Netanyahu MELTS DOWN Over NYT Report... Threatens To Sue!

Added: 2026-05-21

[00:00:00]Hi folks, welcome back. Today we're going to be talking about a follow-up to a story that we've been discussing for the past week. Just to recap everything, about a week ago, Alazer published a report featuring testimony from Palestinians who claimed that Israel's military, the IDF, had been training dogs to sexually abuse them. The Alazer report also claimed to show video, at least in part, of what allegedly happened. That story initially circulated and didn't get much traction until later when Nicholas Kristoff of the New York Times published an opinion piece outlining additional allegations, including those allegations of training dogs in order to perform this specific form of humiliation and sexual abuse.

[00:00:42]Now, ever since Kristoff's opinion piece has been published, there has been a massive amount of pressure on the New York Times to retract the article. The Israel first lobby has absolutely been losing its mind over this piece from the New York Times. People have issued all sorts of threats toward the paper, questioned the credibility of the New York Times, and on a lesser scale even labeled the reporting a quote unquote blood liel. They have gone fullcourt press on the situation, and needless to say, the Israel First crowd, the people who unconditionally support the state of Israel, have been having full-blown meltdowns online over it. And it's been beautiful to watch in a sense because they are truly exposing just how desperate they are to control the narrative which led to statements published on X on May 11th claiming that the New York Times was preparing to publish a correction and disavow Kristoff's reporting. In a statement that initially went viral, David Schustster claimed he was hearing from longtime friends at the New York Times that there were already discussions, including up the mass head about retracting Nicholas Kristoff's column due to issues with source credibility and lack of evidence. He added that there were no indications that Kristoff's sourcing mistakes were deliberate, but that the situation was still problematic. Kristoff responded to this saying that none of what Schustster was claiming was true. Shortly after that, the New York Times responded directly saying there was no truth to this at all. They defended Nicholas Kristoff as a two-time Puler surprise winning journalist who has reported on sexual violence for decades and is widely regarded as one of the world's top on the ground reporters documenting and bearing witness to sexual abuse experienced by women and men in war and conflict zones. They stated that he traveled to the region to report firsthand on the stories of Palestinians who suffered abuse and that the article collected accounts in the victim's own words backed by independent studies.

[00:02:40]That statement was published by New York Times Communications. But that's not where the narrative ended because the very next day, Israel's foreign ministry tweeted out that months earlier, a civil commission had approached the New York Times with a report on Hamas's alleged systemic sexual violence on October 7th and that after the paper allegedly said it was not interested, the comprehensive and well doumented report was later published by CNN and other international outlets, they were referring to the Daily Mail report that we also looked at in the original coverage that we did of this story. Now, the foreign ministry continued saying that the New York Times, aware of the report and its release date, chose to run a shameful attack on Israel the night before its release, allegedly belittling Hamas's sexual crimes. They concluded by saying that this supposedly tells you everything about the New York Times's agenda. And the New York Times responded to Israel's foreign ministry saying, "This is false. The Times never passed on the civil commission report and was not told about its completion or the timing of its release once the report was made public. We covered its findings. The commission's work also had no bearing on Nicholas Kristoff's opinion column or its publication timing. And then yesterday, the Times published another statement addressing some more of the online criticism that was coming primarily from the Israel first shills. They said that Nicholas Kristoff's deeply reported opinion piece began with a proposition to readers that regardless of our views on the Middle East conflict, people should be able to unite in condemning rape. They stated that the article drew together on thereord accounts and cited several analyses documenting sexual violence and abuse allegedly carried out by various parts of Israel's security forces and settlers. According to the Times, the accounts of the 14 men and women Kristoff interviewed were corroborated whenever possible with additional witnesses and with people the victims confided in, including family members and lawyers. They also said the details were extensively factchecked and cross-referenced with news reporting, independent research from human rights groups, surveys, and in one case, UN testimony. Independent experts were reportedly consulted throughout the reporting and fact-checking process.

[00:05:03]Now, needless to say, I think it's no surprise to anyone who's familiar with online rhetoric in the past few years that this was not the end of the situation. Because the very next day, that being today, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's top wararmonger, posted on X saying, "Today I instructed my legal advisers to consider the harshest legal action against the New York Times and Nicholas Kristoff. They defamed the soldiers of Israel and perpetuated a blood liel about rape, trying to create a false symmetry between the genocidal terrorists of Hamas and Israel's valiant soldiers. Under my leadership, Israel will not be silent. We will fight these lies in the court of public opinion and the court of law. Truth will prevail.

[00:05:45]Now, right off the bat, it's very interesting that this is the route Netanyahu chose to take. First, there are very real questions, which we'll get to in a moment, about whether or not a state like Israel, a foreign state, can actually sue a private American media organization over an opinion piece that according to the New York Times was extensively researched and verified.

[00:06:08]Second, we have perhaps the most unbelievable claim. Netanyahu claims the soldiers of Israel were defamed. Sir, need I remind you what your replies look like online? And beyond that, there is already a huge body of publicly available footage, allegations, reports, and testimony involving accusations of sexual abuse and mistreatment linked to the Israeli Defense Forces. There are quite literally in the reply where you're trying to defend the reputation of the IDF like the video that we are watching right now showing IDF soldiers using shields to conceal the gang rape of a Palestinian detainee. There are also screenshots from reports such as this one from 2025 from the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner titled More Than a Human Can Bear, which alleged Israel's systematic use of sexual, reproductive, and other forms of gender-based violence since October 2023. There are also clips of Israeli comedians doing stand-up routines in which an Israeli Navy veteran who guarded Palestinian detainees casually discusses prisoners allegedly being subjected to sexual abuse, including objects being inserted into them. The comedian even jokes in response, "Do they get to choose to meaning the objects like can I get a broom or do they ask for it?" A line that, as you'll see, for iPhone.

[00:07:54]foreign.

[00:08:21]I think that foreign speech.

[00:09:03]Wow.

[00:09:12]Wow.

[00:09:32]I'm not too sure how that one's going to play out in court a few years from now when America eventually stops backing this genocidal terroristic state. Now, seriously, guys, they want us to believe Israel is not behaving like a genocidal state. And yet here we are literally watching taped footage of a comedian casually discussing what amounts to war crimes to their own admission and even acknowledging that they are war crimes and the whole room's laughing. Haha. War crime. So funny. What are we doing here?

[00:10:00]Do we live in another universe? What would ever cause a society to become this depraved? This is utterly insane.

[00:10:07]Anyway, ironically enough, that's not even where this ends. There are also clips showing widespread protests and riots in Israel after reservists were arrested for allegedly raping a man to death in 2024. There's also footage we watched a few days ago reportedly showing Israelis storming part of that military base where those reservists were being held in what appeared to be an attempt to free them. And there's also footage of a member of the Israeli Knessa shouting that everything is legitimate when asked whether inserting a metal rod into someone's rectum was legitimate conduct for soldiers.

[00:11:23]OKAY.

[00:11:28]OKAY.

[00:11:31]There's also the case of a woman who was reportedly arrested after leaking videos allegedly showing an IDF soldier raping Palestinian detainees while the accused soldier was later celebrated on television. And that contradiction is something a lot of people have pointed out online as well as the irony that in America a lot of these Israel first shills are pushing the narrative that even mentioning allegations of rape committed by the IDF constitutes a quote unquote blood liel. Meanwhile, on Israeli television itself, there are commentators and public figures openly discussing or defending extreme treatment of Palestinians, with some people even arguing that such actions should be made official regulated policy of the state.

[00:12:26]Okay.

[00:13:34]Oh yeah.

[00:13:38]Okay.

[00:13:52]Josh.ch.

[00:14:12]foreign.

[00:14:34]And that's not all they're saying on television, folks. In another clip, a settler soldier appearing on CH's 14's Hot Patriot brought a gun and his dog with him to the show. Reportedly the same. And this is what he says.

[00:14:59]Okay.

[00:15:12]His statements obviously leave a lot open to speculation, but you can only imagine that in the context of a war zone, this soldier is probably not talking about this dog doing nice things to people it came across. Now, just think about this, folks. The narrative we constantly hear is that the IDF is the most moral military force in the world. And as we saw right here through these clips and posts and headlines, this is clearly the narrative that Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to perpetuate by claiming these allegations are some sort of blood liel or that the IDF is somehow being defamed. Brother, all the evidence is already out there.

[00:15:49]You guys are literally going on television and openly advocating for your military force to carry out these awful crimes. And even in debate settings, we're watching moderators not cool the temperature down when someone says something genocidal, terroristic, or outright and say, "No, we're actually seeing quite the opposite. We're seeing people attempt to rationalize or justify why the IDF should be allowed to behave in inhumane ways as we've seen." Now, as far as this blood liel claim goes, this is basically one of the default responses that Israeli media figures and their defenders always fall back on.

[00:16:24]It's either anti-semitism or blood liel.

[00:16:27]And blood liel obviously refers to historic accusations from centuries ago.

[00:16:31]The most famous being the case involving Simon of Trent. Now, over time, there has been enormous debate and controversy surrounding these accusations. The term blood liel refers to historic accusations in medieval Europe that Jews kidnapped and murdered Christian children for ritualistic purposes. One of the most famous examples was a case of Simon of Trent. Centuries later, the Catholic Church, especially after Vatican 2 and Nostra ate rejected and condemned blood liel accusations and broader anti-Jewish conspiracy narratives. Simon of Trent's veneration was eventually suppressed by the Vatican after modern scholarship disputed the original claims. That historical backdrop is where the term blood liel originally comes from. Now, whether or not those historic accusations were true is heavily disputed, and we're not here today to debate the veracity of those claims. That's a completely separate discussion and one that would require going through the historic record in detail. Now, in this situation specifically involving the IDF, this is clearly not some centuries old rumor or anonymous accusation. This involves documented footage, televised discussions, protests in the streets, statements from politicians, and public defenses of these actions on Israeli television itself. Israelis have openly protested in support of these accused soldiers. As we just saw, television personalities have defended or joked about these allegations. Individuals accused of these crimes have been celebrated publicly on Israeli television as we saw. So when Netanyahu comes out and goes full attack mode using the harshest possible language to defend the IDF while completely dismissing the allegations outright, people are obviously going to question that response. It's strange, although maybe not surprising when you remember that he is the deacto leader of a state that has become increasingly genocidal to say the least. And yes, Hamas is a terroristic organization. I don't think many people would dispute that. But two wrongs don't make a right. You do not get to behave like a genocidal or terroristic military force simply because you are fighting one. If you want to wage war morally, then wage it morally. That means not raping people, not mutilating children, and actually holding your own soldiers accountable when these sorts of atrocities occur. So when Netanyahu tries to paint the simplistic picture that Hamas are genocidal monsters while Israel's soldiers are purely valiant heroes, people simply are not buying that bull crap anymore. There is just too much footage, too much testimony, too much evidence circulating online for people to blindly accept this [ __ ] narrative. Additionally, it's not without irony that Netanyahu says he will fight these lies in the court of public opinion and the court of law.

[00:19:19]Israel has largely already lost the battle in the court of public opinion, and it will likely continue losing ground because more and more people view Israel as a genocidal state led by wararmongering extremists and literal psychopaths. As we saw just a few days ago, there are several clips that show that the goal of the Israeli state is not peaceful coexistence, but imperialistic expansion, the so-called greater Israel project stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates. And look, to be completely honest and blunt, I think many critics of Israel would at least respect the honesty more if the state openly admitted those ambitions instead of constantly denying them while demanding endless American financial, military, and diplomatic support. And by the way, since we're on the topic of irony, Netanyahu closing his statement by saying this will be resolved in the court of law that truth weird prevail.

[00:20:13]That's especially ironic considering that just a few days ago, as we saw, Israel kicked out, deported journalist Tyler Olivera as soon as he set foot in Tel Aviv purely for having the audacity to film a documentary in Israel. Israel is not exactly known globally for transparency or openness or truth for that matter. The Israeli government and its leadership are not widely seen as institutions committed to truth above all else. This is the same government that constantly calls the IDF the most moral army in the world. While footage and allegations of horrific war crimes continue circulating online, as we've seen here, the irony is in plain sight.

[00:20:52]It's in fact in the replies of Netanyahu's tweet. Now, as far as this being resolved in court, there are serious legal questions about whether Israel can even successfully sue the New York Times in the United States. Ethan Netchin, a New York correspondent for Heritz, said he spoke with a law professor about Netanyahu allegedly instructing officials to pursue legal action against the New York Times.

[00:21:17]According to that analysis, a foreign state itself cannot directly sue in this manner and the only potential route would be an individual lawsuit. He pointed to the example of Ariel Chiron suing Time magazine in 1985 and losing.

[00:21:31]Now, there is skepticism around this interpretation presented by E10 because others argue that foreign governments or officials can bring civil suits in American courts if jurisdiction exists.

[00:21:43]So, I guess we'll have to wait and see how this actually develops. Now, that said, there are a lot of people online saying they actually hope the lawsuit moves forward because it could trigger a discovery process that could potentially force disclosures, internal communications, requests for documentation, or further scrutiny into the actions of the IDF and the Israeli government. One of those people being Glenn Greenwald. Now, whether Israel would ever fully cooperate or provide transparent documentation is another question entirely. We're talking about a foreign government that critics accuse of routinely covering up abuses by its own soldiers and even labeling human rights organizations as terrorist groups if they dare defend Palestinians or document alleged abuses against civilians and children perpetuated by the IDF. And of course in this chaos in enters the Israeli foreign ministry which just appears to not be able to help itself publishing statements. They issued yet another statement saying that following Nicholas Kristoff's article, which they described as one of the most hideous and distorted lies ever published against the state of Israel in the modern press, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Gideon Sar had instructed the initiation of a defamation lawsuit against the New York Times. And again, critics immediately pushed back. People like Omar Badar responded by saying this may be one of Israel's worst PR moves yet because the allegations are tied to footage, public statements, and documented incidents already circulating publicly. Critics argue that if Israel were truly serious about disproving these allegations, it would permit independent investigations rather than blocking or restricting inquiries such as what Omar Badar shared here. Now, all double standards aside, I think the bigger question for Americans is this. To what extent should the United States continue supporting this foreign rogue state? Because we are in America, folks. We spend endless amounts of time talking about the Middle East and even more now because America has become increasingly entangled in these sorts of regional conflicts involving Israel, especially the one we recently got tied up in, which is with Iran. And that means scrutiny over Israel grows even more intense because American taxpayers are not just providing financial aid to this terroristic state, but also military assistance and diplomatic backing. Myself and many others believe America should just cut this relationship off entirely.

[00:24:01]Prioritize domestic policy over foreign entanglements. Pursue alternative strategic partnerships in the region.

[00:24:07]There's so many other partners we could have in the region and we should fundamentally reassess the blank check relationship we currently have with Israel and their leaders because look, I think it's evident that Israel has been behaving like a rogue state that's grown accustomed to acting without consequences. They've been bombing southern Lebanon indiscriminately, according to the United Nations. They roped us into these preemptive strikes with Iran and they're just so hostile to every single one of their neighbors. And needless to say, many of these Israel first commentators respond to all of these criticisms with what amounts to just straight up brain rot, which is basically what ambassador Mike Huckabe has been doing. This is what this man unironically said. Uh, we lose a lot in terms of our own national security, our own military capacity. But then we lose some stuff that a lot of Americans never think about. I I hear people say, "I don't want anything to do with Israel."

[00:25:01]I say, "Okay, give up your cell phone.

[00:25:03]uh give up car navigation, give up some medical innovations that may have saved some member of your family's life. Be sure, by the way, to give up some conveniences like cherry tomatoes and seedless watermelons while you're at it.

[00:25:16]And uh >> let's just go ahead and and don't buy anything that has an Nvidia or an Intel chip. Uh let's get rid of most of your computers and a whole lot of the software that you use because it was innovated here. And I'm sorry to break it to you, but if you hate Israel that much, you're going to be living a very different kind of life.

[00:25:36]>> All right. Well, this begs the question.

[00:25:37]If we are supposedly this dependent on Israel, then why not just cut them off already? Should any nation truly be this dependent on a foreign rogue state to the point where we're told we wouldn't even have cell phones anymore? That we wouldn't have modern conveniences or somehow everything we have in America today exists solely because of Israel?

[00:25:58]Really? Because if this is actually true, Mr. Huckabe, then I think that reveals something far more disturbing that America has become dangerously overdependent on this foreign rogue terrorist state. Maybe that means we should start bringing manufacturing back to America. Maybe it means we should start investing in domestic production, domestic innovation and alternative strategic partnerships instead of acting like our entire civilization collapses if we dare question our relationship with Israel. It is absolutely unfathomable that the argument being presented here is essentially you cannot question America's relationship with Israel because otherwise you'll lose all of this stuff. And by the way, it is hilarious that in the process of rolling out this argument, Hugabe actually undermines his own argument because all he's really doing is exposing just how overextended and overexposed this relationship is. Really, that's the best argument you can come up with, brother, because go back and reconsider what you're saying right here. I know you're out in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, wherever you're at right now, but at some point, you got to stop and listen to yourself, brother. You represent the United States of America, the most powerful nation in the history of the world. Yes, you are an ambassador to a foreign nation. And yes, you may stand there with both flags behind you, but only one of those flags is a flag that guarantees your freedoms as an American citizen. And frankly, I don't think the Israeli state would take too kindly or support you for very long if you suddenly began openly criticizing them. In fact, I doubt they would even tolerate you remaining in your current position if you dared say anything critical. All that being said, folks, I think it's about time Americans seriously reconsider our relationship with the state of Israel, at least in terms of what we are choosing to fund financially, militarily, and back diplomatically. Because if this is truly the level of dependency we're talking about, then what Huckabe is laying out isn't going to be a deterrent to Americans. It's actually going to serve as a warning sign. Anyway, folks, you tell me what you think in the comments down below. Hope you have a terrific day. Peace.