• Benjamin Netanyahu accuses the New York Times of defaming Israel with misleading coverage of starvation in Gaza, threatening legal action.
• The Times’ original story featured an emaciated child. His condition was later clarified to result from medical issues, not starvation caused by Israeli policy.
• The dispute highlights deep divisions over media narratives on the Gaza conflict. Israel blames Hamas for aid diversion, whereas critics point to Israeli restrictions.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has fired a sharp volley at the New York Times. He accused the renowned newspaper of defaming Israel with its reporting on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Speaking with Fox News’ Bill Hemmer, Netanyahu expressed deep frustration over the way the Times portrayed starvation in Gaza—going so far as to threaten legal action against the paper. This confrontation reveals a fierce struggle over narratives amid one of the most volatile conflicts of our time.

“The New York Times should be sued,” Netanyahu declared emphatically. He revealed that he is seriously exploring whether a nation can bring a defamation lawsuit against a major news outlet. “It’s such clear defamation,” he insisted, showing how personal and political the issue has become for Israel’s leadership.

The Story That Sparked the Fury

The controversy centers on a July 24 front-page article published by the Times. It featured a heartbreaking photograph of Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq, an 18-month-old boy in Gaza suffering from extreme malnutrition. The image and accompanying story painted a grim picture of a population on the brink of starvation, seemingly a direct consequence of Israeli policies during the ongoing war.

Netanyahu vehemently rejected this portrayal, calling it a deliberate smear campaign aimed at tarnishing Israel’s international reputation. “Israel is presented as though we are applying a campaign of starvation in Gaza,” he said. “What a boldfaced lie. There is no policy of starvation in Gaza, and there is no starvation in Gaza.”

The Israeli leader argued that Israel has consistently allowed humanitarian aid to enter Gaza throughout the conflict. He accused Hamas, the governing authority in Gaza, of siphoning off vital supplies meant for civilians, thereby worsening shortages.

However, further investigations revealed a critical detail missing from the Times’ initial coverage. Mohammed’s severe malnutrition stemmed not from starvation caused by war restrictions but from complex medical conditions. These included cerebral palsy and a genetic disorder. The boy’s mother had initially told reporters he was born healthy, but this claim was later found to be inaccurate.

A Correction That Came Too Late?

On July 30, the Times quietly updated the story with an editor’s note. This note clarified Mohammed’s medical history and removed the mother’s statement about his initial health. But Netanyahu and his supporters were unimpressed, complaining that the correction was “buried deep” within the paper. They considered it far too small to undo the damage done by the striking front-page image and story.

“The size of a postage stamp,” Netanyahu mocked the tiny disclaimer. He insisted it failed to balance the emotional impact and misleading impression left by the original report.

This dispute has ignited a broader debate over how the war in Gaza is portrayed in the global media. Critics like Netanyahu accuse international news organizations of pushing narratives that unfairly blame Israel. They believe this is for the humanitarian disaster. On the other hand, journalists and aid groups maintain that reporting on malnutrition and deprivation in Gaza is factual. They argue that it is necessary to spotlight the crisis.

The Humanitarian Reality on the Ground

Despite the heated rhetoric, multiple humanitarian organizations and the United Nations have documented serious shortages. These include shortages of food, clean water, and medicine across Gaza. As the conflict drags on, these conditions have worsened, threatening the health and survival of countless civilians.

Relief agencies say the crisis is catastrophic. They warn that malnutrition among children is reaching dangerous levels. While Israel points fingers at Hamas for diverting aid shipments and exacerbating suffering, critics argue Israeli military restrictions and blockade policies are the root causes of Gaza’s dire situation.

This tangled web of blame highlights the immense complexity of reporting on a conflict. In such settings, facts, perceptions, and political agendas collide violently.

Political Fallout and Public Reactions

Netanyahu’s outspoken condemnation of the Times has found support among some pro-Israel groups and U.S. lawmakers. They accuse the newspaper of biased and misleading coverage and argue the paper promotes a narrative that paints Israel as intentionally inflicting a man-made famine. They believe this portrayal is not just false but damaging to Israel’s global standing.

Conversely, defenders of the Times contend that these attacks amount to an attempt to intimidate journalists and suppress critical reporting. They believe this, on Israel’s policies. They caution that such pressure threatens press freedom and undermines the public’s right to accurate information.

The backlash taps into a broader pattern of controversy surrounding media coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Every story is scrutinized and politicized by passionate audiences on all sides.

Legal Battles Over Media Coverage Aren’t New

Netanyahu’s threat to sue the Times, if carried out, would not be without precedent. Decades ago, former Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon took a similar legal path. He filed a libel suit against Time magazine over an article implying his involvement in instigating revenge killings during the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre in Lebanon.

Though the jury found the disputed statements false and defamatory, Time avoided financial damages. The court ruled the magazine did not act with “actual malice,” the strict legal standard in U.S. defamation cases involving public figures. Thus, the outcome was a mixed victory, balancing Sharon’s claim of defamation with the media’s protection under the First Amendment.

The Sharon case underscores how difficult it is for public figures—and countries—to win defamation suits in the United States. Even when falsehoods have been published. Whether Netanyahu’s legal threat will come to fruition remains uncertain. However, it has already stirred significant debate about media responsibility, national reputation, and the boundaries of free speech.