I joined Twitter in the fall of 2009 while I was home on maternity leave with my middle son. To think I've spent nearly two decades of my life on the social media platform is incredible. But Twitter, now X, has brought more good into my life than not. A network of friends, both online and in real life, a support system as I went to nursing school, got divorced, and lost my dad, my job, and my boyfriend, are just some of those things. It's also taught me some hard truths about the American Left, and one of them is this: they will say, and do, anything to advance their agenda.
But, over the last 20 years, I've noticed the Left does so more frequently, more brazenly, and more proudly than they did in the past. One of the things they're exceptionally good at is the motte-and-bailey fallacy. They make an outlandish, indefensible claim (the bailey), and when they're unable to defend that claim, they retreat to a different, more defensible topic (the motte) in order to continue holding the moral high ground without ever admitting the original fallacy.
That's what Nicholas Kristof, the New York Times writer behind the abysmally shameful anti-Israel "opinion" piece is doing now. To recap, Kristof and The New York Times published an op-ed that accused Israeli forces of sexual crimes against Palestinian prisoners, including the outlandish claim that those forces trained dogs to rape captives.
The same night that op-ed dropped, mobs of pro-Palestine, pro-Hamas, anti-Israel Leftists roamed New York's Jewish neighborhoods and harassed Jews at synagogues. That wasn't a coincidence. Neither was the fact The New York Times published that piece the day before a well-sourced, well-documented 300-plus page report detailing actual sexual atrocities carried out, and filmed, by Hamas terrorists on October 7, 2023. The New York Times knew about this report — they were approached about publishing it themselves and declined — and dropped Kristof's story to discredit and diminish the horrors of Hamas.
Both Kristof and The New York Times have defended his piece, with Times spokesman Charlie Stadtlander saying Kristof's "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.'"
Is it opinion or is it journalism? Those are two different things. But I digress.
Did you catch the first of the motte-and-bailey fallacies here?
"Whatever our views of the Middle East conflict, we should be able to unite in condemning rape."
Yes. Except for years, the Left has not condemned the rape of Israelis on October 7. They have either denied it outright or cheered it on as an acceptable part of resistance. Democrat darling Hasan Piker said of the rapes (emphasis added): "It doesn't matter if f***ing rapes happened on October 7. That doesn't change the dynamic for me even this much. So that's the other part of this problem that many people can't contend with. Like, the Palestinian resistance is not perfect. They're not, like, so good, they have magical bullets." He said reports of rapes on October 7 were "fantasies" and "hallucinations."
In February 2024, Rep. Rashida Tlaib voted "present" on a resolution that condemns the use of sexual violence against Israelis. She even spoke out against it on the House floor, saying the resolution didn't address the sexual violence against Palestinians.
Where's the unity in condemning rape?
Instead of apologizing for his disgusting blood libel, Kristof is using the attention his op-ed garnered to pivot to a different topic, namely that the Red Cross and lawyers haven't been able to visit 9,000 Palestinian prisoners.
New way of journalism at the NY Times: say something outrageous and false, grab everyone’s attention with it, then use that attention to push a completely different message you never could have sold on its own.
— AP (@Average_NY_Guy) May 14, 2026
Like: “Okay, maybe the story about Israeli dogs raping Palestinians… pic.twitter.com/7P8rhfyIIB
This isn't the first time Kristof has done this, either. Nearly 25 years ago, he wrongly named Steven Hatfill as the man behind the 2001 anthrax attacks. Despite a lame apology, Kristof said he was still justified in falsely accusing Hatfill of terrorism because it drew attention to other issues.
Did he care about Israeli and American hostages not getting Red Cross visits? Probably not.
Kristof has done this before.
— Jacob Ben-David Linker 🇺🇸🕎🇺🇸✡️🇺🇸🕎🇺🇸 (@JacobALinker) May 14, 2026
After he publicly named (falsely) that Steven Hatfill was the 2001 Anthrax Attacker, Kristof balanced his apology by saying that in the big picture he was still right to use the Hatfill accusation to draw attention to other issues. https://t.co/eDG5MjEKIe pic.twitter.com/nOqpxAaJLX
"So, first, I owe an apology to Dr. Hatfill. In retrospect, I was right to prod the FBI and to urge tighter scrutiny of For Detrick," Kristof wrote at the time. That's some apology.
It's what Kristof does, however. In 2024, he shared a Washington Post story about Nevada's abortion laws, blaming them for a woman being arrested after "suffering a miscarriage." Kristof omitted some pretty important facts, however, including that the woman, who was in her third trimester, used drugs and took supplements with the express intention of killing her unborn child, then hid the child's body after it was born. Deputies believe the infant was born alive. None of that was mentioned by Kristof, who — I'm sure — merely wanted to "draw attention" to other issues.
So forgive me if I don't believe his claims of trained dog rapists. Kristof has a history of lying, and used it this time to blood libel Jews and Israel. As I noted, hundreds of cops had to protect New York's Jews the day that the story was published. Kristof and The New York Times knew what they were doing, and they did it very well.
Kristof and The New York Times owe Israel, Jews, and their readers an apology. As for his motte-and-bailey fallacy, it can rot in prison.
