The propaganda gaslight is strong with this one. As you know, Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times wrote an incredibly vile “opinion” declaring Israel is guilty of raping and torturing Palestinian prisoners. He even went so far as to print, as if it’s completely true, that prisoners were raped by dogs. The blowback has been immediate and fierce. Which has led to Kristof now issuing excuses and explanations for his heinous blood libel.

Many readers asked: Given the volume of the critical response, do you stand by this column?

Kathleen Kingsbury: Yes. Nick built upon a growing body of evidence regarding the mistreatment of detainees in Israel. Numerous human rights organizations and reputable news outlets — including prominent Israeli media — have documented abuse by Israeli security forces and settlers. Previous accounts include reports of sexual violence and physical degradation.

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.

Three things to keep in mind here. One, Kingsbury is the editor of the NY Times Opinion page. Two, Kristof has had to issue retractions on his “opinions” at least twice before this. Three, the New York Times itself has NEVER reported on these assertions he made about Israel, nor did they print anything about Kristof on their news pages. 

Why again, is this not in the news section? https://t.co/cQoMApxHCJ

— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) May 21, 2026

Furthermore, the New York Times has printed nothing about Prime Minister Netanyahu declaring that the New York Times will be sued. 

Today I instructed my legal advisers to consider the harshest legal action against The New York Times and Nicholas Kristof,” Netanyahu wrote in a post on X/twitter Thursday morning. “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.”

Netanyahu’s legal warning, which followed a similar allegation of defamation over the paper’s coverage of starvation in Gaza last year, was dismissed by The Times in a statement distributed during a rally against the newspaper outside its Times Square headquarters late Thursday afternoon.

“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,” said Danielle Rhoades Ha, a spokesperson for the paper. “Any such legal claim would be without merit.”

Well guys, evidently there IS concern about whether Israel has legal standing or not. Why else would Nicholas Kristof and Kathleen Kingsbury decide to “explain” his work? 

Well, he interviewed 14 people and should be commended for citing three different SURVEYS. Surveys guys. Not actual testimony. As he makes clear in this explainer, he took the word of 3rd parties, many of whom were among the 14 people who sought him out. 

In the case of each person I quoted, I also talked either to a witness to the abuse; to a family member, lawyer or social worker the person had confided in; or I backed up the individual’s story with public comments the person made previously. The allegations lined up with outside reporting, surveys, the documentation of human rights groups and, in one case, testimony given to the United Nations.

I found the 14 men and women in this column the same way I have found sources in every conflict zone where I have worked for the past three decades — by asking around. I talked to lawyers, to aid workers, to fellow journalists, to ordinary Palestinians. Nobody sought me out.

I was clear about what I knew and didn’t know, and said so in the column. The fourth paragraph begins, “There is no evidence that Israeli leaders order rapes.” I later wrote, “It’s impossible to know how common sexual assaults against Palestinians are.”

Kristof knows damned good and well that no one is focusing on his cute little disclaimer in the 4th paragraph. Furthermore, his verbiage does make it clear that while he says there’s no evidence, his phrasing implies that the Israeli government is hiding that information. 

That’s some good propaganda gaslight spin right there! 

The dodge is obvious. Kristof wants to move the conversation from “Did you prove this?” to “Why are you so upset that I asked?” Well that trick is over.

— Mark Goldfeder (@MarkGoldfeder) May 21, 2026

Not only that, but Kristof was insistent that the Euro-Med monitoring group is totally on the up and up. We should believe what they peddled to Kristof and take it all as gospel. 

"Treating the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor as though it were an impartial watchdog required the NYT editors to ignore the group’s clear anti-Israel agenda, & its extensive open-source evidence linking it to terror organisations"https://t.co/G3GSYPF22T

— Claire Lehmann (@clairlemon) May 22, 2026

It’s evident from his “opinion” article and the explainer from last evening that he has swallowed the Hamas Gaza propaganda hook line and sinker. So much so, he also decided an explainer video is in order! 

What’s interesting about this latest propaganda push from Kristof and The New York Times is that they are likely running scared due to the threat of a lawsuit from Israel. 

“Crucially, the New York Times would face a far more stringent burden of proof in Israel than under the US standard, as a mere lack of malice is insufficient to avoid liability,” he said.

“To prevail, the newspaper must prove the absolute truth of its reporting or demonstrate strict adherence to standards of responsible journalism.”

Kristof scrambling to explain himself is a very telling sign that they are worried. A retraction of his gaslighting isn’t enough. But right now the NY Times is protecting their own. 

Feature Photo Credit: Original artwork by Victory Girls Darleen Click