The latest controversy surrounding The New York Times and columnist Nicholas Kristof is not simply about one grotesque allegation. It is about a pattern. The repeated willingness of America’s most influential newspaper to amplify the most ludicrous anti-Israel narratives before the facts are established and often long before the evidence can withstand scrutiny.

Kristof’s decision to circulate claims that Israeli forces “train dogs to rape Palestinians” crosses a line that serious journalism once understood instinctively. The allegation is not merely inflammatory, it is medieval in tone, invoking the logic of blood libel and the dehumanizing fantasy that Jews uniquely weaponize cruelty in almost supernatural ways.

And beyond the moral recklessness lies an obvious practical question that any serious editorial process should have confronted immediately: how, exactly, would a dog be “trained” to rape a human being on command?

This is not a rhetorical question. It goes to plausibility. Dogs can be trained to attack, detect explosives, track scents, or restrain suspects. The idea of systematically training military dogs to commit sexual assault is so biologically and behaviourally incoherent that it demands extraordinary evidence. Instead, it was amplified under the authority of one of the world’s most influential newspapers.

That failure is revealing.

The paper has increasingly adopted a “publish first, scrutinize later” posture whenever allegations against Israel fit an existing moral narrative. In practice, this means the most emotionally charged claims often circulate globally before verification, context, or correction can catch up.

A similar dynamic has been visible in broader conflict coverage. In the early stages of reporting on events such as the Al-Shifa hospital episode in Gaza, claims of........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)