New York Times Cheerleads for ‘Pro-Hamas’ Mahmoud Khalil

Ira Stoll

A taxi passes by in front of The New York Times head office, Feb. 7, 2013. Photo: Reuters / Carlo Allegri

On March 9, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia University graduate student. Secretary of State Rubio posted on X, “We will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported.” President Trump himself posted, “ICE proudly apprehended and detained Mahmoud Khalil, a Radical Foreign Pro-Hamas Student on the campus of @Columbia University. This is the first arrest of many to come.”

Anyone who expected straight-down-the-middle, impartial coverage of this issue from the New York Times would be disappointed. Instead, the paper’s news columns have turned themselves into cheerleaders for Khalil and his supporters, portraying him as a free-speech martyr.

In the four-and-a-half days since Khalil’s arrest, the Times has published at least 11 articles about it, with credits to no fewer than 13 reporters and two opinion columnists. The opinion columns set the tone with hyperbolic alarmism. “This Is The Greatest Threat to Free Speech Since the Red Scare,” one opinion headline put it, overlooking the McCain-Feingold campaign speech restriction legislation championed by the Times itself, signed into law by President George W. Bush, and eventually found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

The news articles read pretty much the same. One piece was by Eliza Shapiro, who last attracted notice for a flawed investigative series that targeted Orthodox Jewish schools in New York. Shapiro’s latest article included this passage: “The Columbia Jewish Alumni Association, which has been calling for aggressive action against pro-Palestinian demonstrators, praised Mr. Khalil’s detention in a series of social media posts, calling Mr. Khalil, without evidence, a ‘ringleader’ of the chaos at Columbia.”

These Columbia protesters are not “pro-Palestinian.” They are anti-Israel, pro-terrorism, and pro-Hamas. Likewise, it’s loaded to say the Columbia Jewish Alumni Association has been “calling for aggressive action” against the students who have been disrupting campus activities, including classes. The Jewish alumni have been calling for defensive action to protect the Jewish and Israeli students from the violent assaults, harassment, and social ostracism that has interfered with their education.

In the same sentence, the “without evidence” is such garbage — a classic tell of Times aggression toward whomever the phrase is applied to. The Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans offered up evidence including a New York magazine article describing Khalil as a “lead negotiator for Columbia University Apartheid Divest,” a group that has called for “total eradication of Western Civilization” and that the New York Times itself, in a brief moment of lucidity, acknowledged in an October 2024 headline “Pro-Palestinian Group at Columbia Now Backs ‘Armed Resistance’ by Hamas.”

Another Times reporter whose slant was clearly visible was Ana Ley. Her article acknowledged, “Mahmoud Khalil, 30, emerged as a public face of students opposed to the war, leading demonstrations and granting interviews.” So much for “without evidence.” But there, too, the bias shows; the students weren’t actually “opposed to the war”; they support Hamas’s war against Israel, that is, “armed resistance.” What they oppose is Israel fighting back in self-defense, with American assistance. A print version of Ley’s article included quotes from Israel boycott advocate “Sophie Ellman-Golan, the communications director of Jews for Racial & Economic Justice”; Ben Wizner of the ACLU; and a Columbia professor supportive of Mahmoud Khalil. That’s three sources on Mahmoud Khalil’s side, and virtually no representation of the point of view that supports deporting disruptive student protesters who are non-citizens. Perhaps the Times newsroom thinks this point of view is so reprehensible that Times readers need to be protected from exposure to it.

Columbia gives out the Pulitzer Prizes, which are a key to career advancement at the New York Times. Maybe the Times is hoping for a Pulitzer for its all-hands-on-deck defense of free-speech martyr Mahmoud Khalil? The free-speech aspect of the issue seemed somehow less salient to the Times newsroom when the Israel-haters at Columbia were disrupting the class of an Israeli professor, preventing him from speaking. It is almost enough to make a reader wonder whether the Times’ cause is really free speech, as a universally applied principle, or if what they are really dug in committedly in favor of is the ability of Columbia students and graduates to cheer on Hamas without any significant adverse consequences.

Ira Stoll was managing editor of The Forward and North American editor of The Jerusalem Post. His media critique, a regular Algemeiner feature, can be found here.