This piece is a strawman of Kristoff's critics. The reason why we are skeptical of the piece is not because the people quoted in it are Palestinians but because they are not reliable. Read on:
The article also relies heavily on Hebron activist Issa Amro. But his account appears to have evolved as well. In a February 2024 Washington Post interview, Amro said he was threatened with sexual assault during a 10-hour detention on October 7. By the time of the New York Times article, however, he is presented as an established victim of sexual assault as part of a broader alleged pattern.
To substantiate one of the article’s most grotesque accusations, Kristof cites Shaiel Ben-Ephraim as an authority. But Ben-Ephraim previously left UCLA after multiple sexual-harassment allegations involving inappropriate conduct toward minors. He later rebranded himself from failed academic to “geopolitical analyst” and “humanitarian activist,” while publicly pushing anti-Israel conspiracy theories online.
The other source, Euro-Med Rights Monitor, is run by a designated Hamas operative who called Hamas rape on Oct 7 "a fabricated lie" and hosts panels with Hamas leaders as featured speakers. Their Chief of Programmes and Communications tweeted selfies taken with Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh. They also got caught working with a Hamas-affiliated group to pay agents to edit Wikipedia pages to portray Hamas in a more favorable light.
I completely agree with the author that these kinds of allegations shouldn't be made lightly, but that's exactly what Kristoff and the Times did here. And it's not like it's the first time they've platformed unverified claims made by Palestinians that were difficult to believe. Anyone else remember the al-Ahli Hospital "bombing?"
Spookyrabbit | 4 hours ago
To paraphrase the adage, "When you have facts, pound the facts. When you have nothing, pound the desk & yell like hell."
caketaster | 2 hours ago
Excellent piece of journalism, well worth reading
WhiteGold_Welder | 55 minutes ago
This piece is a strawman of Kristoff's critics. The reason why we are skeptical of the piece is not because the people quoted in it are Palestinians but because they are not reliable. Read on:
One of the central figures cited in the article is Sami al-Sai. Yet the Times failed to inform readers about al-Sai’s documented history of glorifying terrorists and celebrating armed attacks against Israelis. His testimony changed over time as well.
The article also relies heavily on Hebron activist Issa Amro. But his account appears to have evolved as well. In a February 2024 Washington Post interview, Amro said he was threatened with sexual assault during a 10-hour detention on October 7. By the time of the New York Times article, however, he is presented as an established victim of sexual assault as part of a broader alleged pattern.
To substantiate one of the article’s most grotesque accusations, Kristof cites Shaiel Ben-Ephraim as an authority. But Ben-Ephraim previously left UCLA after multiple sexual-harassment allegations involving inappropriate conduct toward minors. He later rebranded himself from failed academic to “geopolitical analyst” and “humanitarian activist,” while publicly pushing anti-Israel conspiracy theories online.
The other source, Euro-Med Rights Monitor, is run by a designated Hamas operative who called Hamas rape on Oct 7 "a fabricated lie" and hosts panels with Hamas leaders as featured speakers. Their Chief of Programmes and Communications tweeted selfies taken with Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh. They also got caught working with a Hamas-affiliated group to pay agents to edit Wikipedia pages to portray Hamas in a more favorable light.
I completely agree with the author that these kinds of allegations shouldn't be made lightly, but that's exactly what Kristoff and the Times did here. And it's not like it's the first time they've platformed unverified claims made by Palestinians that were difficult to believe. Anyone else remember the al-Ahli Hospital "bombing?"