After Review, New York Times Stands by Its Editorial on Pausing Aid to Israel

An editorial in the New York Times — published online over the weekend as Iranian missiles and drones were about to head for Israel and in print the morning after the attack — called for US President Joe Biden to “consider pausing military transfers to Israel.”

“America cannot continue, as it has, to supply Israel with the arms it has been using in its war against Hamas,” the Times editorial board said.

In addition to being tastelessly timed, the editorial was rife with factual and logical errors.

One of the most glaring mistakes came in the third sentence of the editorial, which referred to “the US commitment to Israel — including $3.8 billion a year in military aid, the largest outlay of American foreign aid to any one country in the world.”

In fact, according to ForeignAssistance.gov, an official US government site, Ukraine got $16.7 billion in 2023 and $12.4 billion in 2022, while Israel got $3.3 billion in both 2022 and 2023.

Even if the Times‘s $3.8 billion figure, perhaps reflecting missile defense expenditures or a boost in post-Oct. 7 emergency assistance, was accurate for Israel, the Ukraine sums were still significantly larger.

I emailed the New York Times to ask whether it would correct that error. The Times opinion editor, Kathleen Kingsbury, wrote back directly to tell The Algemeiner, “We have reviewed and stand by the piece as it stands. The reference is to the fact that Israel is cumulatively the largest recipient of American foreign aid, even as Ukraine has surpassed it on an annual basis in recent years.”

The editorial said, “[Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu has ignored his obligations to provide food and medicine to the civilian population in the territory that Israel now controls. In fact, Israel has made it difficult for anyone else to provide humanitarian aid to Gaza.”

It’s not accurate that Netanyahu has “ignored” that obligation; to the contrary, he’s devoted considerable resources to inspecting aid shipments going into Gaza and to reopening border crossings, even while knowing that a portion of the aid would be stolen by Hamas once it entered Gaza. The Israeli government has said that out of 5,893 aid trucks it inspected in the past month, it denied entry to only 29. Even the Times itself conceded that Hamas “bears a major share of responsibility for the suffering inflicted on the people in whose name it purports to act.”

Regarding US military aid, the editorial tried to draw a distinction, following the Biden administration, between “air defense systems and others used for strictly defensive purposes” and “offensive weapons.” Yet that was a false dichotomy. The “offensive” weapons have been used defensively by Israel to fight a terrorist group that the Times itself conceded was “an enemy sworn to its [Israel’s] destruction.”

The editorial claimed that Netanyahu “has, until recently, resisted diplomatic efforts for a cease-fire that might have led to a release of hostages still in the custody of Hamas.”  That ignored the November 2023 humanitarian pause that led to the release of more than 100 hostages.

Nor did the Times explain the inconsistency between its backing of consideration of a pause in aid for Israel and its support of additional aid to Ukraine. In a recent editorial about Ukraine, the newspaper said, “Allowing Russia to impose its will on Ukraine would be a devastating blow to America’s credibility and leadership.” Wouldn’t allowing Iran-backed Hamas or Hezbollah to prevail against Israel have similar effects?

American Jewish leaders and pro-Israel politicians denounced the editorial.

“The New York Times continues to be egregiously biased against Israel — this weekend an editorial calling to condition aid to Israel,” said Abraham Foxman, national director emeritus of the Anti-Defamation League.

US Sen. John Fetterman, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, posted to social media a picture of the Times editorial headline, “Military Aid to Israel Cannot Be Unconditional,” with the comment, “No conditions.” Fetterman added an Israeli flag emoji for good measure.

Times online commenters, on the other hand, mostly applauded the editorial or complained that it hadn’t been issued sooner.

Most of the comments were posted on the Jewish sabbath, when traditionally religious Jews refrain from writing or using the internet. The Times let one commenter use only her first name to post that “there are no long [sic] any strategic excuses for abetting Netanyahu’s and Israel’s murderous criminality.” That comment was recommended by 1,048 Times readers as of this writing, offering a hint at the please-the-paying-online-readers dynamic that Kingsbury’s predecessor, James Bennet, has described as skewing the paper’s journalism for the worse.

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