The New York Times' shady anti-Israel past: From downplaying the Holocaust to today's 'blood libel'

For over 100 years, The New York Times has continuously, and very famously, blasted its very famous seven-word slogan daily on the front page of its masthead. It reads, "All the news that's fit to print.” But according to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, this latest so-called “news” about alleged Israeli atrocities against Palestinians is not only not news. He says it’s antisemitic blood libel. 

Netanyahu is now pursuing a defamation lawsuit against The New York Times (NYT)and columnist Nicholas Kristof over a recent column detailing allegations of sexual violence committed by Israeli forces against Palestinian detainees. Netanyahu blasted the report as both “blood libel” and “hideous and distorted lies.” 

Israeli officials argue the Kristof column essentially portrayed Israeli soldiers as systematic sexual predators while relying heavily on allegations that Israel says are unverified, politically motivated, or sourced through organizations hostile to the Jewish state. 

That phrase – blood libel – carries enormous historical weight in Jewish history. For centuries, Jews were falsely accused in Europe of ritual murder, barbarism and horrific sexual crimes against non-Jews. Those lies often fueled violent antisemitism, pogroms and eventually worse. 

Now, Netanyahu and many Israeli supporters believe America’s most influential newspaper is reviving dangerous anti-Israel and, more to the point, antisemitic narratives at a moment when Israelis are still reeling from the atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7th. 

Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley sharply condemned the allegations in a post on 𝕏. “Claiming Israel trains dogs to rape Palestinians is modern day blood libel – propaganda pushed as more horrific details emerge about Hamas’ systematic torture on Oct. 7,” Haley wrote. 

“For being Jewish – Hamas raped a woman and burnt half of her face off in front of her husband; shoved nails, metal, and sharp objects into Israeli women; forced family members to sexually assault each other so that if they survived they would be traumatized by the sight of each other; raped corpses; the list goes on.” 

“Distracting from these atrocities and smearing Israel while victims still fight for acknowledgment is sickening.” 

Meanwhile, Curtis Houck, managing editor at NewsBusters, told ALL ISRAEL NEWS that the controversy fits into what he believes is a much longer pattern at the NYT.

“It’s almost unforgivable,” Houck says. “The New York Times has made clear they’re standing behind this monstrosity by Nicholas Kristof. The Times has long been seen as a hotbed of anti-Israel stories and peddling Hamas propaganda beyond the terrorist group’s imagination, but the grotesque allegations – which can and should be seen as a blood libel – is wrong and sure to cause permanent damage to the perception of Israel.” 

“From the claims of torture to the use of dogs, it’s almost too absurd to have believed could be published anywhere that pretends to be a credible source of news. I fear for the future of Israeli soldiers and those who work in such prisons. Kristof has put a target on their backs.” 

Houck also noted the enormous legal hurdle Netanyahu would face in American courts. “The bar for a successful defamation suit will be gargantuan given Israel’s place as one of the most-recognized countries in the world, but even a successful outcome wouldn’t repair the public damage caused by Kristof’s piece being printed,” Houck explained. “Oftentimes, the narratives and images that first reach the public ether are what stick with people. Thus, it will be a challenge to undo the damage.” 

And that gets to the larger issue now bubbling beneath the surface of this story. This incident with the NYT reflects a longstanding, troubling pattern at the newspaper that stretches all the way back to the Holocaust itself. 

One of the most influential works on that subject came from historian Laurel Leff in her groundbreaking book Buried by the Times: The Holocaust and America’s Most Important Newspaper. Her research documented how the NYT  routinely buried stories about the Nazi extermination of Europe’s Jews deep inside the newspaper during World War II instead of giving them prominent front-page treatment. 

Leff found that from 1939 to 1945, the Holocaust appeared on the NYT  front page only 26 times, and in just six of those stories were Jews identified specifically as the primary victims. She concluded that the NYT's coverage “contributed to the public’s ignorance” about the systematic murder of European Jews. 

Even more striking was how the paper often removed explicit references to Jews entirely. Instead of clearly identifying Jews as targets of extermination, the paper frequently used broader terms like “refugees” or “victims.”  

As to why the NYT  did this, there are many schools of thought. One of the most prevailing is that the publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger, who, we should add, was Jewish, downplayed Holocaust coverage because he feared the paper would be seen as “too Jewish.” He strongly believed Judaism was a religion, not a nationality, and worried prominent coverage could fuel antisemitism or accusations of divided loyalty.   

Whatever the reason, the reality is that it happened. Journalism Scholar Ron Hollander concluded that the NYT  “failed miserably in reporting the enormity of the Holocaust,” adding that “that failure seems intentional.” 

As for the Kristof op-ed that contained the salacious information, the NYT  is standing firmly behind him and his reporting, saying it was heavily fact-checked and based on interviews and corroborating testimony from multiple individuals, lawyers and human rights organizations.  

This might all very well be settled in court at this point, but for pro-Israel supporters, I’m sure they’d prefer the NYT  change their famous slogan to, “All the news that's unfit to print.”