Michael Goodwin: The Left's Betrayal of Israel Exposed by NY Times' Latest Antisemitic Hit

The Controversial Column and Its Implications

For those who missed the recent controversy surrounding The New York Times, here’s a summary of the key events and their broader implications. The focus is on Nicholas Kristof’s column from last Monday, which repeated debunked claims about Israeli soldiers using dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners. This article explores the backlash against the column and the larger issues it raises about journalistic integrity and bias.

A Bizarre Claim and Strong Reactions

The column in question made outlandish assertions that have drawn significant criticism. Many readers and experts pointed out that the author had seemingly accepted information from sources known for promoting Hamas propaganda. The Israeli government has even threatened to file a defamation lawsuit against both Kristof and the Times. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned the column, calling it an attempt to defame Israel's soldiers and perpetuate a "blood libel" about rape. He specifically referenced the documented war crimes committed by Hamas during the October 7, 2023, invasion, including instances of sexual violence against women and children.

The Paper’s Defenses and Their Flaws

Despite internal concerns about how such a preposterous claim made it through the editing process, the paper’s top editors have remained steadfast in their defense of the column. They described it as a “deeply-reported piece of opinion journalism” and claimed it cited several analyses documenting sexual violence by Israeli security forces and settlers. However, this defense has been met with skepticism, particularly regarding the claim that the column was “extensively fact-checked.” How can one fact-check a claim about dogs raping prisoners when science clearly states it is anatomically impossible?

This approach is not independent fact-checking; it is simply repeating the writer’s and his sources’ assertions without offering any new evidence. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.” Many critics, including Free Press columnist Matti Friedman and Dan Senor, have echoed this sentiment, suggesting that the column reflects a broader shift in modern journalism where credibility is traded for activism.

The Broader Impact on Journalism

The Times’ reaction to the column goes beyond defending a single writer or editor. It marks a turning point in the American left’s relationship with Israel. The paper, which is often seen as a leading voice for the radical left-wing of the Democratic Party, has increasingly aligned itself with progressive causes that include demonizing the Jewish state. From issues related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) to transgender surgeries and climate change, the paper has taken positions that many consider extreme.

Open Season on Israel

The paper’s coverage of the Middle East consistently criticizes Israel while giving favorable treatment to groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. This pattern has led some to view the paper’s defense of Kristof’s column as a signal to Democrats that it is now “open season on Israel.” Recent years have seen a growing number of House members, including the so-called “Squad,” making antisemitic comments, and many Democratic senators voting against providing Israel with defensive weapons.

Biased Coverage and Past Mistakes

Complaints about biased coverage of the Middle East are not new among Israeli and American conservatives. However, the current situation is different. The Kristof column represents a more direct condemnation of Israel’s right to defend itself against threats. The paper has also faced criticism for its coverage of other issues, such as a photo that falsely depicted a starving Gaza baby and a story claiming that Israel bombed a hospital in Gaza, which was later retracted.

Conclusion

The controversy surrounding Kristof’s column highlights deeper issues within The New York Times and the broader media landscape. While the paper defends its editorial choices, critics argue that it has strayed from its role as an objective news source. The incident serves as a reminder of the importance of journalistic integrity and the need for balanced reporting, especially on complex and sensitive issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.