Nicholas Kristof, as those around him like to remind us, is a multi-Pulitzer Prize winning journalist. He contributes to the New York Times, one of the world’s great publications. Consequently, what he writes carries some weight.
That is just part of the reason why it was so wrong, so dangerous, for he and the outlet to publish outlandish allegations of sexual assault against Palestinian prisoners.
The accusations in the piece are manifold. The most notorious is that Israeli guards allegedly trained dogs to rape prisoners. Others have explained elsewhere why this is a biological impossibility, so I’ll spare users the details. It is, though, anatomical nonsense. A grotesque blood libel.
Before I continue, let me be unequivocal. Accusations of sexual violence and rape must be investigated properly and any perpetrators dealt with in the strongest manner. No ifs. No buts.
Furthermore, the dogs aside, it is possible that Israeli guards or soldiers may have mistreated Palestinian detainees. I have no evidence of this, but if such behaviour does come to light, those of us who care about Israel should want it dealt with quickly and thoroughly.
The concern for me as a media reporter and critic is how such egregious and generally poorly sourced allegations came to be printed in the pages of one of the world’s premier news outlets. In so doing, the New York Times put Jewish and Israeli lives in further danger. No wonder the Israeli government has threatened to sue them.
I don’t agree with the Netanyahu administration’s approach to much, and certainly not when it comes to PR, but on this occasion they are right. Responding, the NYT said:
"The Israeli Prime Minister has threatened to file a libel lawsuit against The New York Times regarding Nicholas Kristof's deeply reported opinion column on sexual abuse by Israel's prison guards, soldiers, settlers and interrogators.
"This threat, similar to one made last year, is part of a well-worn political playbook that aims to undermine independent reporting and stifle journalism that does not fit a specific narrative. Any such legal claim would be without merit."
Some people have pointed out the oddity of a (supposedly) “deeply reported” opinion piece. I don’t particularly have a problem with this. I think the opinions we journalists put out in the world should be based on deep reporting. However, it is said to have caused some consternation in the New York Times newsroom.
According to Dylan Byers of US outlet Puck: “Many Times journalists told me they remain suspicious of Nick’s sourcing for the most incendiary allegations, sceptical that those sources would have cleared the standards of the newsroom rather than Opinion, and mildly miffed at the Pulitzer-eager columnist for bringing scrutiny on the paper in a piece that should have been in their jurisdiction.”
Civilians may not understand the newsroom politics at play here, and it may seem all a bit inside baseball, but those comments to Byers reveal a lot.
To make claims as severe as Kristoff did, it is essential information comes from reliable places. Consequently, that piece is remarkably poorly sourced. There are a mostly, although not exclusively, comments from unnamed people in there.
In itself, this far from beyond the pale, we all do it. And sources are particularly sensitive when there are stories of sexual assault. (I’ve reported on such issues, so I know.) It makes things harder to verify, though. It is clear that reporters on the paper are unconvinced about the authority of Kristof’s sources.
One of those actually named in the piece is Euro-Med, who Kristof refers to as “a Geneva-based advocacy group often critical of Israel”. They assert that widespread sexual assault “as part of an organised state policy.”
And who are Euro-Med? Well, last week its chairman Ramy Abdul said he had posted a photo on Twitter “taken during a visit by an international delegation to Gaza that met with all Palestinian factions, including the elected government led by Haniyeh.”
That would be (now assassinated) Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh. Abdul tweeted he made this public “with pride”.
An organisation that proudly works alongside terrorists wants us to believe they are a reliable source for serious allegations against Israel.
Alongside the sourcing, it is hard to look past the fact that this piece was published just two days before a comprehensive, devastating report into the sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas and endured by Israelis on October 7. Crimes so unspeakable I cannot bring myself to write them here, although I’m sure I should.
Remember, too, what was feared would have happened to Emily Damari had it become public she is gay whilst she was being held in a Hamas terror tunnel.
Kristof’s questionable work provided a useful of piece of whataboutery for those who want to ignore all of this. It is, frankly, shameful that a journalist of his stature should have regurgitated terrorist propaganda.
Once work like this column from Kristof is out in the world there is little to be done. Those who want to believe it will do so. Perhaps editors wanted to believe it too, so they cleared it to be published.
In the end I cancelled my New York Times subscription. It made me feel better for a moment. But it won’t make much difference when someone assaults a Jew and tells them they are rapist.
To get more from opinion, click here to sign up for our free Editor's Picks newsletter.