Nick Kristof’s Never-Ending Obsession with Israel
Kristof’s NYT column reads as the work of an illusionist who blurs the line between allegation and established fact.
“Obsession” is commonly defined as “an idea or thought that continually preoccupies or intrudes on a person’s mind.”
It is difficult to read Nicholas Kristof’s body of work on Israel and not think of that word. His recent New York Times column, “The Silence That Meets the Rape of Palestinians” (May 11), is perhaps the clearest example yet.
In 3,501 words, Kristof builds a sweeping indictment of Israel on anonymous allegations and unverified claims while abandoning the most basic standards of journalism. Yet his column is hardly an outlier. Kristof has spent years portraying the tiny Jewish state through the harshest possible lens, a pattern thoroughly documented by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA).
Recently, even respected legal voices have begun sounding the alarm over Kristof’s column. In a powerful essay for The Free Press titled ‘A Miscarriage of Journalism at The New York Times,’ federal judge Roy K. Altman argued that Kristof’s column ‘violates the fundamental rules of fairness and due process’ by relying on anonymous accusations, activist sourcing, and allegations so inflammatory that they would never survive serious evidentiary scrutiny in any courtroom. It is the kind of rigorous rebuttal the New York Times, if it truly valued intellectual honesty and journalistic integrity, should have the courage to publish in full for its readers.
The allegations Kristof describes are horrific and, if even one is credible, they should be investigated. But responsible journalism requires more than repeating inflammatory accusations and wrapping them in emotional storytelling.
Kristof relies heavily on unverified claims that cannot be independently corroborated and are rooted in advocacy organizations with explicit political agendas. One of the key sources cited in his reporting, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, has itself been criticized for alleged ties to Hamas leaders and is known for repeatedly promoting unverified accusations against Israel.
Still, the overall effect of the column is to leave readers with the unmistakable impression that Israel systematically employs rape and sexual torture as policy.
That is the work of an illusionist who blurs the line between allegation and established fact.
Claims of organized rape, sexual torture, and even dogs allegedly used to assault prisoners are not allegations responsible journalists should amplify without overwhelming, independently confirmed evidence. Yet Kristof repeats them without asking the most basic question: are they actually true?
To his credit, Kristof briefly acknowledges there is “no evidence” Israeli leaders ordered such acts. But that acknowledgment is buried beneath thousands of words crafted to persuade readers that this depravity is widespread, normalized, and uniquely Israeli.
It is not.
Even one of the people Kristof quoted disputed the way his remarks were presented. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (a vocal critic of Israeli government policies) accused Kristof of misrepresenting his remarks. In a statement obtained by The Free Press, Olmert said:
“Mr. Kristof’s article includes claims of extraordinary gravity … I did not validate these claims. I have no knowledge supporting these claims as I said to Mr. Kristof. Therefore, the positioning of my quote after pages of such allegations misrepresents my views.”
When a quoted source says his words were used to support claims he did not endorse, serious questions about journalistic integrity are impossible to ignore.
Those concerns are further underscored by the timing of Kristof’s article. As Professor Gerald Steinberg of NGO Monitor observed, Kristof’s column appeared just as broader attention was turning toward the “Silenced No More” report documenting sexual violence committed by Hamas on Oct. 7 and against hostages in Gaza — a report based on hundreds of interviews, testimonies, photographs, and video recordings.
The difference between the overwhelming evidence behind the October 7 report and Kristof’s anti-Israel screed could not be more glaring.
At a moment when Jews around the world are facing rising hatred, violence, and accusations of monstrous evil, publishing claims of this magnitude without ironclad evidence is deeply irresponsible.
The New York Times should not use the “prestige” of its opinion pages to amplify inflammatory allegations built on biased sourcing and testimony that cannot be independently verified.
Serious journalism requires verification, corroboration, and evidence.
Kristof’s column fails on all three.
