NYT Whitewashes Genocide, Again

In an OpEd, Columnist Bret Stephens takes a sledgehammer to truth & humanity to justify a live streamed genocide—we rebuke his propaganda in full

The 2013 documentary titled, “Reporting on the Times,” uncovers a startling fact.

Between 1939 and 1945, the New York Times published 23,000 front page stories, with 11,500 covering WW2—and only 26 covering the Holocaust.

Meaning, as it was happening, only .1% of New York Times stories covered the Nazi genocide of an estimated 6 million Jewish people, and of millions of other minorities.

Now in 2025, as the world watches the Israeli government commit live streamed genocide of Palestinians, the New York Times returns to its roots to whitewash it. This time, NYT senior columnist Bret Stephens published an OpEd titled, “No, Israel Is Not Committing Genocide in Gaza.” In doing so, the NYT is simply reminding the world that when it comes to genocide, its DNA is to side with the oppressor. As a human rights lawyer committed to justice for all humanity, I find this behavior repulsive, and I cannot let it go unchallenged. Here, I address and rebuke each barbaric claim made by Bret Stephens and tacitly endorsed by the New York Times. We cannot remain silent in the face of genocide, lest we be complicit. Let’s Address This.

Writers Against the War on Gaza protest in the New York Times’ headquarters, March 14, 2024. (Photo: Julia Sharpe-Levine)

Preliminary Note

One, this is in response to Bret Stephens, the New York Times Senior Columnist, not Brett Stephens, the neo Nazi white supremacist blogger. In case there was any confusion, they are in fact two different people, and I am responding to the former.

Two, I refute Stephens’ OpEd with a simple format. I cite his sentence verbatim in bold, offer my rebuttal, then repeat by debunking his next absurd claim. Let’s dive in.

Bret Stephens Whitewashes Genocide

STEPHENS: It may seem harsh to say, but there is a glaring dissonance to the charge that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. To wit: If the Israeli government’s intentions and actions are truly genocidal — if it is so malevolent that it is committed to the annihilation of Gazans — why hasn’t it been more methodical and vastly more deadly?

Stephens already commits three ridiculous errors in his opening sentence.

First, he misrepresents the definition of genocide. The term genocide was coined in 1944 by Polish Jewish Lawyer Ralph Lemkin. Lemkin’s heroic groundwork led us to the now universally adopted definition of genocide as follows, as enshrined in Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:

Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Stephens hopes that his readers ignore that at the definition of genocide specifically rejects the idea that an act must reach a particular level of “methodical or vastness” before it can count as genocide. Instead, the definition quite specifically points to an act as genocide even if it only intends to destroy “part” of a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. As I’ll soon revisit, that is what is happening here.

Second, even if we were to accept Stephens made up definition of genocide, he never actually defines what he considers adequately “methodical and vastness” in how deadly such attacks should have been on Palestinians to meet the threshold of genocide. In doing so, he again attempts to absolve Israel’s actions.

Third, Stephens pretends that Israel hasn’t already “methodically and vastly” destroyed Gaza. A recent UN survey concluded that more than 95% of land in Gaza is now unusable for agriculture. Another report by Doctors Without Borders in January 2025 concluded that more than 92% of homes and more than 70% of all buildings in Gaza are destroyed, damaged, or unusable. Yet another UN report from September 2024 concluded that nearly 70% of all infrastructure in Gaza has been destroyed or damaged. Finally, simply compare the visual destruction in Gaza from October 12, 2023 to January 11, 2025.

Moreover, by April of 2024 Gaza had already suffered more than 70,000 tonnes of bombing. To put that in perspective, that is more than the combined bomb tonnage dropped on Dresden, Hamburg, and London in World War II. Now more than a year later, that bombing has only increased. It is no surprise, therefore, that UN Humanitarian Chief Martin Griffiths declared Gaza “uninhabitable” due to the bombing, destruction, blockades, and subsequent famines.

Thus, by all accounts, Gaza is already at near 100% total destruction. How much “more methodical and vastly more deadly” would Bret Stephens like for the destruction to be before he acknowledges it is genocide? Stephens never answers.

STEPHENS: Why not, say, hundreds of thousands of deaths, as opposed to the nearly 60,000 that Gaza’s Hamas-run Health Ministry, which does not distinguish between combatant and civilian deaths, has cited so far in nearly two years of war?

Next, Stephens attempts to make 60,000 deaths seem “too small” for genocide. This is both incredibly calloused, and it again shamelessly ignores the actual definition of genocide. For example, August, 2025 marks the 11 year anniversary of the universally and United Nations recognized Yazidi genocide, in which Daesh (ISIS) terrorists killed approximately 12,000 Yazidis and displaced up to 400,000 more. By Stephens own twisted logic, ISIS is innocent of any wrongdoing and we should expect an OpEd from Stephens titled, “No, ISIS Did Not Commit Genocide of Yazidis,” where he argues it is not genocide because not enough people were killed.

How fortunate is ISIS to have a champion in Bret Stephens and the New York Times?

Third, Stephens ignores numerous landmark studies demonstrating the true extent of death in Palestine. The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine reports in a January study published in The Lancet that even the ‘official’ death toll is at least a 41% undercount.

Another study published by Yale in The Lancet estimated in June 2024 that Israel’s genocide upon Gaza had already killed up to 186,000 people, conservatively. The analysis concluded:

In recent conflicts, such indirect deaths range from three to 15 times the number of direct deaths. Applying a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death⁹ to the 37 396 deaths reported, it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186 000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza.

The current ‘official’ death toll in Gaza is approximately 58,000 people. But applying The Lancet’s conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death lands us at a staggering 224,000 people killed. In fact, over the last 20 months, Israeli bombing has killed more children in Gaza than children killed in all global conflicts combined. While the latest data is far worse, even 1 year into Israel’s siege on Gaza, OxFam reported this horrifying fact:

More women and children have been killed in Gaza by the Israeli military over the past year than the equivalent period of any other conflict over the past two decades.

And yet another study published by Israeli professor Yaakov Garb finds the following:

A study published via the Harvard Dataverse reveals that Israel has “disappeared” at least 377,000 Palestinians since the start of its genocidal campaign against the Gaza Strip in 2023. Half of this number is believed to be Palestinian children. The professor notes that the official death toll of 61,000 is clearly an underestimate, as victims who remain trapped under rubble are not included.

These are global scholars, including Israeli scholars, attesting to the vast death count—Stephens ignores it all. He instead spends his next four paragraphs offering arguments that have nothing to do with the definition of genocide.

Namely that Israel is the leading military power in the region.

So what? All that means is Israel is that much more accountable to the rules of war, which it has repeatedly violated and broken.

That since Israel “warned” Gazans to evacuate, it isn’t genocide.

No, it’s ethnic cleansing, which is still a war crime, and we’ll revisit these ‘warnings’ later because they do in fact further prove genocide.

That Israel has diplomatic cover with Trump.

Yes, we are well aware that Trump’s policies are helping enable genocide.

That economic boycotts are not hurting Israel.

I’m unsure what this has to do with the fact that the Israeli government is committing genocide? Finally, Stephens concludes his opening half of his OpEd with this question:

STEPHENS: In short, the first question the anti-Israel genocide chorus needs to answer is: Why isn’t the death count higher?

No, the first question Stephens needs to answer is why is he lying about the definition of genocide? Genocide is not, nor has it ever been, determined by death count. As the Weiner Holocaust Library well documents numerous genocides throughout the last several centuries, the numbers of innocent people killed ranges from thousands to millions—each of which are deemed genocide per the definition coined by Ralph Lemkin and globally adopted by the United Nations. Bret Stephens’ decision to ignore this fact speaks only to his lack of journalistic integrity.

STEPHENS: The answer, of course, is that Israel is manifestly not committing genocide, a legally specific and morally freighted term that is defined by the United Nations convention on genocide as the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.”

Finally, after spending the entire first half of his OpEd fabricating a definition of genocide, Stephens acknowledges the actual and correct globally adopted definition of genocide. He chose not to lead with this in an attempt to distract readers from the fact that he was feeding the propaganda and falsehood.

STEPHENS: Note the words “intent” and “as such.” Genocide does not mean simply “too many civilian deaths” — a heartbreaking fact of nearly every war, including the one in Gaza.

Here is a classic case of Stephens hypocrisy. In the first half of his OpEd he literally asks, “Why isn’t the death count higher?” And now, after citing the actual definition of genocide he argues, “Genocide does not simply mean too many civilian deaths.”

So which is it, Bret?

Is it not genocide because not enough have been killed?

Or is it not genocide just because too many have been killed?

Stephens never answers because he is a man incapable of seeing his own hypocrisy.

STEPHENS: It means seeking to exterminate a category of people for no other reason than that they belong to that category:

If Bret Stephens had any integrity, he would have started his OpEd with this correct definition. The fact that he chose not to, and then spoke out of both sides of his mouth on what is and is not genocide, should be evidence enough for any fair minded person that this is not a man committed to justice.

STEPHENS: the Nazis and their partners killing Jews in the Holocaust because they were Jews or the Hutus slaughtering the Tutsis in the Rwandan genocide because they were Tutsi. When Hamas invaded on Oct. 7, intentionally butchering families in their homes and young people at a music festival, they also murdered Israelis “as such.”

Now, remarkably, Stephens seems to insinuate that the war crimes Hamas committed on 10/7 amount to genocide because of the 809 civilians killed that day, but the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians killed by Israel since is still somehow not genocide. Remarkable hypocrisy from Stephens once again.

STEPHENS: By contrast, the fact that over a million German civilians died in World War II — thousands of them in appalling bombings of cities like Hamburg and Dresden — made them victims of war but not of genocide. The aim of the Allies was to defeat the Nazis for leading Germany into war, not to wipe out Germans simply for being German.

Stephens depths of deception with this argument is truly breathtaking. He full well knows that the concept of genocide didn’t exist at that time. That, as mentioned earlier, it was coined by Ralph Lemkin after WW2. Stephens’ argument that “it wasn’t genocide” while ignoring the concept didn’t yet exist is just one example of his inability to form a coherent argument to justify whitewashing genocide.

STEPHENS: In response, Israel’s inveterate critics note the scale of destruction in Gaza. They also point to a handful of remarks by a few Israeli politicians dehumanizing Gazans and promising brutal retaliation. But furious comments in the wake of Hamas’s Oct. 7 atrocities hardly amount to a Wannsee conference.

The Wannsee Conference was held to coordinate the removal of Jewish people, by forcibly transfer or by what we now recognize as genocide, from lands Germany ruled. Bret Stephens defends Israel’s actions against Palestinians by claiming “furious comments in the wake of 10/7 hardly amount to a Wannsee conference.” I had no intention of comparing the Israeli government to Nazi Germany, but since Stephens made the comparison, let’s actually review the claim.

First of all, there’s no exception to “when” a genocidal comment is made. That’s why it’s called intent. The Isareli government officials in charge of war made genocidal comments, then they indiscriminately bombed Palestinian civilians thousands of times. Stephens knows full well that these comments amount to intent, but he cannot get himself to say it, so he makes the lame excuse of “in the wake of 10/7.” If all that happened were that such vile comments were made, then Stephens would have a point. But that’s not all that happened—the comments were followed by actions fulfilling comments to kill all Palestinians. This is but a snapshot of what Stephens is defending—and to be sure—many of these comments were made months, if not years, after 10/7:

“You must remember what Amalek has done to you. Amalekites were persecutors of the biblical Israelites, and a biblical commandment says they must be destroyed.” — Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister

"We are imposing a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything is closed." — Yoav Gallant, Israeli Defense Minister

“Israelis have one common goal, erasing the Gaza Strip from the face of the earth.” — Nissim Vaturi, Deputy Knesset speaker

"It may be just and moral to starve two million people ... until our hostages are returned." — Bezalel Smotrich, Israeli Finance Minister

"No one in the world will allow us to starve 2 million people, even though it might be justified and moral in order to free the hostages." — Bezalel Smotrich, Israeli Finance Minister

"Gaza will be totally destroyed ... they will be totally despairing, understanding that there is no hope... and will be looking for relocation." — Bezalel Smotrich, Israeli Finance Minister

"There are no uninvolved civilians in Gaza. There is no problem in bombing Hamas's food reserves. They need to starve." — Amichai Eliyahu, Israeli Heritage Minister

Bret Stephens calls the phrase “from the river to the sea” as “calls for the elimination of an entire city,” (even though it appears in the Likud charter and Stephens has never objected to it there), yet deems the above genocidal statements literally calling to erase the Gaza strip from the face of the Earth as unproblematic. And while the Wannsee conference focused on the violent removal of Jewish people, perhaps Stephens can explain the difference between that and the near unanimous vote taken by the Israeli Knesset just this week to remove 1.8M Palestinians from Gaza:

Knesset lawmakers voted 71-13 in favour of the motion on Wednesday, a non-binding vote which calls for “applying Israeli sovereignty to Judea, Samaria and the Jordan Valley” – the Israeli terms for the area. It said that annexing the West Bank “will strengthen the state of Israel, its security and prevent any questioning of the fundamental right of the Jewish people to peace and security in their homeland”.

Or does Stephens want us to pretend that a Knesset vote nearly 2 years after 10/7 still counts as “furious comments in the wake of 10/7?” A nuclear powered nation that has already dropped more bombs on Palestinians than were dropped on Germany during World War 2 just passed a motion to annex Gaza, and Stephens still wants us to pretend this is not genocide or ethnic cleansing.

But then, Stephens brings up yet another defense.

STEPHENS: I am aware of no evidence of an Israeli plan to deliberately target and kill Gazan civilians.

Well if Stephens wants to pretend he is a journalist, perhaps he should study these critical questions before making ignorant assumptions. And since he admits he is not aware of such plans, let me educate him. Back in December, 2023, his very own New York Times reported:

Israel claims it protects civilians, but a New York Times investigation found that at least 200 times Israel dropped its most destructive bombs in areas it designated as safe for civilians in Gaza.

Another investigation by NBC reached the same conclusion, that Israel repeatedly forced Palestinian civilians into what they called “safe zones,” then bombed those very safe zones, killing by fire and explosives the very people they forced into those trapped locations. Remember how earlier Stephens tried to defend Israel by claiming how humanitarian they are to “warn Gazans to evacuate?” The New York Times itself admits that after warning and forcing Palestinians to evacuate to safe zones, the Israeli government repeatedly bombed those very safe zones. And since Stephens brought up comparisons to Nazi Germany, how is this action by the Israeli government—repeated hundreds of times at least—in any way different than rounding up civilians into camps, and then killing people in those camps, as the Nazis did?

And these reports were only from the first two months of bombing Gaza. The atrocities that have unfolded since further add to this death toll and mass killing by fire. And then there are the countless horrific stories like of Dr. Alaa al-Najjar, who as reported:

Left her ten children at home when she went to work in the emergency room at the Nasser Medical Complex in southern Gaza. Hours later, the bodies of seven children arrived - most of them badly burned.

In total, the Israeli military killed nine of her 10 children by targeting them at home and burning them to death. And thus we see Israel’s clear plan to kill doctors and bomb Palestinian hospitals—as uncovered by a detailed UN report. This is another aspect of genocide that Stephens wholly ignores.

First, I expect the Israeli government to not bomb hospitals as they are protected under international human rights law. No sane person would justify bombing a hospital in Tel Aviv, London, or New York, even if it were discovered with absolute certainty that Hamas generals were hiding inside. The ‘justification’ to bomb hospitals in Gaza on the mere accusation that Hamas is ‘hiding inside’ is in reality a declaration that the Israeli government does not deem Palestinians as human beings. This is not hyperbole, given that Israeli leadership has already referred to Palestinians as “human animals” and is demonstrably committing a holocaust.

Second, the evidence shows that Hamas was never ‘hiding in hospitals.’ A thorough UN investigation tackled this important question. International Human Rights Law makes it explicitly clear that hospitals and medical institutions are protected from attack. The exception that IHL recognizes is when a hospital or medical facility is used:

Outside their humanitarian functions [and] "act harmful to the enemy". In case of doubt as to whether medical units of establishments are used to commit an "act harmful to the enemy", they should be presumed not to be so used.

Of immense significance, IHL clarifies that when in doubt—hospitals and medical institutions must remain protected. At the time of the aforementioned UN report, the Israeli military had bombed 110 hospitals and medical centers in Gaza, claiming Hamas was ‘hiding inside.’ This means that in bombing 110 healthcare facilities, the Israeli military should have had explicitly clear knowledge that Hamas was using these facilities as “command-and-control” centers in violation of IHL. And if the Israeli government had explicitly clear knowledge, then they should have zero trouble providing ample evidence, example after example, that Hamas is using hospitals in violation of IHL.

But what does the reality show us? It shows that on the contrary, the detailed UN Commission concluded no such evidence of Hamas hiding in hospitals:

Israeli security forces asserted that over 85% of major medical facilities in Gaza were used by Hamas for terror operations, but did not provide evidence to substantiate that claim. Israeli security forces alleged that there were tunnels underneath or connected to hospitals, and that Hamas stored weapons, hid personnel and operated headquarters from within and underneath hospitals. The Commission interviewed senior medical personnel at hospitals and they denied that there was any military activity, emphasizing that the hospitals’ only role was to treat patients.

Let’s unpack this. The Israeli military first claims that 85% of the 110 medical facilities it targeted were used for “Hamas terror operations.” That means that it admits 15% of the medical facilities it targeted had no Hamas terror operations, but the Israeli military targeted them anyway. That in and of itself is a clear admission of war crimes. And that is all that should be necessary for the US Government, indeed the global West, to stop arming Netanyahu, and to recognize this as genocide.

But adding to these war crimes is that even in the “85% (allegedly) legitimate targets,” the Israeli government could provide no evidence to substantiate its claims. None. Not one single example. The UN Commission received zero evidence from the Israeli government, or from a single senior medical personnel at the hospitals that any military activity occurred at the hospitals that the Israeli military bombed. Yet, the bombings continue, in complete violation of IHL. And given that these bombings are deliberate and intentional, this satisfies the “intent” element of proving genocide.

Indeed, beyond war crimes, the Israeli military bombing 110 hospitals and medical centers in Gaza, while knowing full well they are not Hamas military command centers, proves they are intentionally killing Palestinian civilians. That is genocide. And that this mass killing has become systematic, intentional, and fire-based to burn civilians alive makes this by definition a holocaust.

Let’s be clear. Hundreds, if not thousands, of bombings on locations Israel designated as safe zones, and forced people to move to under threat of death, before bombing them to death in those safe zones is not an accident—it is intentional policy. It is a plan to deliberately target and kill Palestinian civilians. Stephens yet continues to ignore all this, and instead then continues to make excuses for Israel. While earlier he claimed the destruction of Gaza wasn’t so bad, now he admits it is immense.

STEPHENS: As for the destruction in Gaza, it is indeed immense. There are important questions to be asked about the tactics Israel has used, most recently when it comes to the chaotic food distribution system it has attempted to set up as a way of depriving Hamas of control of the food supply.

Notice how Stephens simply glazes over Israel blocking aid to Palestinians? Blocking aid is a war crime. Since January, after Netanyahu broke the ceasefire agreement he agreed to, Netanyahu unilaterally reignited bombing. He is cutting off food, medicine, and water to a population of people in Gaza he’s already spent the past 20 months brutalizing. And Hamas has nothing to do with this, as attested to by numerous independent organizations and accountable leaders.

For example, Cindy McCain, the widow of Senator John McCain and executive director of the World Food Programme, made it unequivocally clear: the Israeli government—not Hamas—is blocking aid into Gaza. In her words, “We have had no instances of Hamas stealing food.” Her statement directly contradicts the propaganda being peddled by the Israeli government and parroted by its defenders like Stephens.

This matters. Because under the Fourth Geneva Convention, it is a war crime for an occupying power to block humanitarian aid. Specifically, Articles 49, 51, 55, 56, and 59 make clear the occupying power has a legal obligation to ensure that food, water, and medical aid reach civilians.

Instead, Netanyahu’s government is doing the opposite. They are using starvation, dehydration, and now incineration as tools of warfare. Even Stephens own New York Times is reporting that Palestinian children in Gaza are dying by starvation—which again—is a war crime.

STEPHENS: And hardly any military in history has gone to war without at least some of its soldiers committing war crimes. That includes Israel in this war — and America in nearly all of our wars, including World War II, when some of our greatest generation bombed schools accidentally or murdered P.O.W.s in cold blood. But bungled humanitarian schemes or trigger-happy soldiers or strikes that hit the wrong target or politicians reaching for vengeful sound bites do not come close to adding up to genocide. They are war in its usual tragic dimensions.

Stephens attempts to argue that because other armies committed war crimes, the war crimes committed here are somehow okay. This is by definition whitewashing genocide and the New York Times should be ashamed to publish this propaganda. As far as “hitting the wrong target” goes—perhaps Stephens can explain why doctors are reporting that Palestinian children have Israeli sniper bullets to their heads, or why Israeli soldiers are shooting teen boys in the testicles, or why the Israeli military has killed more than 1000 starving Palestinians trying to get aid, or why former Israeli soldiers admit that Israeli military is “systemically” using Palestinians as human shields in Gaza, or why the Israeli military is raping Palestinian prisoners who were also arrested without any charge? Stephens wants to brush all this away as “trigger-happy soldiers,” even as none of these soldiers face any accountability whatsoever, even as former soldiers themselves admit it is systemic abuse, and even as Palestinians continue to suffer mass murder at the hands of the Israeli military.

STEPHENS: What is unusual about Gaza is the cynical and criminal way Hamas has chosen to wage war. In Ukraine, when Russia attacks with missiles, drones or artillery, civilians go underground while the Ukrainian military stays aboveground to fight. In Gaza, it’s the reverse: Hamas hides and feeds and preserves itself in its vast warren of tunnels rather than open them to civilians for protection.

Now clutching at straws, Stephens turns the blame back to Hamas, as if the most powerful military in the Middle East is somehow helpless and has no choice but to sniper children, shoot teen boys in testicles, rape prisoners, kill starving Palestinians, and use Palestinians as human shields.

STEPHENS: These tactics, which are war crimes in themselves, make it difficult for Israel to achieve its war aims: the return of its hostages and the elimination of Hamas as a military and political force so that Israel may never again be threatened with another Oct. 7. Those twin aims were and remain entirely justifiable — and would bring the killing in Gaza to an end if Hamas simply handed over the hostages and surrendered. Those are demands one almost never hears from Israel’s supposedly evenhanded accusers.

One of the most effective propaganda claims Netanyahu has disseminated, that sycophants like Stephens happily parrot, is that "he'd stop bombing Gaza if only Hamas would accept releasing all hostages." Meanwhile, as the receipts show, Netanyahu has been the main culprit behind preventing a hostage deal. For example, Netanyahu rejected UN Security Council Resolution 2735. UNSC 2735 is a binding UN resolution to mandate release of all hostage—a resolution Israel itself crafted—and Netanyahu rejected it once it passed because Hamas accepted it.

If Stephens were an actual journalist, and not a soulless propagandist, he would know that the “what about the hostages” excuse is one that the families of the hostages themselves have long rejected. The families of Israeli hostages call Netanyahu “Mr. Death,” for insisting on war and refusing a hostage deal. Israeli media and Netanyahu’s own military generals have condemned him for repeatedly blocking a ceasefire deal. It is Netanyahu who has rejected a two-state solution and denies Palestinian sovereignty, even as international consensus has demanded it. It was Netanyahu who again broke the ceasefire agreed to in January. Haaretz, Israel's longest-running newspaper, have confirmed a deeply disturbing reality: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has actively blocked every potential hostage deal since October 7th, 2023. While the public narrative continues to ask why Hamas refuses to agree to such deals, the more pressing question is why Netanyahu himself has repeatedly obstructed these opportunities, and why the West continues to arm him?

But Stephens never asks these questions, because doing so would force him to admit that Netanyahu is intentionally sabotaging hostage deals so he can intentionally continue to bomb Palestinian civilians, and thus be forced to admit that Israel is committing genocide. If Stephens were an actual journalist, he’d know that his own former paper—where he served as Editor-in-Chief from 2002-2004, ran a detailed piece on how Netanyahu funded Hamas and enabled October 7.

Even Stephens current employer, The New York Times, reported in December of 2023 about Netanyahu propping up Hamas. But again, he refuses to ask these important questions, deferring instead to whitewashing genocide.

STEPHENS: It’s also worth asking how the United States would operate in similar circumstances. As it happens, we know. In 2016 and 2017, under Barack Obama and Trump, the United States aided the government of Iraq in retaking the city of Mosul, which was captured by the Islamic State three years earlier and turned into a booby-trapped, underground fortress. Here’s a description in The Times of the way the war was waged to eliminate ISIS.

If Stephens thinks that quoting The Times description of the Iraq War, when they pushed for the illegal Iraq War in the first place is a win, then he really is delusional. Moreover, the comparison is fascinating given that Israel has illegally and violently occupied Palestine in violation of international law since 1967 but Stephens lacks the integrity (or perhaps the knowledge) to mention that.

STEPHENS: As Iraqi forces have advanced, American airstrikes have at times leveled entire blocks — including the one in Mosul Jidideh this month that residents said left as many as 200 civilians dead. At the same time, the Islamic State fighters have used masses of civilians as human shields, and have been indiscriminate about sniper and mortar fire. This fight, carried out over nine months, had broad bipartisan and international support. By some estimates, it left as many as 11,000 civilians dead. I don’t recall any campus protests.

What Iraq has to do with Israel committing genocide of Palestinians is anyone’s guess. But for Stephens to rightly condemn ISIS for using human shields, but defend Israel’s systemic use of human shields, shows he doesn’t actually care about the war crime, he only cares about defending Israel despite its war crimes. Moreover, there were extensive and sustained nationwide college protests against the United States illegally bombing Iraq. Is Stephens’ contention that because every single bombing wasn’t protested to the same extent that students are protesting genocide of Palestinians, somehow they aren’t valid? These are the straws Stephens is grasping at.

STEPHENS: Some readers may say that even if the war in Gaza isn’t genocide, it has gone on too long and needs to end. That’s a fair point of view, shared by a majority of Israelis.

Yes, it’s gone on for at least 58 years since 1967, before Stephens was even born. Yet at no point has Stephens ever called for an end to this military occupation of Palestine. In other places, he’s defended the occupation as not a source of conflict. For some reason I cannot imagine Stephens would be happy for a foreign military to violently enter his property, kick him and his family out of their homes, and then force him to silently suffer the indignity—yet that’s what he expects out of Palestinians suffering illegal military occupation by Israel.

STEPHENS: So why does the argument over the word “genocide” matter? Two reasons. First, while some pundits and scholars may sincerely believe the genocide charge, it is also used by anti-Zionists and antisemites to equate modern Israel with Nazi Germany. The effect is to license a new wave of Jew hatred.

Ironically, Stephens himself makes the comparison between modern Israel with Nazi Germany when he claims that whatever Israel is doing, it isn’t what the Nazis did at the Wannsee conference. Moreover, as is his classic strategy when he doesn’t have an argument, Stephens glazes over the facts—in this case, the extensive list of who has recognized this as genocide. It is not just “some pundits and scholars,” as he asserts. It is the global consensus. This affirmation of genocide is a view shared by Amnesty International, The International Court of Justice, the UN Special rapporteur on Palestine, and numerous Israeli scholars including globally recognized Israeli Jewish Holocaust scholar Omer Bartov who states:

My inescapable conclusion has become that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people. I have been teaching classes on genocide for a quarter of a century. I can recognize one when I see one.

Here is a non-comprehensive list of the global consensus that Israel is committing genocide, ethnic cleansing, and war crimes—including testimonies from Israeli scholars including a former Israeli prime minister, defense ministers, and lawyers. Stephens would have us believe that Israeli and Jewish scholars are engaging in “Jew hatred,” a shameless and inexcusable position to hold. Stephens continues.

STEPHENS: Second, if genocide — a word that was coined only in the 1940s — is to retain its status as a uniquely horrific crime, then the term can’t be promiscuously applied to any military situation we don’t like. Wars are awful enough. But the abuse of the term “genocide” runs the risk of ultimately blinding us to real ones when they unfold.

Earlier Stephens argues it wasn’t genocide when Germany was indiscriminately bombed, and now he points out he knows full well that the word did not even exist when Germany was bombed. Once again, he shows his overt contradictions. Moreover, Germany wasn’t bombed due to their ethnicity, they were bombed because Hitler was invading foreign nations, rounding up Jews, Romas, gay people, and disabled people into concentration and death camps, and actively waging war for world domination. Thus, the comparison also falls apart because the Palestinian people are doing none of those things. Finally, no one is “promiscuously” applying genocide to any military situation we don’t like. The international consensus that this is genocide is due to application of the actual definition of genocide—no matter how much Stephens attempts to whitewash it.

STEPHENS: The war in Gaza should be brought to an end in a way that ensures it is never repeated. To call it a genocide does nothing to advance that aim, except to dilute the meaning of a word we cannot afford to cheapen.

Stephens concludes his OpEd with this empty platitude, calling for an end to the siege on Gaza while ignoring the culprits perpetuating it—namely Netanyahu, Trump, and their ilk. Perhaps the main reason Bret Stephens ignores the genocide happening right before his eyes, is because he refuses to grapple with the facts. As a journalist, he should cite facts to make his argument—even in an Opinion Editorial—but instead he cites his feelings, his assumptions, and his beliefs, seemingly all of which are at odds with demonstrable and observable facts.

This is not journalism. It’s propaganda. And it’s deadly.

Throughout his diatribe, Stephens never acknowledges what would bring an actual end to the atrocity in Gaza. He never acknowledges the ceasefires Netanyahu continues to break, or the binding UN resolutions Israel continues to violate, or the Israeli military targeting of civilians, or the Israeli military burning children alive, or the Israeli military shooting people seeking aid, or the Israeli military raping inmates, or the Israeli military illegally detaining 10,000 Palestinian hostages, or Israel’s generations long illegal occupation of Palestinian land.

No, in Stephens world, the year prior to 10/7 was not the deadliest year on record of the Israeli military killing more than 250 Palestinian civilians in the West Bank, including nearly 50 children (‪even though it was). In Stephens cruel world, 60,000+ civilians are justifiably murdered because of 10/7, and even if not, it’s just too few deaths to be recognized as genocide anyway. As Palestinian-Canadian international lawyer Diana Buttu states, to people like Bret Stephens, “Nothing justifies 10/7, but 10/7 justifies everything.” In Stephens world, “from the river to the sea” is a statement of genocide, but “We will wipe Gaza from the face of the Earth” followed by more bombing than was conducted during World War 2 is not.

It is clear that Bret Stephens lives in an alternate reality where up is down and right is wrong, and the cost associated is our basic humanity.

Conclusion

History has no patience for those who enable atrocities under the guise of journalism. Bret Stephens isn’t offering analysis—he’s laundering genocide. He’s twisting definitions, ignoring international law, and erasing the lived reality of Palestinians to shield a government from accountability.

But genocide doesn’t require his approval to be real. The mass graves are real. The starvation is real. The charred bodies of children are real. The destroyed hospitals are real. The destroyed mosques are real. The destroyed churches are real. And no amount of New York Times OpEd spin can wash the oceans of Palestinian blood from this truth.

The New York Times once downplayed the Holocaust. Today, they’re repeating that shameful legacy in real time. And just like then, silence is complicity.

So yes, Bret Stephens, whether you want to face facts or not, the Israeli government is committing genocide of the Palestinian people. And rather than serve as water carriers for war criminals, you should serve as an actual representative of the Fourth Estate and hold the powerful accountable. But the choice is yours to stay on the wrong side of history, or join humanity on the right side. None the less, I’ll close with this final point that Bret Stephens should remember: Nuremberg didn’t only try those who dropped the bombs—but also those who justified them.