Nicholas Kristof’s May 11th column in the New York Times has ignited significant controversy, drawing sharp criticism for its attack on Israel. It’s title rebukes Israel, “The Silence That Meets the Rape of Palestinians.” Critics argue that Kristof’s relied on biased, unreliable reports, manifesting an anti-Israeli convition with a  perspective that oversimplifies the complex realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The column is part of an intense debate in New York City that has also sparked a broader conversation about media bias in the portrayal of political conflicts. Several hundred demonstrators gathered outside of the Times’ headquarters with signs reading, “Stop the libels, stop the hate.”

A coalition of Jewish groups called The Focus Project have a very different interpretation of Kristof’s work:

Nicholas Kristof’s opinion column in The New York Times alleged that Israeli security personnel systematically used sexual violence – including rape by trained dogs – against Palestinian detainees. All allegations of sexual violence deserve serious investigation. This is why the sourcing behind his claims demands scrutiny. His column relies on sources so compromised that even cursory vetting should have disqualified them.

Kristof’s primary organizational source is Hamas-linked Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor – reportedly “created in 2011 to demonize Israel under the human rights façade.” It is led by Ramy Abdu, a man who falsely claimed that a map of rocket alerts in Israel was actually “a map of registered sex offenders” and presented Syrian civil war images as Gaza footage. Euro-Med originated the claim that dogs can be trained to rape people – a claim as absurd as the Egyptian conspiracy theory that the Mossad trained sharks to attack tourists. The group also leads influence campaigns to edit Wikipedia articles.

One of Kristof’s main informants, journalist Sami al-Sai, praised the Hamas Oct. 7 atrocities on social media. He previously worked for Qatar’s Al Jazeera and accused Palestinian authorities of torturing him in prison – then contradicted his own account to the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate.

Kristof cited a UN report by three officials who all resigned over antisemitic remarks. He also equated Israel’s response to the allegations with Hamas’s denial of its own recorded evidence of violence on Oct. 7 – portraying Israel and Hamas as morally equivalent.

Kristof quoted former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to justify his claims. Olmert immediately issued a statement: “I did not validate these claims. The positioning of my quote after pages of allegations misrepresents my views.” Kristof also stated that “our American tax dollars subsidize the Israeli security establishment, so this is sexual violence in which the United States is complicit” – advancing a political agenda.

The New York Times got such a huge pushback on the column that ten days afterwards, the Opinion section ran a special piece addressing the complaints. They telegraphed their unbending support of Kristof by repeating the rape claims in its title: “Your Questions About Nicholas Kristof’s Column on Palestinians and Sexual Assault.”

“The Times received many responses to Nicholas Kristof’s column detailing sexual assaults against Palestinians by Israelis. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel accused The Times of spreading a “blood libel.” Some readers said Mr. Kristof peddled propaganda for Hamas. Some canceled their subscriptions. A number of other readers, including some who said they’re Jewish, wrote that they were grateful the column had run.”

The Times defended: “Before publication, Nick’s reporting underwent a rigorous vetting process by Opinion’s fact-checking department to ensure that every testimony and anecdote he personally reported was supported by independent sources, as is the case with all sensitive pieces. The Times’s standards and legal teams also reviewed the column and offered feedback. After publication, we reviewed the factual challenges that readers and others raised, as is standard practice with any published piece. Editors found no errors.”

The controversy recalls the time when the current opinion editor, Kathleen Kingsbury, took the reins at the opinion section of “The New York Times” at a similar contentious moment that wracked the reputation of the paper. Amid a pandemic, huge racial conflict, and a bitterly contested election, her predecessor James Bennet abruptly resigned after overseeing the publication of an incendiary and factually inaccurate op-ed.

Kingsbury told Nieman Lab, “I think it’s important to challenge our readers who come from the left — on both sides, really,” she said. “I think that’s an important mission for us because, again, how will we ever find compromise if you don’t understand the context around where the other side is coming from?” (February 11, 2021)

The Focus Project believes that Kingsbury and fellow editors need a watchdog. They state, “For nine years, the Times has not had a public editor to hold the paper accountable for when it publishes something irresponsible. Contact the NYT newsroom to request the hiring of a public editor and to demand a correction or retraction of misinformation. “