As Twitchy reported on Monday, The New York Times published an opinion piece by Nicholas Kristof called "The Silence That Meets the Rape of Palestinians." Kristof said in a post that he felt if we're going to condemn the sexual assaults on October 7 (that many people, including a great number of his followers, claim never happened), then we need to take an unflinching look at the Israeli rape of Palestinian prisoners, including by trained dogs. Yes, he included the story of the IDF allegedly training dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners, just like they've trained rats to bite Palestinian children.
David Shuster, who's not a source we normally would trust, said on Monday night that he'd heard that The New York Times was considering retracting Kristof's piece.
Hearing from longtime friends @nytimes there are already discussions, including up the masthead, about retracting @NickKristof column. Issues with source credibility and lack of evidence. No indications the Kristof sourcing mistakes were deliberate. Still problematic:
— David Shuster (@DavidShuster) May 12, 2026
Sorry, but your tweet is completely untrue.
— Nicholas Kristof (@NickKristof) May 12, 2026
It appears that Shuster's tweet was untrue because the New York Times PR team sent out a post denying it.
https://t.co/860eTKMugW pic.twitter.com/xsqFyP3ptS
— NYTimes Communications (@NYTimesPR) May 12, 2026
In case that's difficult to read:
“There is no truth to this at all. Nicholas Kristof is a two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who has reported on sexual violence for decades, and is widely regarded as one of the world’s best on-the-ground reporters documenting and bearing witness to sexual abuse experienced by women and men in war and conflict zones. He traveled 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.”
— Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesperson for The New York Times
Recommended
"In the victims' own words." So the spokesperson is saying that, yes, the people in Kristof's article were rape victims. And "backed by independent studies" — by the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor.
"he won two Pulitzers writing for the NYT"
— Physics Geek (@physicsgeek) May 12, 2026
::laughs in Walter Duranty::
The fact that you think this is a flex is one of the funniest things I've ever seen.
Love how you act like “won a Pulitzer while writing for the New York Times” is a sign of quality journalism with an unblemished track record
— Enguerrand VII de Coucy (@ingelramdecoucy) May 12, 2026
What was the editing process here? We'd all love to know.
— Eitan Fischberger (@EFischberger) May 12, 2026
Then why was his article published as an OP-ED and not as news?
— Andrew C Laufer, Esq (@lauferlaw) May 12, 2026
I’m subscribing just so I can cancel my subscription. Vomitous.
— Eylon Levy (@EylonALevy) May 12, 2026
So they are sticking with obvious lies, of Der Stürmer levels, against Jews. Got it.
— William F. Buckley's Ghost with a Yiddish accent (@HumanBeingIHope) May 12, 2026
The NYT has a long and storied history of publishing lies and winning Pulitzer Prizes for it. So I see that hasn't changed.
— William Strunk, Jr. (@cdrusnret) May 12, 2026
What was the independent study of the dog rape?
— Real Sheik Bruno (@robinsonmsr10) May 12, 2026
What study said there are Jewish Rape Dogs?
— Whatever you do... (@BrerRabbitBurnr) May 12, 2026
He's a notorious idiot whom your editors refuse to hold to any standards at all. But, sure, go down swinging with this garbage, you rag.
— Mike Seder (@mpaulseder) May 12, 2026
Then produce the studies. Kristof wrote a story throughly devoid of fact, and you ran it. You’re nothing more than a terrorist propaganda outlet. Either show proof or admit you lied.
— Taro Tsujimoto (@LegendofTaro183) May 12, 2026
So is the NY Times standing by the reporting that dogs can be trained to rape people?
— Banjo Piano 🇮🇪🇮🇱 (@bing_bong_banjo) May 12, 2026
What are these “independent studies”?
— R0cktheh0use1 🇺🇸 (@r0cktheh0use1) May 12, 2026
The fake "Starving Gaza Child" photo won a Pulitzer as well.
— 🅰🆁🅻🅾 (@arlogilbert) May 12, 2026
Pulitzer means absolutely nothing. It's a garbage award.
Yes, the photographer who took the shot of the well-fed Palestinian mother holding her "starving" child — who suffered from a congenital disease but was passed off by The Times as a famine victim — won a Pulitzer Prize just a week ago.
14 people independently told me that David Shuster’s tweet is true.
— Max 📟 (@MaxNordau) May 12, 2026
You really think they all lied?
It's not surprising that The New York Times is sticking by Kristof and his poorly sourced story. After all, he's won two Pulitzer Prizes. The New York Times also won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for its "deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and its eventual administration."
***