The Honest Take

speaker-0: what Christoph produced was, I would say, more than anti-Israel propaganda.

speaker-1: Welcome to The Honest Take, Honest Reporting's long-form interview series, bringing together leading experts, journalists, and researchers to examine how Israel and the Middle East are covered, and what goes into creating and feeding the narratives that target Israel. I'm Ben Chertoff. Last night, we went live to respond to Nicholas Kristof's piece in the New York Times published Monday, a piece alleging, among other incredible claims, that Israel has trained and uses dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners. That's the kind of allegation that in a saner moment, you'd expect a paper of record to vet to the point of exhaustion. They didn't, and because they didn't, the people who already hate Israel and have already been peddling these insane conspiracy theory blood liabilities of Israeli sexual abuse, Owen Jones, the Young Turks, Cenk Weger, and every fringe account in their orbit are now citing the New York Times as their source. These are the stakes. My guest was my colleague, Honest Reporting's own Rachel O'Donohue. Rachel published an extensive debunking on X hours after The Times ran the piece, and then last night she joined me live to walk through it. This morning, her full rebuttal, Christoph's unbelievable tale, ran in The Wall Street Journal. Links in the show notes. Read it alongside this episode, and here's last night's show.

speaker-0: He posits this as part of a wider framework of systematic sexual violence by Israeli security forces against Palestinians and also not just Israeli security forces but by Israeli civilians living in the West Bank. And he claims in his piece to have spoken to 14 ⁓ Palestinian victims of sexual violence, two of which are named the rest anonymously quoted, that forms the primary structure of his piece.

speaker-1: He includes an absurd claim that we have looked at. isn't the first time this claim has come up that there are trained rape dogs. Like, I want to make sure everyone heard that right. Dogs trained to rape humans. Can you can you walk us through that one specifically? And I'm sorry we have to like we have I'm sorry we've had to say so many times in the past two days. ⁓ Dogs rape. Yeah, anything with dogs and rape. Sorry, I have my dog down here.

speaker-0: It covers his. ⁓ Yes. mean, actually, this, it's not surprising that this has captured people's attention and is the line that is kind of spread really far and wide by anti-Israel propagandists because on its face, it's so grotesque, it's so lurid, it's just horrific. When I looked, I mean, I want to take you back to the beginning. This claim actually starts with an NGO that is cited throughout Christophe's report. That NGO is called Euromed Human Rights Monitor. Geneva-based started over 15 years ago. They actually originally published this claim a couple of years ago. It was about a year into the war against Hamas after the October 7 attacks. At the time, this allegation was treated in the way that it probably should have been treated, which is that it was effectively ignored. Obviously, I don't want to talk about the logistics of dog rape, but it goes without saying that this is scientifically impossible. Veterinarians can attest to this. It's absurd. Now, at the time, this was not picked up by any mainstream media. In fact, the report that it was featured in quoted one individual who claimed to have witnessed, other wild allegations of torture, including Israeli security services strapping a man to an electric chair and ⁓ shocking him so badly his foot exploded. This is the report that we're talking about. And it was based on the testimony of one witness who claimed that he saw Israel set a pack of dogs onto a young man and raped him. In those two years since, know, Euromed has published this again. It started to filter very slowly through anti-Israel groups online until eventually it seeped into the mainstream, which kind of gives you an idea about how the kind of media ecosystem works. ⁓ Euromedmonitor itself has a long, long history of promoting, as I said, insane and fabricated allegations about Israel. For example, it promoted the ⁓ libel that Israel is systematically harvesting organs from Palestinians. It denied that there was Hamas activity, Al-Shifa, something that we now know is very well documented. is proven, this is a group that has repeatedly spread things that are simply false. And this group is named three times, I think three, in Christoph's report.

speaker-1: And Richard Falk, who started it, himself has a pretty ⁓ not great history with ⁓ what he thinks of Israel. Former special rapporteur.

speaker-0: Yes, I mean that that's part of this litany of sources I mean I'm focused on Euromed because this is the line that gained the most attention but all of the sources cited in Israel have at one point or another spread misinformation that is I mean we didn't detail this in our specific thread yesterday it's now everywhere online people pulling apart absolutely everyone who is cited as an authority for these claims of systematic sexual violence against Palestinian detainees.

speaker-1: So, ⁓ for people who don't know Kristoff, can you give us a little context about ⁓ who he is? He's not a random blogger. He's been around a little bit.

speaker-0: That's true, yes. Kristof is a long-standing columnist for the New York Times. He has well over a million followers on X. He was promoting this. It's not just through the New York Times, but also he went online today to then defend his piece in following a kind of deluge of criticism that he rightfully received. In fact, one of ways in which he tried to defend his piece today was to claim that there were medical journals that supported the claim that dogs can rape humans. In fact, the medical journals that he referenced ⁓ did not say that at all. In fact, those medical journals were talking about cases of bestiality, so the other way around.

speaker-1: I was stunned to see that he pulled up the exact medical journal article that I had found when we were scripting Aaron Mullen's reel on this exact same accusation. That was the piece that I used to debunk the claim. It's like he read it backwards.

speaker-0: think in some ways it's part of this, in fact what I identify the main issues with his piece is that citing sources that don't necessarily say this, ⁓ sources that are ⁓ biased, that have a history of spreading misinformation, I'm probably hoping that people won't check some of these claims in detail. I mean, fortunately when... We did. The two names that we obviously could in the piece, one of whom is called Sami Al-Sai, who recounts a grisly, absolutely ghastly tale of being sexually assaulted while he was in detention. When we looked into Sami Al-Sai's background, what we found was quite shocking, really. This is a man who was previously detained by the Palestinian Authority in 2017. Again, he claimed that he was tortured or in detention by the Palestinian authorities. He claimed, I mean, again, I don't want to go into the most lurid details, but then he backtracked. The Palestinian journalist syndicate said that he had admitted to them that he'd made up these allegations. And then he backtracked again and said, well, actually, he'd only said he'd made up these allegations. because he was under threat or under duress. ⁓ Again, in the piece, in Christoph's piece, he's called it, he's referred to as a freelance journalist and it suggested that actually Israel had arrested him because they wanted to use him as an informant and because of his journalistic integrity, he refused to do that. However, that's not why. Al-Sai was arrested. He was arrested for incitement by Israel. A quick look at his social media, which we did, revealed why. He was openly celebrating the October 7th attacks. ⁓ Other terrorist groups. He obviously was quite, had close coordination with terrorist groups, was taking photographs of them shortly before ⁓ Israeli raids in the West Bank. This is why this person was arrested, not because he was Israel was hoping that he would be an informant. At each step of the way looking into this person, what we found was a pattern that shows that this person is not particularly credible. I want to say that obviously allegations of sexual abuse should be taken seriously, but taking them seriously does mean investigating, properly investigating, sourcing. In the same way that the report that was released Today, by the Israeli Civil Commission, that shows what an investigation looks like. It's comprehensive. It runs to hundreds of pages, multiple witnesses, cross-referenced. This is not what Christophe produced. What Christophe produced was, I would say, nothing more than anti-Israel propaganda.

speaker-1: What does it tell you that this is the foundation of this piece, that there's the sources he's resting on? This is an extraordinary account, which should require extraordinary burden of proof. I mean, what is that? I think you just said it, obviously, but what does it say that this is what he's resting this argument on?

speaker-0: says that the evidence, frankly, it doesn't exist. I mean, I'll note in Euromed's evidence of these alleged dog rapes, were that said canines had cameras mounted to their backs. And I suppose we are supposed to believe that presumably there was footage of all of this and yet none exists again. of these assaults were reportedly happened in detention facilities, all of which are covered by ⁓ CCTV cameras. And again, despite there being systematic and, quote unquote, systematic and widespread sexual abuse, none of this has ever been has been captured on camera. And again, it's the timing that I also take great issue with. The report released today about violence perpetrated by Hamas on October 7th. came, well, one day after Christophe published. However, media outlets were well aware that this report was coming. I'm sure most people will know that the media outlets are often briefed in advance ⁓ before a report is released that gives them time to prepare, to make stories, to have it ready for publication. And the New York Times, if we are to believe ⁓ what a number of sources have claimed online today, the New York Times was offered this piece in advance and declined to publish. Instead, it chose to publish Christophe's piece. And whether that is to undermine the contents of the subsequent report or to make it's anyone's guess or to make it seem as though it's not. a serious send to actually maybe overshadow the contents of this October 7th report. That's how it seems to me.

speaker-1: It does. mean, the similarities are the way that these things are framed. The New York Times, ⁓ the silence that meets the rape of Palestinians and then the report from the Civil Commission is silence no more. It's using the same language and it's pretty astounding. Now, we were able to look at that report today. It is massive. ⁓ What what stuck out to you there in terms of the differences in in that. The evidentiary differences between the two.

speaker-0: The report released today by the Israel Civil Commission was two years in the making. The people who contributed are academics, medical professionals. This is a large team that compiled this report. ⁓ It's composed not of a couple of 14 witnesses or a couple of named individuals with a dubious track record. It's based on Hamas body cam footage. They wore cameras when they invaded Israel on October 7th. Many of their crimes were filmed. It's based on in-depth interviews carried out over a period of time with witnesses. hostages, family members who were sent footage of their loved ones being ⁓ tortured, degraded. This, it's endorsed, as you said in your opening segment, by a number of high profile individuals. They are like night and day. I would also point out, as you said, the Israel report runs to hundreds pages. It is comprehensive. It is what an investigation into sexual violence, especially when it's being, as it is, systematic, should look like. This is what should be done when, and this is what the New York Times, and I'm not saying that the New York Times would be producing a 300 page report, but you would expect far more in-depth research. You would expect sources that hold up. And it's not that.

speaker-1: Yeah, for the people who are watching and who haven't gotten through this report yet, I'm just gonna go through some quick statistics. 10,000-plus photographs analyzed, 1,800 hours of visual material analyzed, 430 testimonies and interviews collected, the nationalities, nationalities including ⁓ Israeli obviously and it as you said is a two-year investigation and they found ⁓ systematic ⁓ sexual and gender-based violence, including rape and gang- I- it's tough to read through this, but it's- it's what we knew. ⁓ And they also came up with a new legal concept called KinoSide, which I'm assuming is how you pronounce it, ⁓ which is the use of ⁓ sexual violence between family members. It's- it's really horrible what- what is in this report and it is, you know, well-sourced. ⁓ There was a question that came in ⁓ earlier, what do we do about this in terms of Kristoff? Can he be sued? Interesting question. Not, ⁓ unfortunately, I don't believe for this, you would need somebody who is defamed to, specifically.

speaker-0: Yes, I'm not sure if a lawsuit would be effective in this way, but what I think is effective is sharing the material that calls Christophe out. There's nothing worse, I think, for a journalist than somebody searching your name and finding articles and social media content that says this person was wrong. they published something that was wrong. They didn't retract it. They stood by it. I think that's the most effective way. And we're seeing that today online. And I would hope that everyone watching has shared at least one thing that calls out this disgusting piece that Christophe put his name to.

speaker-1: He's accusing the world of being silent on the rape of Palestinians. The title is The Silence That Meets the Rape of Palestinians. Yet the New York Times, they have now finally published something about this report, but they waited ⁓ quite a while considering that ⁓ there had been other news outlets, major news outlets had published as early as 7 a.m. Israeli time this morning. What What do you make of that title and what is your response to the difference there?

speaker-0: I mean, it's interesting because I think that the October 7th report was so, so necessary, not least because the victims of Hamas' October 7th violence deserve justice. This is one way of prosecuting as well some of the terrorists, Hamas terrorists who were arrested inside Israel in the week after the October 7th attacks. But this report was also necessary, and it shouldn't have been, because of this campaign by so many to deny the crimes of October 7th. What you had was such a well-documented attack by the people who perpetrated it themselves. And yet, as we've seen and as we've covered extensively in the years since those attacks, there was a lot of denying certain aspects, especially sexual violence. That was one that cropped up a lot. You know, I can name individuals who kind of said, well, you know, having watched, for example, the film Bearing Witness, which was compiled of a Hammad Bollecan ⁓ footage and showed extreme atrocities, ⁓ the massacre. who said, well, we didn't see women raped or we didn't see this. And that was part of a concerted effort by a number of anti-Israel voices to deny these crimes of October 7th and by extension to then make people question other aspects of it. And when we're talking about the silence, And as you said, it's an interesting title that he's chosen. That's where there has been real silence. That so many Israeli women and of other nationalities who were subjected to horrific sexual violence, and it's important to say that most of them were murdered afterwards, they have it's it's that it's it's the crimes of perpetrated against then whether it's been a ball of silence by far too many i mean as you said the new york times is very belatedly published an article about it and so i mean i can pull up the headline now it's it's a very muted headline israeli report examines sexual violence during and after mass lead attack i mean if you compare that to the to the the headline and indeed the image and the presentation of Christoph's article, they are vastly different. One is designed to reach a much wider audience, a very sort of artfully composed image that was used, the white on black. And this, on the other hand, is ⁓ a straight news story. I mean, especially when they were given a 300 page report, so much to say and chose not to.

speaker-1: One of the things that I found really astounding in your reporting on this is how deeply you got into the evolution of some of these testimonies and how telling that was for ⁓ the credibility. you had one, these testimonies went ⁓ from one very kind of innocuous thing to gathering details and details and details until you have what ⁓ What Christoph publish can you walk through some of those one of those examples ⁓ there was the absurd carrot example or the you know sticking cigarette break example all these all these details that have been added.

speaker-0: So I mentioned Sami El-Sai earlier who gave one of the testimonies and he told Christoph that while in detention he was ⁓ anally raped with a rubber baton and a carrot of female prison guard who grabbed his testicles. ⁓ that he was thrown into his cell where he found the exact spot that he said bore evidence of multiple other rapes occurring, including blood, vomit and broken teeth that were crushed into his skin. I mean, as I said, I do apologize. These are, it's very, very graphic. But going back, we find earlier accounts that he had given one to Israeli NGO Betselem, which did not have some of these details, including the carrot, the cigarette break that the guards took, the broken teeth. In that account, there was also liquid that was poured on him, ⁓ as well as just other differences. Now, again, I do want to say that victims of sexual violence may not have a completely clear memory. And there may be things that occur to them later. But some of these seem like very quite big, I'm not saying discrepancies, but big differences. I mean, in the Betselam account, he says that he wasn't sure what he was raped with. In the later Kristoff account, he says definitively it was a rubber baton and a carrot. The other person that's named in the New York Times article is Issa Amaro, who is a well-known Palestinian provocateur, activist, ⁓ who two years ago, he'd spoken to Christoph initially who used this testimony in the later piece, but he's spoken to Christoph in the summer a couple of years ago. And he had said that he was raped. However, a couple of months before that, he also spoke to the Washington Post. In that account, which again, it differed in the Washington Post account, he said he was threatened with rape by. Israeli security forces. Now, again, it might be that at the time, know, it's far be it from me without, as I said, there is a high evidentiary burden, but to deny, you know, but I would like to point out that those are quite big discrepancies and they're the kind of discrepancies that Christophe should have been looking for and thinking, can I trust my sources of face value? ⁓ That's what we expect of rigorous and robust journalism.

speaker-1: Right, you're—Rachel, you're a journalist. If you were doing these interviews, I'm sure early on things would pop out to you that would be red flags.

speaker-0: Of course. mean, I think it was actually Christophe himself. ⁓ some years ago, had been taken in by a story of human trafficking in Cambodia and kind of wrote a piece in which he retracted it and explained how this happened and said, you know, when people kind of describe accounts in which they might be victims of sexual violence, journalists are a bit less suspicious. I think when somebody is accounts that include quite such ⁓ shocking details, for example, the carrot, ⁓ and if he had taken a look at ⁓ Euromed and looked at the original sourcing for the dog rape story, he would have seen, again, stories of, like I said, electric chairs that appear out of nowhere ⁓ in which people's feet are exploding. I mean, these are, frankly, ludicrous without a shred of evidence as well. And that would have given him pause for thoughts. And he would have taken a step back and thought, can I really say that this happened? Am I sure? And I don't think he did that here. I think he just ran with the story. He liked. The idea, it's, as I said before, it's the kind of thing that will garner a huge amount of interest. And as we've seen it, it has.

speaker-1: One of the things I want to also point out that please ⁓ feel free everyone who's watching to put any questions you have into the chat. I will try to get to them. ⁓ But it is listen, we've both worked at publications. When you write something, it's not like you're sitting at a blog and pressing send and you're the only one who looks at this. There are other eyes that go on this piece before it goes out. This is 1500 unverified words ⁓ about ⁓ alleged Israeli sexual and gender-based violence, ⁓ what does that say that nobody else thought to say, maybe this isn't the best idea?

speaker-0: Yes, I mean, I've speculated, obviously his piece would have gone through editors, sub editors. And that does say a great deal about the New York Times, I would think. I think that sometimes, and we have seen this in the past, not least with, for example, the Al-Shifa ⁓ story in which ⁓ the rocket that hit early on into the war, we've seen it with the New York Times is promotion of a picture which covered their front page of a starving child who was later revealed by honest reporting to have ⁓ medical ⁓ conditions. He was not a victim of famine, but rather his condition was as a result of an underlying illness. And I think it speaks volumes about the New York Times' agenda. I think when it comes to Israel, that evidentiary burden seems to uh... and lesson and i think uh... like i said we we have so many stories to cite in which the new york times has made a mistake in it always kind of seems to cut in one way it's a mistake that is highly damaging to israel it's a story that's highly damaging to israel and uh... you know i i wonder if again it was a story that was kind of too good to be true for editors and because it's anti israel well you know, there was a bit less fact checking that should have taken place.

speaker-1: Yeah. Rachel, where can people read the full rebuttal?

speaker-0: That's available on Honest Reporting's website. I would also recommend that you follow us on X. We've done a number of threads and posts about this story. We also have content that goes back about Euromed Monitor, including the dog rape libel, which predates, obviously, this Christoph piece, as I said earlier. And take a look. We go into a lot of detail. We explain why these things are absurd. have sources. We check them out. ⁓ basically, we've done what Christophe really should have done when he was putting together this piece.

speaker-1: That's excellent. I believe you can get the Civil Commission Report too at civilc.org. I'll make sure that that is updated when we do snip at this or for show notes. Rachel, thank ⁓ you so much for joining us. Rachel O'Donoghue, you can find her at Honest Rachel and obviously at honestreporting.com. ⁓ The original report Rachel mentioned is at civilc.org. here's why all of this matters. Nicholas Kristof wrote a column titled, Silence That Meets the Rape of Palestinians, but the silence we've actually been living with for 19 months is the silence about the rape of Israelis. And his own paper has been part of that silence. ⁓ So if this rebuttal lands in... ⁓ in your inbox today ⁓ or in your ex feed, please share it. Push back where you see this kind of sourcing passing as ⁓ journalism. And this is the kind of what we're doing today. And what Rachel is doing is the kind of accountability that should be happening at the New York Times, just like you said, and instead, ⁓ well, we're doing it. So I'm Ben Chertoff for the honest take for honest reporting. Please check us out. are now on Spotify and on Apple podcasts, anywhere where you get your podcasts. and we will see you next time.