May 20, 2026
- Sensational Allegations About Dog Rapes Perpetuate a Modern-Day Blood Libel
- Facts Matter, As Do Reliable Sources
- Suspicious Timing and Placement of The Column
- What You Can Do to Help Set “the Paper of Record” Straight
It’s true that the world should treat allegations of sexual assault with utmost severity. But shoddy journalism that hinges on unreliable sources and reckless myths and aims to distract from serious revelations about other instances of sexual violence undercuts the prospect of justice for victims.
That is just one of the dangers posed by Nicholas Kristof’s May 11 column in The New York Times about alleged sexual assaults of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers, intelligence agents, and prison guards. The column contained barely corroborated and sensationalized accounts of sexual torture allegedly committed by Israelis against Palestinians, including accounts of prisoners being mounted by dogs trained by guards to rape them.
Kristof also implies that because there are multiple accounts, the abusive behavior is more than a series of bad actors, but systemic. He even goes so far as to compare the prison allegations to Hamas’ systemic use of rape in the October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel. While allegations of abuses taking place inside Israeli prisons—as they do in many prison systems—should be taken seriously and investigated, Kristof’s framing disregards journalistic standards and furthers inflammatory, damaging narratives.
The flawed column also ran a day before the release of a two-year investigation by the Israel-based Civil Commission on October 7th Crimes by Hamas Against Women, Children and Families, confirming that on the deadliest day in Israel’s history—when Hamas terrorists attacked Israel on October 7, 2023—sexual violence against women and men and against hostages in captivity was “systematic, widespread and integral” to that onslaught.
Here’s why The New York Times’ decision to publish Kristof’s column casts doubt on the newspaper’s objectivity when it comes to Israel and how you can help set the "paper of record" straight.
Key Takeaways
- The column’s outrageous and unverified claims, including the use of dogs trained to rape detainees, perpetuate a modern-day blood libel.
- Knowing that the independent Civil Commission would be releasing damning results about Hamas’ sexual violence against men and women, the column’s suspicious timing demonstrates an insensitivity to both victims and to facts.
- Kristof walked right into the Hamas propaganda trap, citing unreliable sources that have been known to peddle anti-Israel propaganda.
- American Jewish Committee (AJC) has called all of this to the Times’ attention, adding that the piece fell short of professional investigative standards despite the seriousness of the issue.
- AJC also has warned that amplifying dangerous narratives and disinformation during a time of increased hostility toward Jews and Israelis puts the global Jewish community at risk.
Sensational Dog Rape Allegations Perpetuate a Modern-Day Blood Libel
Since the Middle Ages, blood libels have relied on rumors, conspiracies, forced false confessions, and flat-out lies concocted by people trying to even a score. Its very name —the blood libel charge—stems from the false and preposterous accusation in medieval times that Jews murdered Christians in order to use their blood in rituals.
In this case, Kristof’s column is brimming with outrageous claims, most notably a reckless and already well-worn myth that Israeli prison guards train dogs to mount prisoners and rape them—an indelible and disgusting image that also happens to be biologically impossible.
Just as blood libels have historically been used to demonize and justify hatred and harm against Jews, Kristof's column is twisting facts to promote a "whataboutist" confusion over victim and perpetrator, acknowledging the sexual violence that unfolded during October 7 and its aftermath, but shifting the focus of the accusations against Hamas to Israelis. To grant moral equivalence between the October 7 Hamas terror attack on thousands of Israeli civilians in one day to isolated incidents of abuse over a number of years is absurd and offensive.
How to talk about this: Jews around the world are less safe today because of Kristof’s promotion of an outrageous claim. In a way that is sadly familiar: a pattern of fomenting hate by spreading lies that shifts blame from others onto Jews, a historically persecuted people.
Facts Matter, As Do Reliable Sources
Two dozen independent researchers with the Israel-based Civil Commission on October 7th Crimes by Hamas Against Women, Children and Families visited crime scenes, analyzed documentation, public records, satellite imagery, more than 10,000 photographs, videos recorded by the terrorists themselves, and more than 400 accounts from eyewitnesses, first responders, medical professionals, and victims, some of whom underwent polygraph tests.
Because early first-responder accounts in October 2023 contained some errors and forensic contamination, the commission's authors intentionally excluded any testimonies stemming from Israeli military interrogations of Hamas detainees to guarantee the legal independence and purity of their findings.
Sadly, Kristof did not make a similar effort to verify facts or vet his sources—or make it clear to readers that he did so. Gaza journalist Sami al-Sai, for example, gave an account of his assault to the Israeli NGO B’Tselem in July 2025. He provided different details to Kristof.
When he was arrested in 2017 by the Palestinian Intelligence Services in his West Bank town on charges of inciting sectarian strife, he told his mother during a visit to Jericho Prison that he had been beaten, hung from door frames and windows, and injected with a mysterious drug. When the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate questioned him behind bars he denied any torture took place, then later retracted it, saying he had felt threatened when asked.
To be sure, survivors of sexual violence may share details gradually or revise aspects of their accounts over time, particularly when recounting traumatic experiences. Changes in a narrative do not automatically undermine credibility. At the same time, journalists have a responsibility to examine and contextualize significant inconsistencies for readers, and in this case Kristof did not do so.
Furthermore, Kristof cited the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, a notoriously biased NGO whose founder glorified the October 7 terror attacks on Israel. His family also has alleged ties to Hamas. Euro-Med has been accused of publishing unverified and antisemitic claims.
To cite a source that lacks credibility or to fail to acknowledge a source’s track record or potential bias is a disservice to victims and readers.
How to talk about this: The outlet that bills itself as “the paper of record” relied on and amplified questionable sources even in the face of glaringly inconsistent accounts from those very same sources. This falls dramatically short of journalistic standards.
Suspicious Timing and Placement of The Column
The timing of the column, ahead of the independent Civil Commission’s report on horrific crimes committed by Hamas, also seems calculated. The Israeli Foreign Ministry has said The New York Times was offered access to the Commission’s documentation months prior to the report’s release, but declined to cover it – a claim the Times has denied.
When The New York Times ran a story about the comprehensive report on the crimes of Hamas, it was buried on page 10 of its Tuesday edition, the day after it appeared online. Meanwhile, Kristof’s column circulated online for six days before its scheduled appearance in the Sunday edition, the most-read print edition in the U.S.
How to talk about this: The Times’ bias against Israel is on clear display. There is no justification for running Kristof’s op-ed, which disregards journalistic standards, and burying a major story regarding Hamas’ sexual crimes.
The Reaction to Kristof’s Column
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar have instructed Israel's legal teams to launch a defamation lawsuit against The New York Times, which stands by the column as “deeply reported” opinion journalism.
AJC has condemned the article for falling short of professional investigative standards despite the seriousness of the issue, perpetuating a contemporary blood libel, citing unreliable sources, and amplifying disinformation that puts Jews in danger.
To show they disagree with the newspaper’s decision to publish the column, readers have protested outside the newspaper's headquarters, demanding a retraction.
What You Can Do
Unfortunately, The New York Times did away with its Public Editor role in 2017. But there are other formal ways to register disagreement.
- Write to the Times’ Opinion Desk and demand a retraction.
- Suggest to editors that they take a look at recommendations for the media in AJC’s Call to Action Against Antisemitism, a non-partisan society-wide guide for combating anti-Jewish hatred.
- Write a Letter to the Editor that highlights the problematic parts of the article and/or explains how it makes you feel as a Jewish person in America.
