New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. Photo: Screenshot

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof’s latest article, which accuses Israeli soldiers and prison guards of widespread sexual abuse against Palestinian prisoners, has prompted a wave of backlash, with critics arguing the column is riddled with false claims and based on questionable sourcing linked to the Hamas terrorist group.

Israel plans to sue the Times over the column, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called a “blood libel about rape.”

A joint statement by Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar described the op-ed by Kristof, a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner, as “one of the most hideous and distorted lies ever published against the State of Israel in the modern press” and said the country would sue for defamation.

The column accused Israel of “sexual violence against men, women, and even children” by Israeli security personnel, including allegations that prisoners were stripped naked, groped, penetrated with objects, and raped by specially trained dogs.

The Foreign Ministry also accused the Times of timing Kristof’s column, “The Silence That Meets the Rape of Palestinians,” to appear a day before the release of an independent Israeli report, similarly titled “Silenced No More,” which found that Hamas systematically used sexual violence during the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel and against hostages in captivity in Gaza.

The ministry said the Times had been approached with the Israeli report “months ago.”

That report, conducted by an independent group, the Civil Commission on Oct. 7 Crimes by Hamas Against Women and Children, is based on an archive built over two years, with more than 10,000 photos and video segments, over 1,800 hours of footage, and more than 430 testimonies.

The report outlines rape, gang rape, and sexual torture of both women and men, including intentional burning and mutilation, and one case where family members were coerced into performing sexual acts on one another.

“There was laughter. There were jokes. They were passing them from one to another. It wasn’t — it was done for fun,” one survivor of the massacre at the Nova festival told the commission in testimony.

“I heard one rape where they were passing her around. She was probably injured, judging by her screams — screams you have never heard anywhere. It’s between silence and screams, between pain and wanting to die,” she said.

The acts constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and acts of genocide, according to the authors of the nearly 300-page report, who recommended that both Israeli and foreign courts prosecute the perpetrators, noting that the victims of Oct. 7 represented 52 nationalities.

Former Canadian justice minister Irwin Cotler served as a principal contributor to the report, which was also endorsed by Sheryl Sandberg, Hillary Clinton, former UN special adviser on the prevention of genocide Alice Wairimu Nderitu, former chief prosecutor of the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone Prof. David Crane, and former Israeli Supreme Court president Aharon Barak.

Kristof’s column on Tuesday cited an unnamed Palestinian journalist who said he “was held down, stripped naked, and as he was blindfolded and handcuffed, a dog was summoned. With encouragement from a handler in Hebrew, he said, the dog mounted him.” Canine experts have noted that training a dog to rape a human – especially a male – is extremely unlikely, if not impossible.

He also claimed to have shared the abuse allegations with former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, who responded, “Do I believe it happens? Definitely.”

But Olmert later issued a statement to the Times saying that he “did not validate these claims.”

“Mr. Kristof’s article includes claims of extraordinary gravity: that Israeli authorities have directed the rape of children, that dogs have been used as instruments of sexual assault, that systematic sexual torture is state policy,” he said in the statement, which The Free Press published. “I have no knowledge supporting these claims as I said to Mr. Kristof. Therefore, the positioning of my quote after pages of such allegations misrepresents my views.”

Kristof also relied on corroboration from Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, a Geneva-based non-governmental organization that watchdog NGO Monitor and Israeli authorities allege has ideological and operational links to Hamas. Its chairman, Ramy Abdu, who made social media posts on Oct. 7 and 8, 2023, that praised the Hamas-led attacks on Israel, has been accused by Israeli authorities of being an operative for Hamas-affiliated institutions, and the group is frequently accused of spreading pro-Hamas propaganda and disinformation.

Writing on X, Netanyahu said that he instructed his legal advisers “to consider the harshest legal action,” adding that the report “defamed the soldiers of Israel and perpetuated a blood libel about rape, trying to create a false symmetry between the genocidal terrorists of Hamas and Israel’s valiant soldiers.”

“We will fight these lies in the court of public opinion and in the court of law,” he said.

But a lawsuit would face steep hurdles, especially if filed in the US, where the Times would likely argue Kristof’s column was protected opinion and Israel would have to prove “actual malice” under American defamation law, according to an article in The Jerusalem Post. Even an Israeli judgment could be difficult to enforce in the US if American courts found it incompatible with First Amendment protections.

Cardozo constitutional law professor David Rudenstine told Haaretz that such a case would be unlikely to succeed, explaining that libel claims generally require an identifiable person to show reputational and financial harm, meaning the case would likely have to be brought by Netanyahu or another official rather than Israel as a whole.

“It would be Netanyahu v. The New York Times, just like Donald Trump suing The New York Times,” Rudenstine told the paper.

Even then, the plaintiff would face the high US bar of proving the Times knew the claims were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. 

The Times defended the column, saying it was “extensively fact-checked.”