Tipsheet

The New York Times Continues to Defend Its Despicable Anti-Israel Op-Ed

Amy Curtis
Amy Curtis  |  May 22, 2026 12:30 PM

If you thought The New York Times (NYT) was going to issue a mea culpa over the despicable Nick Kristof op-ed that accused Israeli soldiers of training dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners, you'd be sorely mistaken. The NYT defended the piece of 'opinion journalism' last week and now they've published a response to readers' and critics' questions.

But instead of owning up to the shoddy 'journalism' behind the false claims, they continue to defend the work.

They start by blaming the readers.

"Critics who focus on the backgrounds of specific sources often overlook the overwhelming volume and consistency of such accounts. Nick's column, ultimately, was a call to action, urging those in power to condemn sexual violence in all forms," the NYT wrote.

Once again, this doesn't hold up under most basic scrutiny. If this writer were to get 1,000 people to say Nick Kristof eats puppies, does anyone think the NYT would simply agree that the 'overwhelming volume and consistency' of those stories meant the accusation was true?

Hamas operatives, pro-Palestine activists, and the anti-Israel crowd will lie to smear Israel. Their word is worth less than the paper it's written on.

Meanwhile, the NYT itself refused to publish an actual documented and sourced report on the use of sexual violence by Hamas.

They have no interest in condemning sexual violence, especially when that sexual violence is targeted at Jews and other enemies of Hamas.

These sources are not reliable. Every time President Trump utters anything, the NYT and others add ' ... without evidence' to his remarks. Notice how they take the word of known October 7 sympathizers as Gospel truth, however.

Dog rape didn't happen. We're right to deny it.

And they double down on the dog-rape claims.

Someone needs to tell the NYT that saying the same thing over and over again doesn't magically make it true.

That's exactly why the NYT is doing this. They had advanced notice of the report of Hamas atrocities, and they wanted to get ahead of it — and minimize it — by cooking up this bull story about Israel training dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners.

This piece was not fact-checked.

The NYT is facing a massive lawsuit from Israel over these claims. Discovery should be very enlightening, if it even gets that far. Watch how quickly the NYT tries to settle. And Fischberger thinks this will hurt the NYT in the lawsuit.

There are several claims Fischberger lays out, but a notable one is that former PM Olmert "accused Kristof of misrepresenting his words in the original column. The Times response doesn't mention him once."

If it was 'fact-checked' for weeks, there will be documentation. Emails, text messages, notes. Let's see them.

They want it both ways. They want it to be journalism so it carries weight, but because it's rightfully under scrutiny, they also want it to be an op-ed to protect them from lawsuits. They're now facing one anyway, and they keep handing Israel more ammo in that lawsuit.