The far-left, antisemitic New York Times was so desperate to help its Hamas pals deflect from the actual horrors verified in a new report detailing the unspeakable sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas on October 7, it published a piece accusing Israel of training dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners.
The dog-rape piece admits “There is no evidence that Israeli leaders order rapes,” but the Times published it anyway to protect Hamas from … this.
So, how did the Times justify publishing a Nazi-like piece of anti-Jew propaganda when it admits there is “no evidence”? Easy. The propaganda was published as an opinion piece.
What followed was an immediate blowback of facts, including from the Israeli government.
So now the embattled Times has been forced to double down, and in its most recent statement, the Times went so far as to defend the “opinion piece” as a legitimate piece of news. I’ve transcribed the full statement below. The sweaty fear and desperation you’ll find between the lines is something else:
Nicholas Kristof’s deeply reported piece of opinion journalism starts with a proposition to readers: ‘Whatever our views of the Middle East conflict, we should be able to unite in condemning rape.’ He 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.
The accounts of the 14 men and women he interviewed were corroborated with other witnesses, whenever possible, and with people the victims confided in — that includes family members and lawyers. 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. Independent experts were consulted on the assertions in the piece throughout reporting and fact-checking. — Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesperson for The New York Times
Yes, the neo-Der Stürmer really went with the pathetic emotional blackmail of, “we should be able to unite in condemning rape.” Because, you know, if we dare question the Times, we’re pro-dog rape or something.
Then we get to the dissembling: “He draws together on-the-record accounts.”
There are only two on-the-record accounts, both from sources even less reliable than CNN. The first is Sami al‑Sai, who has previously contradicted himself about accusations of sexual torture. Al-Sai also praised Hamas after the October 7 massacre. The second source is Issa Amro. In February of 2024, he told the far-left Washington Post he’d been threatened with sexual assault by Israeli soldiers during a ten-hour detention in 2023. Then, a few months later, he told the New York Times he had been assaulted. Which is it? My guess is neither.
The Times chose to omit all of that vital context, so one can only imagine how sketchy the remaining 12 “victims” are.
The Times article cites Shaiel Ben-Ephraim as an expert to legitimize the dog rape claim. For some odd reason *lights pipe, scratches beard, stares off in wonder* the Times fails to mention that Ben-Ephraim was forced out of UCLA due to multiple allegations of behaving inappropriately with minors.
The second paragraph in that Times’ statement is the real doozy. We’re assured of corroboration with “other witnesses” and “with people the victims confided in.” The Times boasts of “[d]etails …extensively fact-checked [and] accounts further cross-referenced with news reporting.” There was even “independent research from human-rights groups,” including the super-reliable United Nations.
Why it’s a word salad of reassurance: corroboration, fact-checked, cross-refenced, news reporting, and independent research.
Oh, okay…
So where is it?
Why weren’t those details shared in the article?
Why not share them now?
The Times won’t even tell us the dates and locations of the alleged incidents when the basics of journalism are the “where” and the “when.” And those are basics for a reason: they help to corroborate the story.
The original article contained no context, no details, nothing but absurd claims from sources that have already proven unreliable.
This is no surprise. After all, this is the same neo-Der Stürmer that lied about Israel starving a baby to death (and won a Pulitzer for this lie). This is the same neo-Der Stürmer that lied about Israel bombing a hospital.
As I’ve mentioned before, with advertising revenue a thing of the past, the Times cannot survive unless it constantly feeds the bloodlust of a far-left customer base driven by a white-hot hate for all things Trump, Western Civilization, and most especially Israel.
The tail wags the dog over there, and the tail is vile, so the Times has chosen to become vile.
Read the full article here