On May 14, Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said they would sue the New York Times for defamation over a May 11 column by Nicholas Kristof. The column, "The Silence That Meets the Rape of Palestinians," detailed accounts from 14 Palestinians alleging sexual abuse by Israeli guards, soldiers, and settlers — including the disputed account of a handler using a dog. Israeli officials called it "blood libel." The Times said the piece was "extensively fact-checked." The suit has not been filed.

1. The Lawsuit Is The Story (NYT, First Amendment Scholars)

A government suing journalism is itself the news.

Suing the press IS the story. Under New York Times v. Sullivan, public officials suing for defamation must prove the publisher knew the statement was false or acted with "reckless disregard for the truth." First Amendment scholar Rodney Smolla noted a foreign government technically can't sue at all in the US — if Netanyahu or other officials sue personally, they still face a steep climb. The Times' statement defending the column as "deeply reported" and "extensively fact-checked" sets up exactly the defense Sullivan was built to protect.

The legal case is shakier than the rhetoric. "Blood libel" is doing the political work, but the legal standard is the same one Trump's lawyers ran into when ABC and CBS settled rather than test it. The Times has the resources and the constitutional law on its side. It also has the underlying record: a CPJ report from February found nearly a third of Palestinian journalists detained by Israel reported sexual violence.

2. Actually, Kristoff's Piece Has Real Problems (AJC, The Free Press, Olmert)

The dog allegation didn't earn the Times's byline.

The most explosive claim rests on a single source. James Crosby, a canine aggression expert affiliated with Harvard's Canine Brain Project, told JTA it was "highly unlikely" anyone could train a dog to commit a sexual assault. Ehud Olmert, the former Israeli prime minister Kristof quoted, told The Free Press his comments "appeared out of context." The claim "circulated for nearly two years but became turbocharged only in the last month," per open-source analyst Travis Hawley. "Deeply reported opinion journalism" still has to mean something different from a viral allegation lifted onto the Times op-ed page.

The Times put its name on something it couldn't fully corroborate. Kristof himself wrote that "in many cases it was possible to corroborate the victims' stories in part... in other cases it was not possible." When a contested detail moves from a Rutgers speech to the New York Times, it stops being an allegation and starts being The Paper of Record saying it happened. The AJC and Israeli officials calling the piece "blood libel" are pointing to a real category problem.

3. The Bigger Record Is Already Public (HRW, UN, CPJ)

Kristof didn't invent this. The dog detail is one piece of a much bigger record.

Israel's detention practices put this on the table years ago. Human Rights Watch said the reports of sexual abuse of Palestinian prisoners "align with previous findings." The UN Commission of Inquiry concluded in May 2024 that "forced public stripping, nudity, and related 'specific persecutory acts'" against Palestinians in Israeli custody were "ordered or condoned by Israeli authorities." UN experts in August 2024 called the situation at Sde Teiman "grossly illegal and revolting." Israel refused a UN request to investigate further.

Israeli soldiers themselves have admitted to it. In 2024, soldiers detained for questioning over the rape of a Palestinian detainee at Sde Teiman drew protests from Israelis demanding their release. The dog allegation may not survive the scrutiny it deserves. The broader record Kristof drew on has been on the public table for two years.

4. This Is Part Of A Dangerous Pattern (Press Freedom Scholars, Rome Hartman)

Netanyahu doesn't need to win in court to get what he wants.

Even losing media lawsuits have been working. Since returning to office, Trump has filed eight media lawsuits seeking $65 billion in damages. ABC paid $15 million. CBS paid $16 million. Both settled despite strong First Amendment defenses. First Amendment scholars wrote that the settlements were "a dangerous step toward the commander in chief becoming the editor-in-chief." Rome Hartman, the producer of the CBS 60 Minutes Harris interview that triggered the Paramount settlement, called it "a cowardly capitulation."

The chilling effect doesn't require a verdict. A lawsuit alone can pull a story off the front of the conversation and onto a docket. Netanyahu's announcement turned a column about sexual abuse into a story about journalistic methodology. Even a losing case buys years of distraction and signals to other outlets that the next column comes with legal risk.

Where This Lands

The Times is going to win on the law — Sullivan and the foreign-government question make this nearly a layup. Whether it wins on the story is the harder question. The dog allegation is genuinely fragile, and pretending otherwise costs the broader record credibility. Netanyahu's gamble is that the lawsuit changes the conversation regardless of how it ends in court. Where this lands depends on whether the Times treats the suit as an occasion to clarify what it stands behind — or as a reason to be quieter next time.

Sources