Key Takeaways:
-
The New York Times published multiple columns portraying Israel as an aggressor while ignoring that Israel’s actions in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza are defensive responses to ongoing terrorist threats and repeated ceasefire violations.
-
Roger Cohen and Ben Rhodes advance misleading claims — from downplaying Hezbollah operatives to spreading debunked quotes and antisemitic tropes about Jewish political influence — all while erasing Hamas’ role in driving the conflict.
-
Both columns rely on distortions of Israeli policy and the laws of war to paint Israel as imperialistic, while overlooking Israel’s preventative counterterror measures, low civilian-combatant ratios, and strict adherence to international law compared to Hamas.
If you are looking for accurate, bias-free reporting on Israel, it’s no secret that The New York Times is not the place to go. Two columns in only the space of a few days, spreading similar dishonest reporting, is indicative of the Gray Lady’s agenda.
On November 30, The New York Times published the headline “‘Imperial Israel’ in the New Middle East” in Katrin Bennhold’s newsletter. In the newsletter, she included the column “Israel’s military dominance” by Roger Cohen. Then, the following day, it published “This Is the Story of How the Democrats Blew It on Gaza,” by Ben Rhodes.
Both stories are filled with outright lies that seek to portray Israel as the aggressor in the region.
Does Israel Have Imperial Motives?
From reading “The World” newsletter, one would certainly think Israel is motivated by its desire to capture more territories. This is not only contrary to Israel fighting wars of self-defense throughout its history, but is also contrary to the nature of the conflicts the country finds itself in the midst of today.
When terrorist organizations don’t abide by the ceasefire, the media, including The New York Times, has consistently turned a blind eye, excusing or downplaying the violation.
“It has become a pattern,” Katrin Bennhold unironically writes. She is correct; it has become a pattern of dishonest, inaccurate reporting whereby Israel is branded as taking “imperialistic actions” when, in reality, it is taking defensive actions against terrorism and terrorist infrastructure, as it has recently in Syria and Lebanon.
Opened my inbox to find this shameless click-bait from @nytimes. It refers to Israel’s policy after October 7 to stop deterring the terrorist armies on its borders—and start removing them, killing terrorists nearly anywhere.
Needless to say, that is not what imperialism means. pic.twitter.com/cIQp8Qu9uz
— Eylon Levy (@EylonALevy) December 1, 2025
The world stood in shock after the terrorist attacks of October 7, which left thousands of Israelis dead or injured. Israel, understandably, changed its counter-terrorism doctrine in real time to actively counter every threat before the terrorists could act on their plans.
In his column, Roger Cohen claims that Israel is currently targeting “less prominent Hezbollah members.” Yet some of these members, portrayed as unimportant, include Haytham Ali Tabatabai, Hezbollah’s Chief of General Staff, as well as numerous local representatives who have been working on rebuilding Hezbollah’s infrastructure in southern Lebanon.
While Cohen correctly notes Hezbollah is currently a “shadow of its former self,” Israel cannot afford to allow Hezbollah to reconstruct its military capabilities unchallenged. The notion that these operatives are less prominent ignores the reality that every member of Hezbollah plays a critical role in restoring the group’s terror network. Israel’s precision strikes prevent Hezbollah from rebuilding the very infrastructure that threatens Israeli civilians.
Recommended Reading: What the Media Don’t Explain About Israel’s Fight With Hezbollah
The IDF has similarly carried out preventative operations in Syria to ensure the safety of the northern border of Israel.
Israel has thus proved this “military dominance” that Cohen writes about, particularly for that reason: preventative action. Unless Israel wants to see another mass terrorist attack, the army will continue to maintain its dominance over terrorist threats while ensuring the safety of civilians in any country, as has been the framework and foundation of the IDF. While peace is Israel’s ultimate goal, until terrorist groups adhere to the ceasefire and the threat is dismantled, peace will remain a distant illusion.
A Distorted Picture of the Israel-Hamas War
Ben Rhodes’s “This Is the Story of How the Democrats Blew It on Gaza” is meant to read as a critique of the Democratic Party’s policies on Israel over the two years following Hamas’ terrorist attacks. It could have been an interesting analysis of how U.S. policies impact Israel’s war strategy. Instead, it was just a hit piece deploying standard antisemitic tropes, all the while claiming that the charge of antisemitism is being leveled “so broadly.”
No one is suggesting that critiquing the policies of Israel’s government is antisemitic. But when Rhodes suggests that American politics are “beholden” to AIPAC money, he utilizes the trope of Jewish funds being used to assert dominance over American politics.
In the same vein, Rhodes quips that Democrats who side with Israel over Hamas feel like “hypocrites when defending a ‘rules-based order,’ racial equality and democracy.” Supporting Israel, a democratic state fighting a terrorist organization that explicitly violates every rule-based order, is entirely consistent with those values.
Rhodes: Siding with Israel over Hamas was hypocritical for Dems defending a “rules-based order,” racial equality & democracy.
Huh? What does backing Isr have to do with *racial equality*?
And Isr is a democracy fighting Hamas – the least democratic entity one could imagine.
3/11— Lazar Berman (@Lazar_Berman) December 1, 2025
Nonetheless, Israel did not enjoy “unconditional support” from the U.S. as Rhodes claims. Otherwise, Israel would not have listened to the U.S. when it originally told the IDF to stay out of Rafah, despite Israel knowing that it was not only a terrorist stronghold, but also where hostages were being held.
Rhodes does not critique the Israeli government in his piece. He does, however, spread the lie that former Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant called Palestinians “human animals” and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu referred to Gaza as an “evil city.” Palestinians were never referred to as “human animals,” and Netanyahu specifically referred to Hamas operating in Gaza, making it a “wicked city.”
In today’s @nytimes piece @brhodes lies about quotes by Israeli leaders, proving the weakness of the “genocide” case. Gallant never called Palestinians “human animals” and Bibi cited “Hamas” in reference to the “wicked city.” Rhodes lies like all “experts” on this matter. 1/2 pic.twitter.com/U3Ld3mB84V
— Aizenberg (@Aizenberg55) December 1, 2025
Although Rhodes notes that “Hamas has engaged in abhorrent acts of terrorism,” it is caveated by claiming that Israel had no right to drop “2,000-pound U.S.-made bombs on refugee camps full of children.” He correctly asserts that no state has the right to target civilians indiscriminately. What he omits, however, is that Israel explicitly targeted terrorists who embedded themselves in civilian infrastructure, and the IDF employed extensive measures to prevent civilian casualties. For that reason, the civilian-combatant ratio of less than 2:1 remains one of the lowest in modern warfare.
All of these claims are said to assist Rhodes in concluding, based on a faulty U.N. report, that Israel is committing genocide. But again, the facts speak for themselves, and neither the casualty figures nor the intent to commit genocide support this conclusion.
Recommended Reading: Rebutted: UN Inquiry Report Falsely Accuses Israel of “Genocide”
The laws of war are clear, and it is all the more clear that Israel has been adhering to them throughout the war. In the rare cases where individual IDF soldiers violated these requirements, they have been investigated. Hamas, by contrast, has never adhered to these laws – not before October 7, not during the atrocities, and not in the aftermath. Of course, that is to be expected from a terrorist organization.
Yet, Rhodes makes the absurd moral equivalence between the two, suggesting that if someone believes a “Palestinian child is equal in dignity and worth to an Israeli or American child,” they can no longer support Israel. However, a child kidnapped and brutally murdered by terrorists and a child tragically used as a human shield by Hamas and caught in the crossfire do not have the same perpetrators. Recognizing the equal worth of all children does not require erasing the moral distinction between those who target them and those who try to protect them.
Rhodes is thus no different from Cohen in attempting to portray Israel as an aggressive, territory-seeking entity that acts with impunity. This is an unfortunate paradox, considering Israel is fighting terrorist organizations that will never be held to the same standards.
Two articles. Two days. One outcome: distorted and biased commentary on Israel that does not reflect the reality of the war against terrorist organizations it has been fighting for over two years.
But sadly, this is precisely what we’ve come to expect from the opinion pages of The New York Times.
Liked this article? Follow HonestReporting on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to see even more posts and videos debunking news bias and smears, as well as other content explaining what’s really going on in Israel and the region. Get updates direct to your phone. Join our WhatsApp and Telegram channels!
