The New York Times damage is done

The recent controversy surrounding The New York Times column alleging widespread sexual abuse of Palestinian prisoners by Israelis should alarm anyone who still believes journalism has a duty to separate evidence from propaganda. 

The issue is not whether allegations against Israel should be investigated. Of course they should. Democracies are obligated to examine accusations of wrongdoing seriously and transparently. 

The issue is how one of the world’s most influential newspapers came to publish allegations so grotesque, so inflammatory, and so thinly substantiated that under any normal journalistic standard they should have triggered immediate editorial scepticism. 

Most shocking among them were claims that Israelis had trained dogs to rape Palestinian detainees. 

Pause for a moment and consider the enormity of that accusation. 

This was not a claim about excessive force, mistreatment, or even isolated abuse. It was an allegation bordering on medieval fantasy, portraying Israelis not merely as soldiers or jailers but as uniquely depraved monsters engaged in systematic sexual sadism. 

And yet these claims were elevated into mainstream international discourse through the pages of The New York Times. 

The extraordinary nature of these accusations should have demanded overwhelming corroboration before publication. Instead, basic questions regarding sourcing, evidence, and credibility appear to have been subordinated to a narrative that parts of the media are increasingly eager to embrace: Israel as uniquely evil. 

That matters because accusations of this kind do not exist in a vacuum. 

Historically, blood libels against Jews relied on portraying them as grotesquely inhuman, capable of crimes so monstrous that ordinary moral standards no longer applied. Medieval Europe accused Jews of ritual murder. Modern discourse replaces those accusations with claims of genocidal cruelty, deliberate child murder, or sadistic sexual depravity. 

The language changes. The mechanism remains disturbingly familiar. 

What made The New York Times episode particularly revealing was how little scepticism these claims initially encountered in many media and activist circles. Had similarly sensational accusations been levelled against almost any other democratic country, editors would probably have demanded forensic evidence, multiple layers of independent verification, and extraordinary caution before publication. 

But when Israel is involved, the evidentiary threshold too often appears dramatically lower. 

Claims of Israelis training dogs to rape prisoners should have immediately raised glaring credibility concerns. Instead, they were treated as serious and publishable assertions. 

Beyond that, the sourcing behind the article included heavy reliance on activist organisations and partisan accounts lacking meaningful independent corroboration. Additional revelations only deepened doubts over the credibility of the allegations and the editorial process that allowed them to be amplified globally. 

The New York Times should retract the piece altogether. 

Whether or not that happens, the broader damage is already done. 

Once allegations of this nature enter international discourse, they spread instantly across social media, campuses, political movements, and activist networks. Corrections rarely travel as far as the original accusation. Nuance disappears. What remains is the image: Israelis as monsters. 

And this is precisely why Hamas and its allies invest so heavily in information warfare. 

They understand that emotionally shocking accusations can shape global opinion more effectively than military victories. They understand that parts of the international media are often predisposed to believe the worst about Israel. Most importantly, they understand that once such narratives take hold, many journalists become reluctant to revisit them, even when serious doubts emerge. 

This creates a dangerous asymmetry in coverage. 

Israeli statements are routinely treated with intense suspicion, while allegations emerging from deeply partisan or hostile sources are frequently granted immediate legitimacy if they reinforce prevailing ideological assumptions. Verification becomes secondary to narrative. 

That is not journalism. It is advocacy masquerading as reporting. 

And the consequences extend far beyond Israel itself. 

Such coverage fuels antisemitism worldwide by reviving and legitimising ancient portrayals of Jews as uniquely malevolent. It poisons public discourse and erodes trust in journalism itself. Every time a major media institution appears willing to relax its standards when covering Israel, it reinforces the growing belief that political agendas increasingly drive editorial decisions. 

No democracy should be exempt from scrutiny. But neither should any democracy be subjected to standards abandoned nowhere else. 

Responsible journalism requires scepticism about all sides, particularly when dealing with allegations designed to provoke maximum emotional outrage. It requires editors willing to ask whether a claim is merely shocking or actually credible. Most importantly, it requires the discipline to resist amplifying narratives before the facts are firmly established. 

The New York Times controversy matters because it exposed how quickly those principles can collapse when Israel is the accused party. 

And until major media institutions rediscover the difference between rigorous reporting and narrative amplification, they will continue to damage not only Israel’s reputation, but their own credibility as well. 

• Simon Plosker is the Editorial Director of HonestReporting, an Israeli media advocacy group.