In 3,501 words, Nicholas Kristof builds a sweeping indictment of Israel on anonymous allegations and unverified claims, without journalistic scrutiny.
Nicholas Kristof has a record — a very long record of criticism of Israel.
One need only look at the extensive archive compiled by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA), documenting years of Kristof columns that consistently portray Israel through the harshest possible lens. With Kristof and the New York Times, fairness is often absent when the subject is the Jewish state.
His recent New York Times column, “The Silence That Meets the Rape of Palestinians” (May 11), is perhaps the clearest example yet. David Suissa, editor of the Jewish Journal, wrote in a recent column titled “When It Comes to Israel, the New York Times Can’t Help Itself”: “What are we to make of such flimsy evidence behind such incendiary and harmful accusations?”
The allegations Kristof describes are horrific and, if even one is credible, they should be investigated. But responsible journalism requires more than repeating inflammatory accusations and wrapping them in emotional storytelling.
Kristof relies heavily on anonymous claims that cannot be independently verified and are rooted in advocacy organizations with explicit political agendas. One of the key sources cited in his reporting, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, has itself been criticized for alleged ties to Hamas leaders and is known for repeatedly promoting unverified accusations against Israel.
Still, the overall effect of the column is to leave readers with the unmistakable impression that Israel systematically employs rape and sexual torture as policy.
That is the work of an illusionist who blurs the line between allegation and established fact—and buries anything that contradicts his story.
Claims involving organized rape, sexual torture, and even dogs used to assault prisoners are not allegations responsible journalists should amplify without overwhelming, independently confirmed evidence. Yet Kristof presents them without meaningful critical scrutiny.
To his credit, Kristof briefly acknowledges there is “no evidence” Israeli leaders ordered such acts. But that acknowledgment is buried beneath thousands of words crafted to persuade readers that this depravity is widespread, normalized, and uniquely Israeli.
It is not.
Even one of the people Kristof quoted disputed the way his remarks were presented. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (a vocal critic of Israeli government policies) accused Kristof of misrepresenting his remarks. In a statement obtained by The Free Press, Olmert said:
“Mr. Kristof’s article includes claims of extraordinary gravity … I did not validate these claims. I have no knowledge supporting these claims as I said to Mr. Kristof. Therefore, the positioning of my quote after pages of such allegations misrepresents my views.”
When a quoted source says his words were used to support claims he did not endorse, serious questions about journalistic integrity are impossible to ignore.
The controversy surrounding Kristof’s column intensified further after reports that Israel plans to pursue legal action against The New York Times over the article’s allegations. The escalating fallout only adds to the scrutiny surrounding both the article’s claims and the standards used to support them.
Those concerns are further underscored by the timing of Kristof’s article. As Professor Gerald Steinberg of NGO Monitor observed, Kristof’s column appeared just as broader attention was turning toward the “Silenced No More” report documenting sexual violence committed by Hamas on Oct. 7 and against hostages in Gaza — a report based on hundreds of interviews, testimonies, photographs, and video recordings.
Kristof’s bar for evidence could not be lower, and the standards of proof could not be more different.
The New York Times defended Kristof’s column in a statement to Jewish News Service (JNS), saying, “Despite the attacks on our coverage from opposing directions on a near-daily basis, we will not let critics or advocacy campaigns deter us from such independent reporting.”
Fair enough. Independent reporting matters. But so do consistent journalistic standards, particularly when publishing allegations of systematic sexual abuse that rely heavily on anonymous testimony and biased anti-Israel sourcing.
Imagine if similar allegations were leveled against almost any other democratic nation based primarily on anonymous testimony and ideologically driven advocacy groups. Would The New York Times have treated the claims with the same level of credence? Would Kristof have written with such moral certainty—or is Israel uniquely denied the level of scrutiny routinely afforded to others?
At a moment when Jews around the world are facing rising hatred, violence, and accusations of monstrous evil, publishing claims of this magnitude without ironclad evidence is deeply irresponsible.
The New York Times should not use the “prestige” of its opinion pages to amplify inflammatory allegations built on biased sourcing and testimony that cannot be independently verified.
Serious journalism requires verification, corroboration, and evidence.
Kristof’s column fails on all three.
Rabbi Reuven Taff, a native of Albany, New York, is rabbi emeritus of Mosaic Law Congregation in Sacramento, California, where he served for 25 years.
His opinion pieces have appeared in The Sacramento Bee, San Francisco Chronicle, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Jewish News Syndicate (JNS), The Jerusalem Post, and other publications.