New York Magazine accused of using HITLER font for ‘anti-Semitic’ special edition that infuriated many Jews by using phrase ‘the land mass currently called Israel’
New York Magazine has faced criticism over a special edition titled “Habibi City”, which explored the growing influence of South West Asian and North African communities in New York. Some Jewish readers and commentators said its language and cover design were offensive, arguing that they echoed anti-Israel or antisemitic themes; the dispute highlights continuing sensitivities over media coverage of Israel and the war in Gaza.
Critics particularly objected to a sidebar reportedly describing Israel as “the land mass currently called Israel”, saying the wording denied the country’s legitimacy. They also compared the cover’s blackletter-style typeface to Nazi-era imagery, though this was an interpretation made by critics rather than an established description of the design. The edition was written by Zaina Arafat and used “SWANA” — South West Asia and North Africa — as a regional and cultural framework.
- New York Magazine’s “Habibi City” edition prompted accusations of antisemitism.
- Critics objected to its description of Israel and its cover typography.
- The controversy reflects wider tensions over Israel-related language in media.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Critics argue that an edition celebrating Middle Eastern cultures should take particular care not to erase or marginalise Jewish identity, especially amid heightened concern about antisemitism. They may see the phrase “the land mass currently called Israel” as needlessly delegitimising a recognised state, and the alleged typographic choice as an insensitive reference to Nazi imagery; together, these choices can reasonably feel hostile rather than inclusive. Their concern rests on equal treatment, historical awareness and the belief that cultural celebration should not come at the expense of Jewish readers’ dignity or security.
The case against
The magazine’s defenders may argue that its purpose was to foreground the varied communities and histories of Middle Eastern New Yorkers, not to make a statement against Jews or Israel. They may contend that politically charged wording about the region can reflect a Palestinian or broader regional perspective without constituting antisemitism, and that a font resemblance may be accidental or stylistic rather than an intended Nazi reference. Their position rests on protecting editorial and artistic freedom, allowing contested histories to be expressed, and distinguishing criticism or reframing of national narratives from hostility towards Jewish people.