A recent New York Times article that essentially reviews a documentary about the Israel-Gaza war is a shining example that some things never change at the paper of record. It premiered at the Venice International Film Festival, where The Times gushed about the fact that the Israeli directors of the film received a 25-minute standing ovation, but said the film is "facing backlash" in Israel. They fail to mention where any backlash is coming from. One sentence in particular could be the source, but maybe not in the way the New York Times thinks.
Israel's Minister of Culture Threatens to Revoke Israeli Citizenships of 'NAZA' Filmmakers https://t.co/8ekiVpWGmn
— Variety (@Variety) September 13, 2026
The documentary is called "NAZA," which is a Hebrew acronym for nezek agavi, or collateral damage. It was created by Israeli directors Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, and co-produced by the left-leaning British newspaper The Guardian. The film documents interviews with who they claim are 24 Israeli intelligence officers and soldiers. The summary of the film states that those being interviewed detail “the systems behind Israel’s calculated mass killing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza.”
The Times article then goes on to say that there is "a storm of official criticism." However, that criticism is from military leaders taking issue with the "facts" in the film. Israeli Military Chief Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir says that top generals have been consulted about a response to the film, saying it is “based on blood libels," and “deliberate distortions of reality.” Israeli Minister of Culture Miki Zohar has inquired as to whether Abraham and Szor could be stripped of their Israeli citizenship for “betraying the state of Israel.”
In a surprise to nobody, New York Times’ Gaza war coverage was clearly biased against Israelhttps://t.co/jn8FT40HOD
— Aviva Klompas (@AvivaKlompas) September 14, 2026
If there was any question as to whether the New York Times article on the documentary might play fast and loose with the truth for an agenda, there is one sentence that just might clear that up. The Times whipped up this gem while trying to portray Israeli sentiment over the initial attack by Hamas on October 7, 2023, as divided.
"Israelis are deeply divided over how to apportion blame for the policy, military and intelligence failures that preceded the attack and the war. But Israelis still largely view themselves as the victims of Oct. 7."
Largely view themselves as the victims? The very next sentence is the bloody inventory of 1,200 people killed, 250 taken hostage, and not to mention story after story of brutal rapes and sexual violence against women and children. So, yeah, in the midst of their pro-Palestinian, pro-Hamas cheerleading, it's easy to see why The New York Times might be perplexed that Israelis see themselves as victims.
If the creators of the documentary also hoped it would be a cheap shot at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, they missed the target. Centrist Gadi Eisenkot, who is a former military chief, lost a son in Gaza, and is eyeing Netanyahu's job, stated that it is a "distorted" portrayal and shows “moral blindness” and “detachment from reality.” He added in a social media post:
“Criticism is legitimate in a democratic society, but there is an abyss between it and smearing the good name of our soldiers in order to reap applause at festivals abroad.”
Clearly, it's just business as usual for the New York Times.
(Warning: Language)
What the f**k is this, @nytimes? pic.twitter.com/ncXTtDvQnL
— Eitan Fischberger (@EFischberger) September 16, 2026
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy RedState's conservative reporting exposing the radical left and woke media? Support our work so we can keep bringing you the truth.
Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the Conversation
VIP members get the ability to comment on articles.