A retraction is for when a paper says something which is not true. In this case they are adding additional detail to something which is true; a retraction would make no sense.
Indeed in this case what they are surely doing is resisting an onslaught of bullying pressure to retract, by addressing it this way.
Unusual for the NYT to show this much spine but perhaps their bravery reflects a growing unease in the chattering around the US administration about their own policy choices that have emerged out of what people charitably assumed was Trump's dark satirical trolling about turning Gaza into a riviera to try to provoke capitulation.
What has gone on here -- and the low key "they aren't starving, this is just the long term consequences of not getting enough food" talking point sleight of hand -- feels like the origin story of some future event that will bring about the end of the western world. We have not even the pretence of morality here.
Unusual for the NYT to show this much spine but perhaps their bravery reflects a growing unease in the chattering around the US administration about their own policy choices that have emerged out of what people charitably assumed was Trump's dark satirical trolling about turning Gaza into a riviera to try to provoke capitulation.
What has gone on here -- and the low key "they aren't starving, this is just the long term consequences of not getting enough food" talking point sleight of hand -- feels like the origin story of some future event that will bring about the end of the western world. We have not even the pretence of morality here.