Wow. I used to think Nick Kristof was the best and most trustworthy in Times’ generally unethical stable of pundits. Now I learn that he is nuts, or so biased against Israel that his brain sneaked out of his skull while he was sleeping.
This insane “report,” which his paper dutifully published because it no longer operates as a professional news source when politics are involved, is based entirely on second hand sources that have been anti-Israel and pro-Hamas from the beginning of the 2023 war Hamas began with a surprise terror attack on Israel’s civilians. Kristof cites only the claims of Palestinians, and sources that base their reports on the same. His main source is Sami al-Sai, a “free-lance journalist who has been painting Hamas and Gaza as victims of “genocide” since the war began. That is not an independent source. Neither is the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, also an anti-Israel group, or the United Nations, which has supported Palestinian propganda since the war began. At one point, Kristof even writes, “There is no evidence that Israeli leaders order rapes.” There is also no evidence that the alleged rapes occurred.
There is definitive evidence that the Hamas terrorists raped Israeli women, however. Kristof’s fantasy appears to be a deliberate rationalization (#2. Whataboutism, or “They’re Just as Bad“) to excuse Hamas/Gaza/ Palestinians for starting the bloody conflict. Coincidentally (?) an extensive, genuinely sourced report was released today documenting Hamas’s attack, including the rapes, and sexual assaults against the kidnapped hostages. One commenter on “X’ wrote, “If you do not believe @nytimes knew EXACTLY what they were doing with the timing of the Kristof “opinion” piece [ie, trying to preempt justified outrage at Hamas’s sexual crimes by suggesting that Israel similarly engages in such crimes] I have a nice bridge to sell you.”
The Kristof piece seems like smoking gun evidence that the Times is filled with anti-Semites, or, in the alternative, people too stupid to put on their shoes after their socks. At very least, I would expect the Times to find a dog training expert to explain how the hell you would train a dog to rape a human being. Spuds (above) laughed when I told him about the article.
As Jack Nicholson says in “A Few Good Men,” this isn’t funny, it’s tragic. The American Left is embracing anti-Semitism to an extent that hasn’t been seen since the Thirties. David Bernstein wrote today, after an attack on a Jewish neighborhood in New York City, which elected a pro-Hamas mayor, “We are getting closer to an actual pogrom like Crown Heights 1991. Seriously time for Brooklyn Jews to arm themselves.”
Ethics Alarms 
Amy Curtis from Townhall wrote an article with the title “Is This NYT Story Why Antisemitic Mobs Terrorized Jewish Neighborhoods Last Night?” Another Townhall article mentions that Kristoff’s article inspired them to participate in last nights protests.
The NYT is giving room to anti-Semitism, and has the same effect on the easily agitated as Der Völkischer Beobachter and Der Stürmer back in the 1930s, and we know how that ended.
It is time for the Jews in NYC to arm themselves, and be prepared to use them the next time such an event happens, like the rooftop Koreans during the Rodney King riots in LA.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/amy-curtis/2026/05/12/ny-antisemitic-protests-n2675930
I remember a story about a concentration camp victim who claimed a guard at one of the camps had trained a dog to “hump” on command and would subject female inmates to this treatment.
I don’t know if training a dog in that way is possible or not, but this type of story isn’t new and could simply be borrowed from previous atrocity accounts. We’ve already seen that they anti-Israel narrative is that they are akin to Nazis.
Also that Jews eat children. The Times story reminded me of that.
I would love to see the NYT comments on this story.
Perhaps Alizia might have this confirmed from that seemingly bottomless font of irrefutable truth…
PWS
Stephen Miller had a gem:
“You (The NYT) couldn’t find Antifa in Portland but you were able to find Israeli Jewish rape hounds?”
He’s right. It’s all a matter of incentive. It’s indicative of bias and ideological capture. What process generated the one story, but couldn’t generate the other? What are you willing to look into? What are your standards for proof? How does something like that pass through editors? How does no one say the obvious?
Remy does not approve:
I suspect that Nick Kristof’s is a DARVO attack to deflect from the sexual violence committed by HAMAS at October 7th, 2023.
How did the editor of the NYT let this article pass? How many journalist from the legacy media have spoken against this article? Do they believe this article? Or do they think it is easier or politically convenient to stay silent?
I have been wondering for at least a decade why Jewish Americans tend to be democrats. The last few years of growing anti-Semitism should be the final straw.
Nope. It won’t be. Some of this comes from the long-standing alliance between Jews and blacks in the civil right era. Some arises from the widening divide between religious Jews and cultural Jews. Some comes from habits and biases that are hard to break.
Meanwhile, why is Kristof’s disgrace attracting so little news coverage?
This country is 80 years removed from the horrors of WWII, immediately after which there was considerable empathy for the plight and extermination of European Jews. And since there have been 4,000 years of anti-Semitism against that 80-year reprieve, perhaps the dark side is taking hold more pervasively and aggressively than we imagine. If that is true, Kristof won’t be vilified for saying the quiet part out loud, even if he is lying.
Just spit-balling.
Unfortunately, everyone who writes on this topic here, has shut their mind prior to doing any research. This is what is comes down to: Any critique of Israeli violence against Palestinians can only be an example of anti-Semitism.
You-plural are as bad as the dreaded ‘Democrats’ in the sense of having an idea of what *must Be true* and then simply insisting that what you think is true, is true. If you actually had to do research, if you actually had to test yourselves ethically, I can only imagine what would happen. Maybe you’d go crazy?
I cannot think of anything more intellectually deadly. You cannot think independently and freely. And unfortunately Jack is a prime example of this filtering tendency.
The fact is — and Israelis that I have often referred to in my posts confirm this — a culture of extreme violence began just around the time of the formation of the Jewish state. Here is the amazing thing: I say this, you hear it, but you have to dismiss the notion and rationalize the position that you hold to, and which you have done ZERO research to verify!
The advantage, for me, is that I get to witness people who say they are concerned for *ethics* and *morals* but to see how it is a sham — when cherished notions are in the mix. Does this surprise me? No, not really. It is ‘all-too-human’.
Here is one account:
Survivor Accounts: Several released detainees, such as Muhammad Beck and an anonymous 35-year-old father identified as A.A., have provided detailed accounts of being stripped naked and subjected to sexual assault by trained dogs while being mocked or filmed by Israeli soldiers.
Does this surprise you? Do you have any idea what is going on in Israeli society and how immune most have become to violence against Palestinians? Do you have any idea about the ‘systematic’ c celebration of violence in Gaza by Israelis? Of course you don’t!
It is extraordinary. Try this: Actually take the time to examine the issues.
Alizia,
Part of the issue with dealing with stories like these comes down to untrustworthy sources. (Don’t ask me who is trustworthy, because I don’t actually have a good answer to that.) The sources used for this story come from lying liars who lie. How many times have we been subjected to the horrors of Israeli brutality, only to have it revealed that the story was either entirely a hoax, or something the alleged victims did to themselves (misfired missiles, for example)? Far too many times for anyone to believe Palestinians when they cry wolf. Now, this doesn’t mean the dog-rape story isn’t true. What it does mean is the following.
A sensational story like this ethically needs strong, verifiable sources, and the editors and publishers need to demonstrate they crossed their t’s and dotted their i’s. This is because public trust in journalism is at an all-time low. A publisher who doesn’t cover all his bases risks the story blowing up in his face. Yet this story was rushed into publication with all the usual suspects: Palestinians (who have proven themselves untrustworthy) and anonymous sources (who have proven themselves untrustworthy), at the same time a report was coming out on the truly atrocious, and above all well-documented crimes that Hamas perpetrated on Israelis. In terms of making sure the dog-rape story was credible, the NYT did everything in their power to discredit their own reporting.
As for growing immunity to violence against Gazans, I can find a pretty solid explanation for that. Maybe it has to do with the way the Gazans have done everything in their power to inflict harm on Israel. Given money, they did not work to enrich their population, but built military tunnels throughout their territory and stockpiled weaponry beneath schools and hospitals. Given the chance to be independent, they immediately elected terrorists as their leadership. Everywhere they have gone, they have proved toxic to even Muslim governments who quickly shewed them elsewhere. You can only tolerate a rabid dog for so long before you have to put him down. The Israelis have a list of grievances a mile long against the Gazans, and they have demonstrated in their campaigns against Gaza restraint unheard of in warfare. Who else sends fliers to warn the populace to evacuate before military strikes hit? And the Gazans, who butcher and rape and murder, cry foul when they are hit back. And worse, somehow they get the international sympathy. A people who cannot govern themselves, who are only supported by finance from Iran, who have a stated goal of eradicating Israel, who, I repeat, butcher and rape and murder, somehow get the international sympathy. I’m sorry, but when you gather all that evidence in one place, it is almost impossible to have any sympathy for whatever travails the Gazans are enduring. They have brought it down on themselves.
I’m sorry, but when you gather all that evidence in one place, it is almost impossible to have any sympathy for whatever travails the Gazans are enduring. They have brought it down on themselves.
I will only say to you that I recommend that you examine the issues by reading what some Israelis say about their own politics. Like Jack’s views, yours are similarly shallow. What more can I do Ryan? I cannot do that ethical and moral work for you. And I assume that you do not have the time to undertake it. But many do have the time, and many are doing the research. Miko Peled is just one. There are 4-5 who write and talk and you can find them if you look.
Alizia,
Certainly you don’t have any obligation to do anything more for me. But as it seems you have ample time yourself, I’m always appreciative when people can take the time to make explicit details of a situation. But the issue I have is that you don’t make anything explicit, and you use a great deal of verbiage being non-explicit. You suggest I should look at the opinions of some Israelis who are opposed their government’s policies. That’s very imprecise. You can state names and specific policies. “These particular groups of Israelis are outspoken in their opposition to Israeli encroachment on West Bank settlements” goes a great deal further. You could also give me some idea who, say, Miko Peled is, and why I should find him credible.
I mean, if I asked you to investigate what some Americans are saying about American policy, that’s an enormous can of worms to open up and try to dig through. Do I mean Democrats? Republicans? Libertarians? NPOs? Religious groups? Chess clubs? And which policies? Just the ones regarding war, or ones that seem to be relegating certain people to second or third class citizenship? Do you see the problem?
Over the weeks or months I have always included names and also links. It is true (because I am so much at home with home concerns) that I do have time. As a first stop (on a slow train to honesty) I suggest Miko Peled. His father WAS a Zionist soldier. And he (Miko) had a turning. He wrote about it in a book (The General’s Son).
Alizia,
Okay, that’s closer to what I would hope to see. (Again, you’re under no obligation to write according to my preferences, but I’m hoping I’m only stressing those preferences I have that I think would be helpful for better engagement.) When you name dropped Miko Peled earlier, I had no clue of who this person was. I did scope out, briefly, his information on Wikipedia, though I have more to read. The only thing further I would ask is why you personally find his story and his thoughts so compelling.
Rather simple: 1) He comes from genuine ultra-Zionist stock (the true patriotism of Israel) and went through a personal process of growth, moral work, and realization.
2) He challenges me because he is anti-Apartheid and, frankly, I always had issues with the destruction of White supremacy in South Africa.
I am aware that Peled and others believe that Israel must transform into a state that incorporates all, and though I know this may well be right (please defend a religious ethno-state if you would not mind … because if it is valid in Israel, it is valid everywhere and anywhere) I wonder how it would turn out in reality.
Peled is pretty much to the traditional (former) Left in many areas. I tend to have been more rightist and hierarchical.
Your “research” is perusing Palestinian and Iranian propaganda, which are both notorious. You are letting bias, well, you know. The accusations come with no genuine evidence at all, literally none, and certainly none to justify a post in a reputable news organization. The crazier the accusation, the more important independent verification is. The Abu Ghraib scandal was backed by photographs, not anti-Iraq war activists spreading rumors and gossip. That’s how its done. The claims in Kristof’s piece literally do not deserve discussion, much less credulous belief.
As for Israel perpetrating violence against Gazans…good. That’s what happens when you elect terrorists as your government, and if Israel fails to wipe out Hamas, fill in the tunnels and re-organize the area, another sneak terror attack is just a matter of time.The way to avoid “forever wars” is to win them decisively and not be squeamish about the destruction and civilian casualties. Gaza and Hamas deserve no sympathy and no pity. The lesson: don’t start wars for no reason.
Your “research” is perusing Palestinian and Iranian propaganda, which are both notorious.
My position on Israel and Palestine has to be seen and established first, and I guarantee you that the elements of my position are reasonable and very well thought through. In contradistinction yours are not. This is not really an issue that concerns you, and you are certainly not a Jew and so your view of Israel and Palestine (if my assessment is correct t and I believe it is) is seen 100% through the typical American media lens. That is to say, it is a view that is based on propaganda narratives. And what I say to you is that having that view, and using it as your means of interaction with a very complex and difficult situation, is in essence unethical. You cannot defend a position that derives from propaganda narratives. To be ethical you would have to deconstruct them, or in any case be open to seeing them in that light.
This is why I very clearly and accurately state that your views are classic Neocon. They are the sort of views that millions get downloaded into their minds by the sort of shallow propaganda narratives presented on Fox News. Fox News and all the other main American media corporations — as you are aware when you examine the Democrat-supporting or the so-called Liber ones — are all American propaganda outlets. You are aware of bad journalism when it pertain to your ‘favored enemies’ but I gather from what you write (your basic Neocon position) that you do not do much research outside of those channels. But I do. And there are many others who do as well. Your views are extremely shallow, highly prejudiced, and to attempt to win your argument (and fail in the attempt) you have implied a number of false things: that my views are ‘soft’ because I am a woman. That I access Iranian or Palestinian news sources (also false). The tone in your arguments is dismissive and sort of haughty. And I do not find this to be an ethical position.
I will once again make reference to Israelis and to Jews who have varying degrees of anti-Zionist positions. I guess you could try if you really wanted to, to describe them away as ‘self-hating Jews’ (or simply not pay any attention that they were referred to) but that is an error. First, the notion of ‘self-hating Jew’ is ridiculous on the face when used by Gentiles. It is as if they say: “I will tell you what a Jew is” and then proceed to tell you why you are not one. It is ridiculous. In any case, Mearsheimer, Sachs and Greenwald are both thoughtful, careful, thorough and also ethical analysts. I am sorry that Greenwald did not return some money to you, but to dismiss his arguments on that basis is, frankly, ridiculous.
I submitted a video in which Greenwald described extremely wealthy Israeli and American Jews (some of the Jews are dual nationals) who are buying American media corporations so that they can control the speech of Americans and control what is said about Israel and the Middle East. If that is not a concern for you — given your positions on corrupt media — then that in itself illustrates your own bias. It should be of deep concern to you and to all who read here. Do the research. You can easily find Greenwald’s vide on that topic.
The accusations come with no genuine evidence at all, literally none, and certainly none to justify a post in a reputable news organization.
Again, if you were genuinely and also ethically interested in the issue of Israeli violence against Palestinians, you would hold that idea in your mind. It is a long, historical issue beginning with the establishment of Israel as a state and the origin of the process of dislocation and displacement which are part-and-parcel of the Israeli state. But you do not care! You have no reason to be involved or to care except as it pertains to you ultra-simple For News level analysis. I.e. what comes through the American corporate news establishment. My view? To rely on those contrived, incomplete narratives is unethical.
I have no doubt, and you can easily verify this yourself, that there is tremendous violence by Israelis against Palestinians in all circumstances and especially in jails and prisons (and during detentions). I have examined the evidence. And it is not contrived, not invented. But I would not say, and only a fool would say, that there are not misrepresentations on both sides.
There are reports of the use of dogs and sexual violence against prisoners. And these connections t to a larger and general pattern. It is not of great consequence if the NYTs story has not been sufficiently verified. But there is absolutely nothing out of character in the type of violence, or the incidence of it. And that is the real point.
But in your case, and in the case of over half of your readership, you are in a shadow-casting g game of seeing The Democrats and Satan’s representatives. And the function of that is so that you protect yourself from seeing your own complicity.
Complicity is a moral and ethical issue of real consequence. And for America as a nation (and as its policy) to have become complicit in the many injustices of the establishment of the state of Israel, is the issue that is in the minds of Jewry and of specific Jews (not to mention non-Jews).
As for Israel perpetrating violence against Gazans … good. That’s what happens when you elect terrorists as your government, and if Israel fails to wipe out Hamas, fill in the tunnels and re-organize the area, another sneak terror attack is just a matter of time.
Here is where the shallowness of your position is made evident. And here is where you would need to do real, genuine moral and ethical work in relation to the issue of Palestinian displacement as the native population was displaced and that sort of violence inflicted on them. Pain and suffering do always lead to pathological reaction. So for example when Americans invaded Iraq under all those false pretenses, and great harm was done to the society by ways of war (which always has such results), not only were hundreds of thousands killed, but pathological reaction resulted. Ah but the American (and all people really, but in this case especially the Americans) never have to REALLY face the consequences of their military destructiveness. Why? Because you have a special pass, or better said you give yourself a unique and special pass. Your violence is believed by you to be ‘saving violence’. It extends from the propaganda narrative of noble American fighting the ‘good fight’ in WWll. Americanism as a political and social doctrine is bound up in this view.
And in the case of America-Israel you allow all sorts of astounding violence on the part of Israel, and refuse to see, with clarity and care, the actual history that was perpetrated. You go blind. You do not care to see it. You dismiss all concerns about it. It is absolutely typical of a common American attitude.
I am quite sure that EVERYTHING I said here will not register. And frankly that does not bother me at all. I am certain — certain! — that I am doing the right thing by taking a wider, more thoughtful perspective and stance. So here is the recap: Every part of your argument falls apart. Not just a part but all of it.
It is absolutely unethical for you and for Americans to support and to arm the Israeli state under these conditions. It is absolutely unethical for you and for Americans generally not to better understand the real situation, and to sort through it morally and ethically, and to begin to see things more accurately, fairly and justly.
You are actually DOING HARM to Israelis and to Jews by holding to such a shallow, contrived (and false) narrative. And the consequences of this will (in my opinion) become more and more clear as the Middle East situations continues .. and worsens.
Alizia,
Your first paragraph is essentially saying, “I’m not wrong, you’re wrong!” Only, you’re overly verbose about it.
Then you write, “You cannot defend a position that derives from propaganda narratives.” First, this statement is matter of a pot calling the kettle black at best. 2/3 of your references are from propaganda narratives seeking to bolster Israeli enemies. This has to be one of biggest examples of a failure of self-reflection in your writing to date.
In your second paragraph, you cast a lot of aspersions on Neocons and Fox News, but you don’t mention a single concrete viewpoint, nor do you actually critique it. You argument is essentially, “Fox News is bad propaganda, and your opinions seem to follow Fox News, so you must be consuming all that propaganda to form your opinion.” Your cocksure conviction that all our opinions are mindlessly formed from propaganda sources carries the same dismissive haughtiness that accuse Jack of.
You write, “There are reports of the use of dogs and sexual violence against prisoners.” This is where actual concrete references are in fact useful. I’ve seen verified reports of sexual abuse of Palestinian prisoners by a small group Israeli soldiers. I absolutely condemn that. But the evidence does not point to a systematic, top-down directive to engage in such abuse. If we’re going to judge an entire people by the extremes of some of its worst members, guess who is going to come out looking worst of all? It isn’t Israel.
Then you write, “It is not of great consequence if the NYTs story has not been sufficiently verified.” This is absurd. It is of enormous consequence, because your so-called pattern of behavior is only established on insufficiently verified stories. The “it doesn’t matter if this story is inaccurate, as long as it rings true” is intellectually dishonest. You don’t get to lie because the lie fits in with a greater pattern of truth. If you’re worried at all about ethics, hopefully you see that point.
As for the rest of what you write, there’s a great deal we could debate over the handling of the Iraq war, the subsequent nation-building efforts, and so on. However, that all seems incredibly tangential to the issue of identifying what is true or not about the Kristof story. And this is where you seem to get lost in your own narrative. Unless you have a direct causal link between the Iraq debacle and Israelis potentially training dogs to rape, American arrogance on the world stage isn’t really relevant to the current discussion. So all your diatribe over our willful self-blindness is wasted breath, not because you’re necessarily wrong (I would admit to some agreement about Americans believing they are saving the world through their military interventions, right or wrong, prudent or foolhardy), but because it detracts from the point you’re trying to make. Worse, for all that spilled text, you still don’t present a concrete argument.
As for the Gazans, I can only ask: is there no atrocity that they could commit that would convince you they are a sick people?
As for the situation in the Middle East, there has been a massive realignment that is actually bringing many of the major players into alignment with the US and Israel, starting back with Trump I’s Abraham Accords, and continuing with the Iran war that is seeing many of the players in the region pulling away from Iran, leaving its brutal government (what remains of it) isolated.
This story has been playing on Reddit for a few months now. Of course Reddit being Reddit (loaded with pathologically demented progressives…) they’re lapping this story up and believing it 100%