Rep. Josh Gottheimer, a New Jersey Democrat, tore into The New York Times this week over a Nicholas Kristof opinion column alleging systematic sexual violence against Palestinian prisoners by Israeli forces, going so far as to suggest the paper operates as if it were on Hamas's payroll.
The column, which Fox News Digital reported went viral Monday, drew on interviews with 14 men and women who said they were sexually assaulted by Israeli settlers or members of the security forces. The allegations range from abuse of genitalia to penetration by a dog. Israel's government called the piece a blood libel. A former Israeli prime minister quoted in it says the Times misrepresented his words.
The backlash has now escalated into an international legal dispute. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Gideon Saar have ordered their legal advisers to pursue a defamation lawsuit against the paper and Kristof personally, Newsmax reported.
Gottheimer, one of the more centrist Democrats in the House posted on X:
"Nick Kristof amplifies proven Hamas-affiliated sources and their propaganda, while the NYT continues to gloss over the systematic sexual violence, rape, and mutilation Hamas committed on October 7, now fully documented in the new Civil Commission report."
He added that the paper of record should be held to a higher standard, "particularly with allegations as serious as these."
"It's almost as if the NYT is on Hamas' payroll."
That line, from a sitting Democratic congressman, not a Republican firebrand, captures how far the Times has drifted from the trust of its traditional political allies. It is not every day that a member of the party's pro-Israel wing publicly compares America's most prominent newspaper to a terrorist organization's communications arm.
Gottheimer is not alone among Democrats willing to break with their party's institutional allies when it comes to Israel. The fracture has been growing for months, and the Kristof column appears to have widened it.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry posted a blistering response on X, calling Kristof's piece "one of the worst blood libels ever to appear in the modern press."
"In an unfathomable inversion of reality, and through an endless stream of baseless lies, propagandist Nicholas Kristof turns the victim into the accused. Israel, whose citizens were the victims of the most horrific sexual crimes committed by Hamas on October 7, and whose hostages were later subjected to further sexual abuse, is portrayed as the guilty party."
The ministry said the column was "part of a false and well-orchestrated anti-Israel campaign aimed at placing Israel on the U.N. Secretary-General's blacklist." Israel's Foreign Minister described the article as "one of the most hideous and distorted lies ever published against the State of Israel in the modern press," Just The News reported.
Netanyahu himself weighed in directly. "They defamed the soldiers of Israel and perpetuated a blood libel about rape, trying to create a false symmetry between the genocidal terrorists of Hamas and Israel's valiant soldiers," he wrote on X, as the Washington Examiner reported. He added: "We will fight these lies in the court of public opinion and in the court of law. Truth will prevail."
One of the more damaging details in the fallout involves former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who was quoted in Kristof's column. The quote, "Do I believe it happens? Definitely", appeared to lend credibility to the allegations from a senior Israeli figure.
But Olmert says the Times twisted what he meant. In a statement obtained by The Free Press, the former prime minister pushed back hard:
"Mr. Kristof's article includes claims of extraordinary gravity: that Israeli authorities have directed the rape of children, that dogs have been used as instruments of sexual assault, that systematic sexual torture is state policy. I did not validate these claims."
He went further, saying he had "no knowledge supporting these claims, as I said to Mr. Kristof. Therefore, the positioning of my quote after pages of such allegations misrepresents my views."
The Times fired back. It told Fox News Digital that Olmert's quote "was given on the record, tape-recorded and is presented accurately and in appropriate context to readers." The paper said Kristof offered Olmert "the context and overview of what he was writing."
That exchange alone raises a serious editorial question. A former prime minister says his words were placed in a misleading context. The paper says the quote is accurate and properly framed. Both cannot be fully right. Readers are left to decide whether a single on-the-record sentence, dropped after pages of grave accusations, amounts to fair context or strategic positioning.
It is the kind of dispute that has dogged the Times before. The paper has repeatedly found itself at odds with subjects who say their words were used in ways they did not intend, a pattern that erodes trust regardless of whether the transcript supports the paper's version.
Times spokesman Charlie Stadtlander issued a lengthy statement Wednesday evening defending the column. He described it as "deeply reported" opinion journalism and said Kristof "draws together on-the-record accounts and cites several analyses documenting the practice of sexual violence and abuse conducted by various parts of Israel's security forces and settlers."
Stadtlander said the 14 accounts were "corroborated with other witnesses, whenever possible, and with people the victims confided in, that includes family members and lawyers." He added that details were "extensively fact-checked, with accounts further cross-referenced with news reporting, independent research from human-rights groups, surveys and in one case, with U.N. testimony."
That defense, however, rests on a notable qualifier: "whenever possible." The phrase does quiet work. It means some accounts could not be independently corroborated. For a piece making allegations of state-directed rape of children and sexual assault by dogs, that qualifier carries weight.
Outside analysts were not persuaded by the Times's defense. Nadav Pollak told the New York Post: "Any actual case that happened needs to be investigated... but Kristof here intentionally tries to create a distorted reality like this is common practice by Israel and compares it to Hamas."
Eitan Fischberger was blunter, calling it "cartoonishly evil Hamas propaganda."
Israel's U.S. ambassador, as cited by Breitbart, said any complaint of unlawful conduct should be submitted to investigative bodies and argued the Times had relied on a source with alleged Hamas connections. Critics pointed specifically to Euro-Med Monitor, which they described as linked to Hamas.
The Times itself acknowledged in the column, as Breitbart noted, that "there is no evidence that Israeli leaders order rapes." That sentence sits uneasily alongside the column's broader framing, which critics say left readers with the unmistakable impression of systematic, state-sanctioned sexual violence.
The timing also drew scrutiny. The column was published one day before the release of a separate investigation detailing evidence of widespread sexual abuse against Israeli civilians during Hamas's October 7 attack. Gottheimer referenced that investigation, a Civil Commission report, in his criticism, arguing the Times "continues to gloss over" the documented atrocities committed by Hamas.
That juxtaposition is hard to ignore. A major American newspaper ran a column alleging Israeli sexual violence on the eve of a report documenting Hamas's own sexual crimes. Whether the timing was coincidental or deliberate, the effect was to shift the narrative at a politically sensitive moment.
Gottheimer's attack on the Times is part of a broader pattern. Pro-Israel Democrats have grown increasingly vocal in challenging institutions they once treated as natural allies. Sen. John Fetterman has made similar breaks, publicly citing moral clarity on Israel as a reason for his distance from fellow Democrats.
The Kristof column may accelerate that trend. When a Democratic congressman from New Jersey suggests the nation's paper of record is functioning as a propaganda arm for a designated terrorist organization, the relationship between the party's pro-Israel wing and the mainstream press has reached a new low point.
Several open questions remain. What specific sources did Kristof rely on, and how many of the 14 accounts were independently verified beyond family members and lawyers? Will Israel follow through on its threatened defamation lawsuit, and in what jurisdiction? And will the Times issue any correction or clarification regarding Olmert's complaint that his quote was placed in misleading context?
For now, the paper is standing firm. Its spokesman insists the reporting was rigorous. Its critics, spanning the Israeli government, outside analysts, and at least one Democratic congressman, say the column dressed up unverified allegations as journalism and handed a propaganda gift to Hamas.
The Times has weathered credibility disputes before. But when your own political allies start asking whose payroll you're on, the problem is no longer just about one column.
A newspaper that admits it has no evidence Israeli leaders ordered rapes, and then runs thousands of words leaving exactly that impression, has earned every bit of the backlash headed its way.
