisions taken by the Israeli authorities on 5 and 6 August allowing for the construction of 2,304 housing units on the West Bank. These decisions come amid the troubling acceleration of settlement building on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem. As stated in UN Security Council Resolution 2334, these settlements are contrary to international law. This policy further heightens tensions on the ground and gravely undermines the conditions for a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians based on a two-state solution.”

A brief for the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs reported, “For many years, France has been the driving force behind anti-Israel political attitudes in the EU. In addition, former Israeli UN ambassador Yehuda Blum noted, ‘The French at the UN were the leaders of every anti-Israel initiative originating in Europe throughout. Theirs was a totally unbalanced position. We counted them in the Arab camp.'”

In 2002, British and French foreign ministers met with Yasser Arafat at a time when George W. Bush was trying to freeze Arafat out.

A third example of Times cluelessness comes from the paper’s “live” news coverage of the war between Israel and Iran. “In his first television interview since Israel struck Iran, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israeli intelligence found that Iran had enough uranium to build nine nuclear bombs but did not provide any evidence for that claim,” the Times said. The “did not provide evidence” phrase is a tic that the Times uses against people it doesn’t like in order to signal to readers that what those people say cannot be trusted.

The Times itself reported in December 2024, “Iran already has enough of a stockpile to make the fuel for four weapons in a matter of weeks or days.” Another recent Times article commented on Netanyahu’s claim of nine weapons by noting, “Other experts put the figure slightly higher, at 10, but the actual number would depend on how efficiently the Iranians prove to be at producing a warhead or a bomb.”

How much more evidence does the Times want? On June 9, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency spoke publicly about Iran, saying, “The agency cannot ignore the stockpiling of over 400 kg of highly enriched uranium.” An analysis put out the same day by the Institute for Science and International Security of the May 31, 2025, IAEA quarterly monitoring report says, “Iran can convert its current stock of 60 percent enriched uranium into 233 kg of WGU in three weeks at the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant (FFEP), enough for 9 nuclear weapons, taken as 25 kg of weapon-grade uranium (WGU) per weapon … Iran could produce its first quantity of 25 kg of WGU in Fordow in as little as two to three days … Breaking out in both Fordow and the Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP), the two facilities together could produce enough WGU for 11 nuclear weapons in the first month, enough for 15 nuclear weapons by the end of the second month, 19 by the end of the third month, 21 by the end of the fourth month, and 22 by the end of the fifth month.”

I guess the Times could litigate that Netanyahu is eliding the conversion from highly enriched to weapon-grade, but he’s giving a wartime television interview, not a technical nuclear briefing.

So, when the Times complains that Netanyahu “did not provide any evidence,” the newspaper is just displaying its own bias and lack of knowledge about the context, as surely as it did in the other examples. One thing for which there is surely a lot of evidence: the Times‘s own weak grasp of basic details, history, and context for the events unfolding in the Middle East.

Ira Stoll was managing editor of The Forward and North American editor of The Jerusalem Post. He writes frequently at TheEditors.com. His media critique, a regular Algemeiner feature, can be found here.