The controversy over a piece in The New York Times continued to smolder on Thursday when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his country’s foreign ministry said they might sue the Times and the author of the article.
Earlier this week, Nicholas Kristof, a two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner, wrote, “The Silence That Meets the Rape of Palestinians.” In it, Kristof writes about allegations of widespread rape of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. He wrote that “in wrenching interviews, Palestinians have recounted to me a pattern of widespread Israeli sexual violence against men, women and even children — by soldiers, settlers, interrogators in the Shin Bet internal security agency and, above all, prison guards.”
It should be noted that Kristof also wrote, “There is no evidence that Israeli leaders order rapes. But in recent years they have built a security apparatus where sexual violence has become, as a United Nations report put it last year, one of Israel’s ‘standard operating procedures’ and ‘a major element in the ill treatment of Palestinians.’”
Israel’s Foreign Ministry initially denounced the column, writing, “The New York Times chose to publish one of the worst blood libels ever to appear in the modern press.”
Others — such as here and here — have weighed in and questioned the allegations made in Kristof’s story.
Then on Thursday, Netanyahu put out this statement: “Today I instructed my legal advisers to consider the harshest legal action against The New York Times and Nicholas Kristof. They defamed the soldiers of Israel and perpetuated a blood libel about rape, trying to create a false symmetry between the genocidal terrorists of Hamas and Israel’s valiant soldiers. Under my leadership, Israel will not be silent. We will fight these lies in the court of public opinion and in the court of law. Truth will prevail.”
In a statement earlier this week, the Times defended the story. Times spokesperson Charlie Stadtlander said, “Nicholas Kristof’s deeply reported piece of opinion journalism starts with a proposition to readers: ‘Whatever our views of the Middle East conflict, we should be able to unite in condemning rape.’ He draws together on-the-record accounts and cites several analyses documenting the practice of sexual violence and abuse conducted by various parts of Israel’s security forces and settlers. The accounts of the 14 men and women he interviewed were corroborated with other witnesses, whenever possible, and with people the victims confided in — that includes family members and lawyers. Details were extensively fact-checked, with accounts further cross-referenced with news reporting, independent research from human-rights groups, surveys and in one case, U.N. testimony. Independent experts were consulted on the assertions in the piece throughout reporting and fact-checking.”
While Netanyahu might threaten to sue, the question is whether he and the Israeli government actually can sue and who, specifically, was defamed? CBS News’ Graham Kates wrote, “It is unclear if litigation will be filed in the United States or Israel, or who the plaintiffs will be.”
And The Guardian’s Alice Speri and Jeremy Barr wrote, “It is not clear in which jurisdiction Israeli officials would bring the lawsuit or whether defamation claims could even be filed by a government.”
David A Logan, a professor emeritus at the Roger Williams School of Law and media law expert, told The Guardian, “There is no chance a US court would countenance such a case.”
Mark Stephens, an international media law expert, said the idea of Israel suing the Times is, “ludicrous.”
In addition, Rodney Smolla, a First Amendment scholar and former president of the Vermont Law and Graduate School, told CBS News that a government itself cannot sue for defamation in the United States, adding, “I think at the end of the day, courts would say this (article) is insufficiently targeting Netanyahu, and to allow him to sue is just too perilously close to allowing a suit by the government itself.”
This isn’t the first time Netanyahu has threatened to sue the Times. Last year, he told Fox News that the Times “should be sued” for its coverage of starvation in Gaza.
Netanyahu said at the time, “I’m actually looking at whether a country can sue the New York Times. And I’m looking into it right now, because I think it’s such clear defamation.”
Israel never did sue the Times in that matter.
New York Times’ spokesperson Danielle Rhoades Ha said in a statement Thursday night: “The Israeli Prime Minister has threatened to file a libel lawsuit against The New York Times regarding Nicholas Kristof’s deeply reported opinion column on sexual abuse by Israel’s prison guards, soldiers, settlers and interrogators. This threat, similar to one made last year, is part of a well-worn political playbook that aims to undermine independent reporting and stifle journalism that does not fit a specific narrative. Any such legal claim would be without merit.”
Media news, tidbits and interesting links for your weekend review For The Washington Post, Will Leitch with “Stephen Colbert’s ‘Late Show’ comes to an ironic end.” There were layoffs at Business Insider on Thursday. According to the NewsGuild of New York, the number of those impacted was 10. The NewsGuild said it was the fourth round of layoffs in four years, adding they were “incredibly concerned about management’s willingness to repeatedly rely on layoffs to make up for poor strategic decisions made by Business Insider’s leadership in conjunction with Axel Springer’s guidance.” Editor-in-Chief Jamie Heller sent a letter to staff that said, in part, “These decisions are never easy. I am grateful to our departing colleagues for the talent, effort, and care they have brought to Business Insider.” The Wrap’s Jacob Bryant has more. Nieman Lab’s Laura Hazard Owen with “Creator journalism is the most disruptive shift the news industry has seen, ex-BBC News head says.” Good video journalism from The Wall Street Journal’s Jaclyn Skurie and Roberto Ferdman: “This Company Is Building a Hockey Empire. Many Say It’s Ruining Youth Sports.” Los Angeles Times’ television critic Robert Lloyd with “Jane Wickline is ‘SNL’s’ most polarizing player. That’s what makes her special.” I’m a big fan of “Jeopardy!” And one of the more intriguing parts of the best game show in TV history is how contestants handle what to wager in Final Jeopardy — the last question of the game that can determine the order of finish. In a recent episode of “Celebrity Jeopardy,” ESPN’s Mina Kimes won her game despite her second-place position going into Final Jeopardy and missing the final question. But she won because of shrewd wagers, which she explains in this smart and fun post. Terrific writing from one of the best feature sportswriters in the business. ESPN’s Wright Thompson reports on NBA coach Steve Kerr in “The Warrior still remains.” More resources for journalists Gain access to top courses and members-only webinars. Become a Poynter Member today. Master trauma-informed reporting to cover mental health with accuracy, empathy and impact. Webinar: June 9 – Enroll now. Learn from trusted experts how to create vertical videos that reach and engage your audience. Enroll now.
Have feedback or a tip? Email Poynter senior media writer Tom Jones at tjones@poynter.org.
The Poynter Report is your daily dive into the world of media, packed with the latest news and insights. Get it delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday by signing up here. And don’t forget to tune into our biweekly podcast for even more.