Any time you claim that something is “state policy,” you enter serious territory.
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof had no qualms claiming that sexual violence is Israel’s “organized state policy.”
Among the explosive accusations that have caused a firestorm among Israel supporters is the sordid claim that Israel uses trained dogs to rape prisoners.
One would think that such extraordinary charges would require extraordinary evidence.
This is especially true at a time when animosity towards Jews and Israel is at record levels, and throwing more fuel into the fire of Jew-hatred can easily trigger more violence against Jews.
So, what is this extraordinary evidence?
It’s less than ordinary, as in not very credible.
Kristof cites a report from the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor that concluded that Israel employs “systematic sexual violence” that is “widely practiced as part of an organized state policy.”
But according to Honest Reporting, an indispensable media watchdog, Euro-Med’s bias is obvious — it has “documented links to Hamas and a long record of extreme, unverified accusations against Israel.”
Some of the takeaways from Honest Reporting:
- The New York Times opinion piece alleging sexual abuse against Palestinian prisoners relied on sources with documented pro-terror sympathies and failed to disclose crucial background information that would have helped readers assess their credibility.
- Several of the article’s central allegations appear to have evolved significantly over time, with major inconsistencies left unexplained or unchallenged by the paper.
- The timing of the story’s publication immediately before a major report on Hamas’ October 7 sexual violence raises serious questions about narrative framing and editorial priorities.
One of the central sources cited in the article is Sami al-Sai. Yet as Honest Reporting notes, “the Times failed to inform readers about al-Sai’s documented history of glorifying terrorists and celebrating armed attacks against Israelis.”
What are we to make of such flimsy evidence behind such incendiary and harmful accusations?
Perhaps one answer is that the Times must have a reflex for assaulting Israel’s image.
Let’s look at three examples just from the past two days.
As John Podhoretz noted this morning on the Commentary podcast, in addition to Kristof’s reckless hit job, two Times stories dramatize this trend.
First, a Times review of the top 100 restaurants in New York City names ethnic restaurants from around the world— and yet, somehow manages to totally ignore one country whose innovative cuisine has been celebrated everywhere.
Can you guess what country that is?
In another piece, the Times “revealed” that Israel has a “secret operation” to win the Eurovision song contest; as Podhoretz notes, without any evidence that “anything untoward” happened. Evidently, the incriminating fact is that Israel takes the contest very seriously and invests time and money to improve its chances. Aha, conspiracy! Secret operation!
Meanwhile, you have to scroll through 43 stories on the Times home page before finally seeing a story on a harrowing two-year investigation of Hamas’s savage sexual violence on and after October 7. The commission that undertook the investigation examined over 10,000 photographs and videos of the attack totaling more than 1,800 hours of visual analysis. Maybe that’s why the Times buried the story: it had real evidence.
Whether light-hearted or deadly serious, these calumnies are yet more evidence of a Times obsession with going after Israel, never mind the enormous damage done to Israel’s image. Yes, some may even call it a “rape” of that image. I wonder how the Times would react to such an explosive charge against its own paper.
Kristof’s piece alone provides the extraordinary evidence.
