Tipsheet

The New York Times Doubles Down, Defends Op-Ed That Made Horrific Accusations Against Israel

Amy Curtis
Amy Curtis  |  May 14, 2026 9:30 AM

The New York Times ran a shameful, poorly-sourced op-ed by Nicholas Kristof that alleged Israeli forces sexually abused Palestinian prisoners, including the claim that they trained dogs to rape those captives. Kristof and the NYT have been raked over the coals for the story, and rightly so. It became clear yesterday that the NYT pushed the story to get ahead of and to try and discredit an actual credible, damning, and troubling report on the atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7, 2023. 

That report, unlike the op-ed, had hundreds of witnesses and footage recorded by Hamas terrorists themselves, and detailed graphic, disturbing, and monstrous sexual abuse of Israeli victims during the terrorist attack. The NYT apparently knew about the report because they were offered publishing rights and declined.

And now the NYT is doubling down on defending the shameful story.

Here's what that statement, from spokesman 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 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, with U.N. testimony. Independent experts were consulted on the assertions in the piece throughout reporting and fact-checking.

This entire statement falls apart with one simple question: if the NYT is so committed to "condemning rape," why did they refuse to publish the other report that documented Hamas' use of rape, torture, and sexual violence on October 7?

We all know why.

And remember, the UNRWA was caught helping Hamas on October 7.

"Are you standing behind the claim that Israel has trained dogs to rape prisoners?  Are you standing behind the report of a “human rights group” led by a Hamas member, which claims Israel digs up corpses to steal their organs? Are you standing behind the primary source for the dog-rape claims, an alcoholic disgrace who left his UCLA postdoctoral program over sexual misconduct allegations?" Friedman wrote.

Yes, they are.

And here's another question: is this opinion, or journalism?

They want it to be journalism, and to use "opinion" as a shield from criticism.

It's a choice.

And remember, the NYT fired people when they published a Tom Cotton op-ed a few years ago.

Simply incredible.

Hamas lies get published and defended.

An op-ed from a sitting U.S. Republican Senator gets people fired.

They cannot explain, because it was either not fact checked or "fact checked" using biased, anti-Israeli sources.