The conservative news media and punditry sites are exploding with criticism of the New York Times for publishing the op-ed on December 24 written by Yahya Sarraj, mayor of Gaza City. Sarraj was appointed mayor by Hamas, the terrorist organization that has ruled Gaza for more than a decade. The piece is self-evident proaganda that seeks to create outrage and sympathy for Gaza in the wake of Israel’s retaliation for the Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel on October 7 and its invasion of the Gaza Strip.
The Hamas-backed mayor writes in part…
“The Israelis have also pulverized something else: Gaza City’s cultural riches and municipal institutions. The unrelenting destruction of Gaza — its iconic symbols, its beautiful seafront, its libraries and archives and whatever economic prosperity it had — has broken my heart….Why did the Israeli tanks destroy so many trees, electricity poles, cars and water mains? Why would Israel hit a U.N. school? The obliteration of our way of life in Gaza is indescribable. I still feel I am in a nightmare because I can’t imagine how any sane person could engage in such a horrific campaign of destruction and death….The Gaza Zoo has been destroyed with many of its animals killed or starved to death, including wolves, hyenas, birds and rare foxes. Other casualties include the city’s main public library, the Children’s Happiness Center, the municipal building and its archive, and the seventh-century Great Omari Mosque. Israeli forces have also damaged or destroyed streets, squares, mosques, churches and parks.”
The clear and obvious answer to “why?” would seem to be “Because your government started a war, and this is what happens to places that start wars by massacring civilians, raping women, beheading babies and taking hostages.”
“Remember when the journalists lost their minds and a chief editor had to resign because they ran an op-ed by a sitting US Senator? Well now the New York Times is running opinion pieces written by Hamas. Are their journalists outraged? NYT showing their true colors!” Chaya Raichik, creator of the Libs of TikTok , wrote on X. International Legal Forum CEO Arsen Ostrovsky wrote yesterday, “Oh, nothing to see here. Just [The Times] publishing an op-ed by Hamas appointed mayor of Gaza, Yahya Sarraj. I wonder, would NYT also publish an op-ed from Al-Qaeda justifying 9-11? Of course not, but there is no red line to this paper’s Jew hatred.” Weekly Standard writer Adam Rubenstein complained that Sarraj “[l]eaves out important context for Israel’s campaign in Gaza: The hostages. Instead, it claims that no ‘sane person’ could do what Israel is doing.” You certainly don’t need to agree with Israel’s aims, but you do need to engage with them. The word ‘hostage’ doesn’t appear in the essay.”
Your Ethics Alarms Boxing Day Ethics Quiz is…
Was it responsible for the Times to publish the op-ed?
I just deleted two paragraphs explaining my reaction to the question. Let’s see what the commentariate thinks. If “A Friend ” is out there somewhere, I’ll even allow his comments on this topic to post.
Call it an Ethics Alarms Christmas miracle.
Ethics Alarms 
What does ethics have to do with the NYT? The NYT is purely a leftist propaganda rag. This is like asking if it is ethical for Nissan to advertise their industry leading transmissions.
https://www.mistertransmission.com/the-top-ten-models-with-major-transmission-problems/
What are the ethics for advertising and marketing? No one expects Hertz to advertise “Hertz, there is a good chance we will report you as a car thief and ruin your life”.
The most unethical thing here is that the NYT purports to be an outlet that publishes journalism.
Ethical, if it’s surrounded with similar editorial context as given Ted Kaczynski.
In my opinion, it was unethical to publish the op-ed which appears to be pure propaganda. The New York Times is being willfully complicit in publishing propaganda from a known terrorist organization, that’s a choice. This is not even close to being a choice that ethical journalists would make without challenging a single word of the propaganda. Publishing the op-ed was pure advocacy. They could have had a real journalist interview the mayor and challenge the propaganda and then publish a story about the interview.
Terrorists are an enemy of the people. New York Times is actively making a choice to be a willful parrot of a terrorist organization. The New York Times is an enemy of the people.
Convince me I’m wrong.
It is only unethical if they fail to allow a counter narrative. Censoring unpopular speech is equally bad no matter which side wants it.
As a conservative I cannot demand that speech I dislike should be censored if I profess to be a champion of freedom. With that said, if a third party that claims objectivity gives a platform to one side it must give equal time to the other. Otherwise the third party is lying about being objective. It is the lying that is unethical.
My question: would the Times have published a similar lament from the Mayor of Dresden or Hiroshima?
Hiroshima? Yes. Dresden? No.
Those evil warmongering Americans were responsible for Hiroshima, so it’s fair game. Plus apparently, the new rules of war are the attacked party can only respond proportionally.
Different era’s, different public psychology. Assuming the relative time span between events. Today, I believe Junkmailfolder is correct because it has the potential to divide American for the globalist cabal.
Philosophically I agree with this quote by President Kennedy:
“A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
However, had the NY Times not actively engaged in being the arbiters of “truth” I would support their printing of the Hamas Op-ed. Had they reached out to the Israeli government for a companion Op-ed I would support their printing of the Hamas Op-ed.
For quite some time the Times and most MSM outlets editorialize not just in the opinion section but also in their reporting of the “news”. For example, why is it that when we see videos of the victims of the October 7th terrorist attacks the victim’s bodies are blurred out, but videos of Gaza casualties are not blurred? Why are the Hamas-provided Gaza causality figures accepted as fact and in some cases rounded up by reporters?
If the Times routinely provided balanced unbiased reporting, I would support their publishing of the Hamas Op-ed. This is not what the Times does; therefore they deserve all the condemnation heaped on them. They are hypocritical propagandists masquerading as journalists. My hope is the Times will begin to be more widely condemned as has been happening with Harvard and other antisemitic protesters. This is probably a false hope because they will divert reader’s attention elsewhere in the next news cycle.
I agree wholeheartedly Tom P
If the aim of the Times was to shine a light on the moral depravity of those who support Islamic terrorism and brutality (is that a triple redundancy?), then it was responsible. I’m certain that wasn’t the case, though.
Otherwise, I agree with Chris M. & co., and would not join the left in censorship… let them show their colors.