Israel’s defamation lawsuit against the NY Times for publishing the Kristof piece
From Alan Dershowitz; very instructive:
As I thought, he says the lawsuit won’t work in the US. One reason is that an entity like Israel can’t sue under US law; it has to be a person who was harmed. Plus, the standard is very high in the US when suing a newspaper for defamation, due to New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (ironic, isn’t it, that the case involved the Times?).
Nevertheless, Dershowitz makes the point that Israel could sue in other countries that make it easier to win against media outlets, such as in Britain.
Dershowitz also points out that the NY Times’ printing of these particular allegations – which already had been floating around online for ages – gives the stories a kind of gravitas they didn’t have before, and could convince credulous readers who were neutral on the Israel question to turn against Israel because they trust that the Times wouldn’t print mere online rumors or mere Palestinian propaganda. Those who follow the Times more closely know that of course the paper would do that – and already has, many times. But lots of people aren’t that tuned in to these topics and can be persuaded by the Times’ high reputation of old.
Dershowitz also points out that the article was careful not just to be published as opinion – which doesn’t really protect it legally, although that’s the goal – but to not name any of the persons being accused of these crimes. Naming a person falsely would give that
Plus, Dershowitz says that journalists are the most unethical group of people he’s ever dealt with; I can well believe it.
This National Review article describes what the advantages would be of a defamation lawsuit in Israel, even if the defamation case would basically go nowhere if brought in the US:
Which brings us to the real mechanism: 28 U.S.C. § 1782.
Once an Israeli proceeding is in reasonable contemplation, an interested person can apply in the Southern District of New York (where the New York Times is headquartered) to compel evidence production from a U.S. entity for use in foreign litigation. A properly framed § 1782 application does not ask the court to adjudicate the case; it simply asks the court to order the Times to produce the factual basis for one published allegation.
The subpoena categories write themselves: documents identifying the source and evidentiary basis for the dog allegation; fact-checking notes and editorial review records; communications with cited human rights organizations about this specific claim; internal discussions of reliability or corroboration. The Times will obviously raise reporter’s privilege. That is expected. But the answer here is a measured response: Nobody is asking for every source on every story. The request is for the factual foundation for one allegation the Times has publicly called corroborated and extensively fact-checked and “deeply reported.” Either show the corroboration or explain why you cannot. Both answers are informative.
None of this is a technical defamation case, but the critics declaring the claim dead on arrival are focusing on the colloquial use of the word “defamation” expressed in a spokesperson’s tweet and missing the tree for the forest. The real question is whether there exists a narrow, disciplined legal theory that forces the Times to produce the evidentiary basis for one of the most inflammatory factual allegations it has ever published. And there is.
Of course, many many more people have paid attention to the Kristof piece (many of whom might believe it) than would pay attention to any legal findings delegitimizing it. The Times and Kristof are well aware of that. They want their lies to get all the way around the world before the truth has a chance to get its boots on.
I can see the suit as worthwhile just for putting a spotlight on the grotesque mendacity of the Kristof article. Whether or not it succeeds legally.
I do think Kristof has ultimately destroyed his career as a serious journalist. I looked at his wiki page. He is certainly progressive but he has not pushed his views so hard, so dishonestly before.
Henceforth he will be Nicholas “Dog Rape” Kristof. The left may tolerate him, but the rest of the country will know him as not just as a partisan writer, but an evil, hate-filled propagandist.
I agree with huxley that the suits ought to be brought even if they have no hope of success. The more publicity, the better.
Most of the Times’ readers are going to believe Kristof regardless, even if he loses, but there might be a few who feel the “wait a minute here” pricking of suspicion, like in Neo’s own story and those of many other changers from left to right (or at least to guardedly neutral).
I think this belongs in the satire folder: “But tell us what you really think!” —
https://townhall.com/columnists/alanjosephbauer/2026/05/17/nick-kristallnacht-n2676171
He makes a comment similar to this observation of Neo’s:
A reputation higher than they deserved, as has become increasingly clear looking back into history.
Dr. Bauer:
That’s an opinion, Mr. Kristoff, so don’t think of suing Town Hall.
Say what you want…but Brother Nicholas )and the NYT) have certainly taken investigative journalism to the next level…
(One might imagine Friar Tucker and Sister Candace smacking their respective foreheads, shaking their noggins in admiration and incanting, “SHEER BRILLIANCE…Dear Lord!! WHY didn’t I think of that??…)
Conversely, I think it’s conversely, one might ask a liberal acquaintance, “How do you know your source is any better than Kristoff’s dog-rape fake?”. However much they profess to believe it, it being so yummy, some must know it’s a lie and know hey lie when they repeat it and know that others know they lie. So putting thei latest lie in the same category might cause them a bit of caution. One may nope.
Going to be blunt but while this is a good and even necessary step, if we want to save our civilization and ironically freedom, we need to start talking about the role of so called “journalists” or “news outlets” spreading propaganda or even pushing genocidal claptrap and the circumstances under which they become legitimate targets to be captured or killed as a result of what they push or advocate for. We’ve seen the physical side of this with the parade of “journalist” terrorists and stringers the IDF has killed and the ensuing brouhaha, but that I think is only part of the issue and in some ways the less relevant of them since those were terrorists with journalistic titles that were taken out because of their military activities as terrorist paramilitaries, but the monster with a loudspeaker can incite and cause the deaths of many fold more than one with a suicide vest and/or gun.
This may sound terrifying and radical, and in many ways it is with increeedibly obvious risks. But I do not think it is so unjustified or unprecedented. Goebbels was explicit in his calls for mass murder and other crimes and would have been trialed had he not followed his leader. His mini-me Hans Fritzsche was arraigned at Nuremberg for those charges and while he was acquitted due to lack of evidence, the consensus on what we’ve found there is that had they known what we now do about his action he’d not merely have been convicted for his “reporting” and other actions but executed. And of course Anwar al-Awlaki got droned for his role pushing propaganda for Al Qaeda and while this was understandably somewhat controversial on the right as it was Obama droning an American citizen without trial, I supported it and still do given the target’s activities and guilt. The likes of the RTLM staff were often trialed and often convicted of part in the Rwandan genocide, and so on. So at some point we need to start asking ourselves the very ugly, very uncomfortable questions of when a “journalist” ceases to not only be a journalist or commentator or even a partisan hack but becomes a part of an enemy war effort or even a flat out terrorist or war criminal. I am not sure I would place Kristoffnacht in that category yet, but I think he is very close, and I think some influences like Hasan Piker and BadEmpanada have already qualified. I for one began advocating for Al Jazeera to be branded a terrorist organization back around 2008 and told to either GTFO of places like Iraq, or be subject to weapons free.
I suspect that the ONLY question is whether the NYT and its messenger of TRUTH and HONESTY have TOTALLY discredited themselves—FOREVER, as well as retroactively—by publishing and then doubling down on this pathetic, poisonous absurdity…
(Probably not, alas…. After all, if that picture of that emaciated, ill youngster—with his healthy brother photoshopped out—triumphantly touted as unassailable PROOF that Israel was starving Gazan kids wasn’t enough of an embarrassment for the Gray Lady, then this particular blood libel will likely be seen as just another wild NYT “success”….)
Shorter Turtler, shut Kristof’s mouth permanently.
@Chases Eagles
Honestly Kristof is bad but he isn’t even the worst by far or top priority among the “journalist” terrorist propagandists and agitators that would deserve it.
So what are the chances of a piece such as this one appearing in the Western media?
“Interviewer attacks Israel, Lebanese Muslim MP pushes back;
“Lebanese MP Fouad Makhzoumi pushed back against claims Israel seeks civil war, blaming Hezbollah for Lebanon’s deepening crisis.”—
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/427213
Turtler,
If/when they regain control, will you also support Democrats assassinating Republicans deemed to be insurrectionists or Ultra MAGA White Nationalists (or whatever the phrase the FBI said was the greatest domestic threat)?
Selfie at 3:51, you mean like the Dems already do? Have you been sleeping since Obama was in, at least?
Huxley, Kristof has been a dishonest hack for decades. this is his worst atrocity by far though.
@bill fello: Kristof has been a dishonest hack for decades
I did say he was a progressive. 🙂
@Selfy
No, in much the same way I do not support assasisnating Kristofnacht, at least yet.
But I already predicted this flavor of gotcha, which is why I pointed out that I did in fact support the Obama administration assassinating Anwar al-Awlaki in spite of him having never received a trial and having been an American citizen and erstwhile “journalist” (albeit embedded far more directly in a terrorist network).
I recognize the threat and how it could be abused, which is why there can and should be safeguards. But I also recognize the threats and legal precedents that at some point in time enemy propagandists or those cooperating them become complicit in their crimes and valid targets.
Israel to bring a lawsuit against the NY Times in New York City – with its Jihadist Communist Mayor and Letitia James type people running things.
Now that’s funny.
Turtler,
Thanks for your reply. It seemed to me that your original post almost advocated starting a Second Civil War, a war which would be terrible, but which could at some point be necessary.
The problem is they poison the well from where jurors voters and bystanders arise from consider the one who shot the two israeli embassy employees how his mind came to said conclusions
Al jazeera al manar which is popular among the lebanese diaspora middle east eye is the more tabloid version of al jazeera
Of course there are the likes of amanpour among others
While a huge settlement from the NYT to Israel would be great, I, not being Israel, would settle for a buck and discovery back to the NYT’s–looking for a decent metaphor here–shoe laces.