Israel's foreign ministry labeled a New York Times column by Nicholas Kristof "Hamas propaganda" this week, accusing the two-time Pulitzer Prize winner of publishing a 3,500-word piece built on sources with ties to terrorist organizations, a charge that lands against a backdrop of corrections, retractions, and apologies spanning a quarter-century of Kristof's career.
The column, published Monday, alleged "widespread Israeli sexual violence against men, women and even children" and claimed Israel has "built a security apparatus where sexual violence" is encouraged. Kristof went further, writing that "our American tax dollars subsidize the Israeli security establishment, so this is sexual violence in which the United States is complicit."
The timing was not lost on Israeli officials. The Washington Free Beacon reported that Kristof's column appeared the evening before Israel publicly released a 300-page report documenting Hamas's "systematic sexual atrocities on Oct. 7 and against hostages thereafter." The Israeli foreign ministry accused the Times of publishing the piece deliberately to undermine that report's findings.
On Tuesday, the Israeli foreign ministry posted its response on X, calling out the column in blunt terms:
"This isn't journalism. It's Hamas propaganda, a distortion of the truth and the facts all serving an anti-Israel agenda."
The ministry also stated that it had approached the Times "months ago" about publishing a story on Hamas's documented use of rape, and that the paper "said it was not interested." The accusation carries a sharp implication: the Times had no appetite for a story about Hamas sexual violence but made room for 3,500 words alleging Israeli sexual violence, sourced in part from individuals and groups with documented connections to Hamas.
A Times spokesman pushed back on X, defending Kristof's work. The spokesman said Kristof "travelled to the region to report firsthand on the stories of Palestinians who suffered abuse, and his article collects accounts in the victims' own words, backed by independent studies." The spokesman did not specify which independent studies the paper was referencing.
The sourcing of Kristof's column drew immediate fire from media watchdogs and Israeli officials alike. One key figure in the piece is Sami al-Sai, whom Kristof described as a "freelance journalist." Al-Sai recounted being raped by Israeli prison guards, telling Kristof, "Give me the carrots."
But Honest Reporting, a media watchdog group, raised red flags about al-Sai's credibility. The group reported that al-Sai had tweeted praise for jihadi militant groups and celebrated Hamas's Oct. 7 attack on his social media accounts. Honest Reporting also cited inconsistencies between al-Sai's story as told in 2025 and its retelling in Kristof's column, where dramatic new details appeared.
Honest Reporting described the column as relying on "key sources whose public social-media histories show open support for terrorist groups" and presenting "stories that grow steadily more lurid over time, with dramatic new details added years later."
The pattern of major outlets facing accountability questions over flawed Israel-Gaza coverage is not new, but the specifics here are particularly pointed.
Another central source for Kristof's column was Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, which he described as "a Geneva-based advocacy group often critical of Israel." Kristof cited Euro-Med's recent determination that Israel engages in "systematic sexual violence" that is "widely practiced as part of an organized state policy."
What Kristof did not dwell on: Euro-Med's founder, Ramy Abdu, "has documented ties to senior Hamas leaders," according to both the Israeli government and NGO Monitor. Israeli ambassador to the United States Michael Leiter published a 2011 photograph showing Abdu and former Euro-Med chair Mazen Kahel posing alongside the late Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh.
So the column's two most prominent sources, a self-described journalist who publicly celebrated Oct. 7 and an advocacy group whose founder was photographed with Hamas's top political leader, form the evidentiary backbone of a piece accusing Israel of state-sponsored sexual violence. Readers noticed. Former MSNBC host David Shuster said on X that the Times was discussing a possible retraction over concerns about the column's sourcing. The Times disputed that claim through its spokesman.
For anyone familiar with Kristof's record, the sourcing questions are not an aberration. They are a recurring feature.
In 2001, Kristof penned a series of columns calling on federal prosecutors to pin the anthrax attacks on a subject he identified only as "Mr. Z." That man turned out to be former Army scientist Steven Hatfill. Federal investigators never charged Hatfill. He was ultimately exonerated. Hatfill settled a lawsuit with the government for almost $6 million and sued both the Times and Kristof for defamation. The case was dismissed only after Hatfill failed to prove that Kristof acted with "malice", not because the reporting was vindicated.
Kristof apologized to Hatfill in 2008, years after the damage was done.
In 2014, Kristof published a mea culpa titled "When Sources May Have Lied." The column addressed his previous reporting on Cambodian activist Somaly Mam, whose stories about human trafficking, stories Kristof had amplified to a massive audience, turned out to be fiction. The apology acknowledged a fundamental failure: Kristof had built high-profile journalism on a source who fabricated her account.
There is a broader pattern in American media of accusations that major outlets serve foreign agendas rather than American readers, and the Kristof episode fits squarely within it.
In 2013, Kristof retweeted a message likening AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying group, to pigs. His reporting on Backpage.com, which he accused of being a hub for sex trafficking of minors, also drew pushback from advocates for sex workers who denounced his investigations.
The institutional dynamics at the New York Times add another layer. In December 2023, the paper published a news story describing Hamas soldiers raping and murdering multiple women on Oct. 7. That story itself became a target, anti-Israel staffers at the Times leaked negative information to The Intercept in an effort to undermine it, according to the Free Beacon's reporting.
Two and a half years later, the same newspaper published Kristof's column making sweeping allegations of Israeli sexual violence, sourced from a Hamas-linked advocacy group and a man who celebrated the very attack that prompted the earlier reporting. The contrast is difficult to explain as anything other than an editorial choice about which victims matter.
The Israeli foreign ministry's claim, that the Times rejected a story about Hamas's use of rape but greenlit Kristof's column, sharpens that contrast further. If accurate, it suggests the paper's editorial appetite runs in one direction on this subject.
The Times also employs Saher Alghorra, a Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer who has referred to uniformed Hamas fighters and other anti-Israel militants as "martyrs" and "resistance" forces and has been accused of taking misleading photos under Hamas supervision. That Kristof's column is not the only point of concern about the paper's Israel coverage does not make it less serious. It makes it more so.
Questions about institutional bias and hidden motives behind high-profile media events have surfaced repeatedly in recent years, from declassified memos exposing bias behind major political stories to ongoing debates about the credibility of legacy newsrooms.
Several questions remain unanswered. The Times spokesman did not identify which "independent studies" backed Kristof's reporting. The paper has not addressed the documented Hamas ties of Euro-Med's founder or the social media history of Sami al-Sai. It has not explained why it published the column the evening before Israel released its 300-page report on Hamas sexual atrocities, or whether the timing was coincidental.
The Israeli foreign ministry's claim that the Times turned down a story on Hamas's use of rape also remains unaddressed by the paper. If true, it would mean the Times declined to cover documented sexual violence by a terrorist organization while publishing a column built on Hamas-linked sources alleging Israeli sexual violence.
Kristof himself has not publicly responded to the specific sourcing criticisms raised by Honest Reporting or the Israeli government.
The broader media landscape has seen growing scrutiny of questionable conduct at high-profile institutions, and the Times is no exception. When a flagship newspaper's star columnist relies on sources tied to a designated terrorist organization to make allegations against a U.S. ally, the credibility of the institution, not just the writer, is on the line.
Nicholas Kristof has apologized before. He apologized after fingering the wrong man for the anthrax attacks. He apologized after amplifying fabricated stories from a Cambodian activist. He retweeted a message comparing a pro-Israel group to pigs. And now he has published a column that Israel's foreign ministry calls propaganda, sourced from a man who celebrated Oct. 7 and an organization whose founder posed for photos with Hamas's top leader.
At some point, a pattern of corrections, retractions, and apologies stops being a series of unfortunate mistakes and starts looking like a method. Kristof gets the column. The damage gets done. The apology, if it comes, arrives years later, long after the narrative has settled into the public record.
The New York Times can keep defending the work. But when the sourcing collapses again, and with this track record, the question is when, not if, the paper will own the consequences right alongside its columnist.
A newsroom that turns down a story about Hamas rape and then publishes one built on Hamas-linked sources isn't making an editorial judgment. It's making a choice. And readers can see exactly which side of that choice the Times keeps landing on.
