Below is a longer version of my column in the New York Post on the announced plan of Israel to sue the New York Times. The country faces some difficult challenges under tort law. However, the strategy may be in large part an effort to secure discovery (and a public forum) more than a verdict.
Here is the column:
Does the “Gray Lady” have a “longstanding Jewish problem“?
That question may soon be answered in a Manhattan courtroom as the New York Times stands accused of an alleged attack piece on Israel. This week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that he would sue the paper and columnist Nicholas Kristof for defamation over the publication of what he called a “blood libel.”
The latest controversy emerged after the Times ran a Kristof column alleging widespread sexual abuse and torture of Palestinians, including the use of dogs to rape prisoners. The government denounced the column as “one of the most hideous and distorted lies ever published against the State of Israel in the modern press.”
The Israelis allege that the column was intentionally posted ahead of the release of an independent Israeli report that found Hamas had systematically used sexual violence in the onslaught of October 7, 2023.
Kristof wrote, “There is no evidence that Israeli leaders order rapes. But in recent years they have built a security apparatus where sexual violence has become, as a United Nations report put it last year, one of Israel’s ‘standard operating procedures’ and ‘a major element in the ill treatment of Palestinians’.”
While Kristof’s column was contested by many, the New York Times doubled down on the column’s allegations, writing that Kristof “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.”
It added that his “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.'”
It is unclear whether the lawsuit will be filed on behalf of individuals, groups, or the nation as a whole. Regardless of the framing, the defamation action could allow Israel to delve into the paper’s journalistic practices and alleged bias.
Under the higher “actual malice standard,” Israeli counsel would likely need to prove that Kristof and the Times acted with knowledge of the allegation’s falsity or in reckless disregard of the truth.
The Times has been accused of such malice for years. A newspaper with an overwhelmingly Democratic and liberal readership, critics have accused the paper of pandering to its increasingly anti-Israeli base.
According to recent polls, two-thirds of Democrats (67%) now support Palestinians over Israel (17%). Almost sixty percent of Democrats have a negative view and only 13% holding a positive view of Israel.
The newspaper has been repeatedly called out for slanted and sometimes false reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts. For example, after Israel attacked Gaza in response to the October 7th massacre, the Times reported on an alleged Israeli strike that destroyed part the Al-Ahli hospital. The Times seemed to rush to get the allegation into print, with little supporting evidence.
The story was based on sources associated with the terrorist group Hamas, which is notorious for disseminating propaganda and false stories. It took a week before the Times retracted the claim. (It turned out to be a misfired Palestinian rocket that hit a parking lot).
The Times has been forced to make a series of retractions and apologies for such coverage. After the newspaper ran a column that it later admitted was antisemitic, Times columnist Bret Stephens wrote that “The Times has a longstanding Jewish problem… continuing into the present day in the form of intensely adversarial coverage of Israel.”
In May 2021, a front-page story contained multiple factual errors and biased elements, including the portrayal of a Hamas militant as a civilian child. It also used a stock image of a girl to claim that she was a dead Palestinian child.
The Times also claimed that, in a later retracted statement, most of the dead from airstrikes in Gaza were civilians.
The Times has had to sever ties with antisemitic writers, or stringers, including one who said “the Jews are sons of the dogs, and I am in favor of killing them and burning them like Hitler did to them.”
These past controversies are potentially admissible in a defamation trial to show malice and a history of reckless reporting about Israel.
Critics allege that Kristof’s column was also based on dubious sources connected to Hamas.
The Times only names a few of the 14 individuals claiming to have been raped or otherwise sexually assaulted by Israeli settlers or members of the security forces. However, Israel has pointed out that several have changed their accounts over time.
Moreover, the Times is relying on sources such as Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, a group with a controversial history of false claims and ties to Hamas. This group has been criticized for allegedly spreading the false story that Israel was harvesting dead Palestinians for human organs.
A trial could get to the truth of the matter and the Times will be able to make its case. Yet, this was not a statement of opinion, a common defense in defamation cases. Kristof was stating a fact and the Times reaffirmed his factual reporting.
Kristof has pushed back on critics, including claims of experts that dogs cannot be trained to rape humans. Kristof declared: “To those who say that canine rape is impossible, despite the many Palestinians who have described it, I’d note that at least three different medical journal articles discuss rectal injuries in humans from anal penetration by dogs. Sigh.”
The case will not be easy. The biggest problem with a defamation claim is that this “blood libel” sounds a lot like a “group libel.”
Such lawsuits are very difficult to maintain outside of small, readily identifiable groups. In Neiman-Marcus v. Lait (1952), a New York federal district court found that a defamatory statement about 382 saleswomen was still too large a group to maintain an action. (With regard to another statement, it found 25 salesmen could sue).
Nevertheless, various groups have attempted to bring such group claims. China claimed defamation over the claim that COVID-19 was released from its Wuhan Lab. It went nowhere.
The Chinese American Civil Rights Coalition similarly filed a defamation lawsuit over references to COVID-19 as Kung Flu. It was quickly dismissed.
Foreign leaders continue to look to the United States for such legal vindication. The most serious lawsuits are brought on behalf of individuals such as Brigitte Macron, the First Lady of France. She is suing commentator Candace Owens over claims that she is a biological male. (Macron prevailed earlier in France in a separate action).
The strongest claim for Israel would be to focus on individuals associated with the underlying claims in Israel from settlers to soldiers.
The commission of a war crime would constitute a “per se” category of common law defamation. Even if the case had to be proven “per quod” (or with reliance on extrinsic facts), it would be easier than a group libel claim.
The Times clearly has the advantage in such litigation in New York. The driving force behind the lawsuit may not be a verdict but discovery. Israel wants to put the Times under a spotlight and expose its methods and sources.
The Times stressed that it has “on-the-record accounts,” but the constitutional standard is not satisfied with “sources” but credible sources. A publication can show reckless disregard in ignoring the malice or bias of its sources.
It will be a while before the Gray Lady is actually before a jury, if ever. However, it may soon have to answer if it remains faithful to its founding pledge to publish “all news fit to print.”
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
From 2007: Refusing to Rape=Racism if you are an Israeli Soldier
That question may soon be answered in a Manhattan courtroom
Really?! Where are you getting this from? NONE of the reporting I’ve seen on this story, including your linked article, gives even a clue where this lawsuit is going to be filed. Not only is there no indication it will be filed in Manhattan, there’s no indication that it will be filed anywhere in the USA. It may just as easily be filed in Israel, under Israeli law, which not only doesn’t have the Sullivan standard, but also doesn’t have any rule against group libel.
If it is filed in a US court, then the plaintiff can’t be the State of Israel, or the IDF, or all the IDF’s members. As you yourself pointed out, under US law there is no such thing as “group libel”. Libel actions can only be brought by individuals, and collectively they may not number more than 25. If I were to say something like “Every NYT employee has murdered children and drunk their blood”, no individual could sue me, because the NYT employs more than 25 people, so my defense would simply be that “Everyone knows that a generalization doesn’t apply to every individual, there are always exceptions, so people will assume that you may be one of the few innocent ones”.
So if a suit were brought in a US court it could only be by individual IDF prison guards, or by a group of fewer than 26 such individuals, who can prove that there were enough clues in the story that they could be singled out. And if so, the Sullivan standard surely wouldn’t apply, because they are not public figures. Getting a job at a prison no more thrusts ones name before the public than does getting a job at the NYT.
The article says he announced he would sue, not that he has sued.
Israel to take legal action against ‘New York Times’ over claims of ‘dog rape’ of Palestinians
PM Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar instructed officials to prepare a defamation lawsuit against “one of the most hideous and distorted lies ever published” on Israel.
https://wwhttps://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-896230w.jpost.com/israel-news/article-896230
instructed and will take not has taken.
No one suggested that anyone has already sued. I don’t know where you got that idea, but neither Prof T nor I wrote it.
But Prof T assumes the suit will be filed in a Manhattan court. I see no reason to suppose it will be in any US court. More likely it’ll be filed in an Israeli court, under Israeli law.
Yes, maintaining the defamation suit in Israel rather than the U.S. might be the better course of action. Since the NYT maintains a bureau in Israel, there should be no problem in obtaining jurisdiction over the NYT.
If Israel files a libel action, it makes itself open to discovery, including document production and deposition testimony under oath. If there are actual instances of sexual abuse, those will be unearthed by the discovery, and further publicized. I do not expect Israel will actually sue, as it fully realizes this.
In Israel’s entire history there has NEVER been a case of soldiers raping civilians or prisoners. It may be the only country in the world of which this can be said.
Rape cases in the IDF happens only within the ranks. There have been cases of soldiers raping other soldiers. But never of enemy soldiers or civilians.
Clearly you are uninformed or lying in your comment. Multiple soldiers were shown on tape raping a Palestinian prisoner.(Unless you don’t count sticking a pipe up someone’s rectum as rape)
The Times has a long-standing Russia problem E.g., on September 16, 2016 it erroneously wrote that in that year’s election to the Duma opposition party candidates were not allowed on Russian TV. That was utterly false as I know from watching Russian TV for practice on a regular basis in 2016. My attempts to correct that with the NYT came to naught.
So Anonymous needs to practice her Russian. Give them long enough and they will tell you who they are.
Duuuhh.
Huh?! What’s that supposed to mean? Thousands of people study Russian, as is the case for all languages. What significance would you draw from the fact that a commenter mentions that they watch French or Spanish TV to brush up on their French or Spanish?
So here we have it. The leftist X, Anonymous and David Benson go arm and arm hating the Jews with their devoted brothers The Proud Boys. The leftist now proudly associate with the members of an antisemitic hate group. Since its revival in 1915, the Ku Klux Klan has targeted Jewish Americans and others through violence, harassment, and propaganda. These leftist on this forum would by the first to tell us how terrible The Proud Boys and the Klan are but somehow they express exactly the same philosophy. Next thing you know they’ll be inviting a klan member over for dinner to discuss the Jewish problem and what can be done about it. X will bring the noose.
I ordinarily ignore the Nony Mice, but this I will not. I have two good friends who are now retired from the Hebrew University of Jeruselem. One of them was even a house guest many decades ago.
And yet somehow David B. Benson you infer without proof that Israeli prison guards are committing sexual crimes on the prisoners they oversee. The Proud Boys would happily join in and accept your evaluation even if you present no examples of proof but only rely on an assumption that you made up in your head just like what The Proud Boys make up in their heads. Oh look I had a Jew over for dinner once upon a time so that must somehow give credibility to your Jews assault prisoners just like everybody else B.S. I’m sure that a large number of men in prison hate cops just like you. You don’t hide it well.
Think more — I just said the allegations are credible. It remains to establish ‘proof’ in a competent court of law.
Please do not make stuff up.
David, to an intelligent thinking mind they are not credible. Possible and credible are two different things.
Clearly you are uninformed or lying in your comment. Multiple soldiers were shown on tape raping a Palestinian prisoner.(Unless you don’t count sticking a pipe up someone’s rectum as rape). Right-wing nuts went crazy and stormed the jail.The perverts/offenders were not charged. Some of the rapists are now heroes in Israel. What a sick and disheartening occurrence. I once was a staunch supporter of Israel but my eyes have been opened by this event and the murder of countless civilians in Gaza and the West Bank.
David B. Benson, two good friends that haven’t been in your house for decades but you fell all good inside. Did you tell your Jewish friends about how you think that Jewish guards in the prisons rape the prisoners or did you leave that part out? How about the Jewish guards raping the prisoners using dear old Fido. I’m sure you brought that one up at your diner party for your Jewish friends to chew on. Right!
The First Amendment provides:
“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …”
Defamation laws (libel and slander) impose legal liability for spoken or written statements.
Spoken and written statements are speech and press.
Defamation laws are laws that regulate speech and press.
The First Amendment protects speech and press from being abridged by Congress.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Core Conclusion
– Article III grants no interpretive authority.
– Judicial power is limited to adjudicating disputes.
– Article V exclusively governs constitutional change.
– Any judicial “interpretation” beyond applying fixed meaning = functional amendment.
– Therefore, judicial constitutional interpretation (as practiced in modern doctrine) exceeds Article III authority.
It’s impossible for judges to decide cases and controversies without interpreting constitutional and statutory provisions.
Please cite the Constitution for that power.
Of course, you cannot.
Judges enjoy no power to modify, amend, “legislate from the bench,” or modify by interpretation the Constitution.
“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …”
Interpretation is implicit in deciding cases and controversies as a judge and also implicit in the practice and study of law as lawyer, law student, and a law professor.
Please cite the Constitution for that power.”
Easily. “The judicial power of the united states shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” The judicial power is the power to say what the law is. That is what the phrase means, and what it has always meant. It’s certainly what it meant in the 18th century, as one can clearly see from the Federalist and from all other contemporary discussion of the legislative, executive, and judicial powers.
Big Apple Rag
I find claims of misconduct by prison guards highly credible, irrespective of country. I doubt that Israelis are more saintly than other croups of fallible humans.
Maybe, but it doesn’t neccessarily make it true in this case.
I do not. Hamas (as most Sharia/Islamofacist organizations) is devoid of human rights principles and restraints when it comes to defeating the Western doctrines and Biblical ideals. They do what they do BECAUSE OF Sharia/Koran. Non-Muslims commit sins or illegal acts IN SPITE OF our bedrock principles.
I fear you fail to understand (true) Islam: the Koran specifically states, repeatedly, to be kind to Jews because Jesus was a Jew and he is the 2nd prophet of Islam.
Read the Koran and Hadith in full. Jews were dhimmis in Muslim lands (second class citizens.
I have read the Koran in full, of course in translation. Nothing 2nd class there. The Hadith was not dictated by Mohammed, being written by Arabs after his death. It is not the word of God.
Rhe vast majority of Islamists are poor followers of the Koran, just as the vast majority of Christians are poor followers of Jesus.
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture—[fight them] until they give the jizya willingly while they are subdued.” 9:29
Ensures non-Muslims remain a legally rrecognized second class.
As for violence get a better set of glasses and then look again and look at the world. Check out the Koranic verses ie 9:29 from the Hamas charter. It is eliminationist.
S. Meyer — The reference is to pagans, not Jews. Thee Arabs opposing Mohammed and the Jews were Romanesque pagans, although Rome had given that up with Constntinople.
“The reference is to pagans, not *Jews*.”
Look at the words.
“Fight those who do not believe in *Allah* “
That is part of the Hamas charter in their quest to kill the Jews, and destroy Israel (From the river to the Sea.) Remember al Husseini, the Arab leader in the Levant made a pact with Hitler to exterminate the Jews. In the end Israel is the little Satan and America the big Satan. Domination is the name of the game. Read the transcripts from the Holy Land foundation trial and convictions.
An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.
“The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”
Not everything in Muslim writings is violent so we have many Muslims throughout the world who are peaceful, but the violent ones have hidden themselves within the masses. Organizations such as CAIR and SJP are connected to terrorism though we seem oblivious to that. However, when one looks at the arrests of members and how the tentacles spread to terrorism it becomes clear.
My appoligies to all peaceful Muslims. They carry a heavy burden on their backs while the more vociferous voices for peace are threatened along with their families.
And are they? Their multiple state “constitutions” specifically call for the destruction of Israel and Jews. Where is the edict to “strike them in the neck wherever they hide”?
annemalcolm — Hamas warriors are not prison guards. You miss my point.
Islam, practiced by Muslims, is unconstitutional as it is not a protected religion.
With Sharia Law, Islam, practiced by Muslims, is a competing form of government.
Muslims practicing Islam are unassimilable criminals committing treason and must be denaturalized and deported as direct and mortal enemies of the American thesis of freedom and self-reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, actual Americans, and America, who feloniously unify church and state.
Islam, practiced by Muslims, is unconstitutional as it is not a protected religion.
That’s too ridiculous for words. There is no possible definition of “religion” that excludes Islam. The USA’s founders, and the constitution’s framers, were very clear that when they spoke of the freedom of religion they meant all religions, and they specifically named both Islam and Hinduism as examples of how broad they believed that freedom to be.
Muslims practicing Islam are unassimilable criminals committing treason and must be denaturalized and deported as direct and mortal enemies of the American thesis
That is not a thing. Even actual traitors cannot be “denaturalized”. Once someone is validly a US citizen, they can never lose that citizenship involuntarily, no matter what crimes they commit. The term “denaturalization” does not mean removing citizenship from someone who was a citizen. It means proving in court that someone was never a citizen in the first place, because their purported naturalization never happened, or was invalid. Without such proof every naturalization must be assumed to have been valid, and once valid nothing can undo it.
Clearly you are not familiar with the Talmud. Orthodox Judaism does not adhere to the Old Testament.
Prison guards may certainly be prone to misconduct, but not to rape. Rape of prisoners or civilians simply isn’t a thing that happens in the IDF.
“I doubt that Israelis are more saintly than other croups of fallible humans.”
For the most part they are.
The NYT: Covered up the Stalin Ukraine Holocaust; Covered up the Nazi Holocaust; covered up for Castro, mostly supported the USSR in the Cold War, and now actively supports terrorists from Iran to Gaza. This is an evil organization. I only regret that they were not ground zero on 9-11. I once subscribed to the so-called newspaper. I wish it nothing but ill will. It should be renamed the Storm Trooper
Covered up? Nope. They had no proof. No one inside the CCCP Different reporting standards in the 1930’s.
They had a correspondent stationed there who covered up for the CCCP and USSR.
Ever heard of Walter Duranty? He got a Pulitzer, forcryinoutloud. Which he never gave back, and which the NYT still proudly touts as one of its historical achievements.
One way to prove reckless disregard is to show that a newspaper continued to rely on anonymous sources that had in the past been wrong. I have never understood why plaintiffs’ counsel have not pursued that tactic.
Because … its not a viable strategy. NYT only reports something when they have verification. They have verification – some don’t believe that. Yet they do. But that’s not Israel’s goal… bleed them. Expose them via discovery, and the NYT can do the same. They will. My money is on the NYT surviving the suit; it’ll take years to play out.
You missed the point. Israel’s goal is to force the NYT to tell the truth. You, on the other hand still believe the Steele Dossier.
Israel doesn’t have much of a case against the NYT. Turley knows it. What Israel is trying to do is silence the newspaper through intimidation.
Israel has a long verified history of committing war crimes and countless other atrocities against the Palestinians. Currently extremist israeli settlers are engaging in violence and abuse of Palestinians with impunity and under the protection of the IDF. Turley, as he usually does, will ignore the attrocities and dismiss the allegations by pointing out past issues that have no relevance to the story. Israel’s reputation among Americans is tanking. Under the Trump administration they have been able to attack, and commit war crimes against the Palestinians. They are no longer hiding their true intentions. The irony is how the Israelis are now treating the Palestinians, just as they were treated by the Germans.
Oh get a life.
Nice to know the rabid anti-Zionist crowd reads Turley……With respect “X”, you need help, serious help. Read the Volkisher Beobachter too.
“Israel doesn’t have much of a case against the NYT.”
NYT made a FACTUAL claim and when challenged refused to retract.
Further there is significant prior evidence of AntiSemitism
The Big problems will be – who can sue – as Turley noted the courts do not like defamation claims from large groups particularly groups as large as a nation.
Regardless, if someone manages to get to court on this – this is a HUGE claim.
This could easily dwarf Alex Jones Sandy Hook case.
The next Big problem is the venue is New York – and we KNOW that NYC is completely left looney.
One the otherhand – 1 in 8 New Yorkers are Jewish.
“Turley knows it. What Israel is trying to do is silence the newspaper through intimidation.”
ROFL
Right Israel is going to silence NYT,
“Israel has a long verified history of committing war crimes and countless other atrocities against the Palestinians. ”
False – even the US has a much poorer track record in dealing with urban warfare.
20% of Israeli citizens are Palestinians. These are NOT the people of Gaza or the West bank.
These are the people that did not flee elsewhere in 1948, but like the Jews stayed in their homes.
In Israel they have full rights of citizenship.
The descendents of those who left during the 1948 war are NOT citizens of Isreal.
They are a perfect fit for the left – they are violent entitled terrorists who beleive everyone else owes them something and no nation in the world will allow them in.
They have had repeated oportunities to form their own nation in Gaza and the West Bank,
and they have repeatedly refused.
I would further note that even in the Recent Hamas/Gaza war – the Palestinians in the West bank stayed out of the conflict.
Israel treats palesinians as they deserve – those who stayed in Israel in 1948 are citizens.
Those on the West Bank are semi autonomous and could be completely autonomous at anytime.
All they need to do is recognize Israel’s right to exist.
That is highly likely to occur over the next decade – the issues regarding the West Bank are mostly resolved.
The people there are mostly through with Terrorism and looking to build a life and eventually a country.
They have opted out of the cult of victimhood.
Conversely Gaza has been a PITA from the start.
It was administered by Egypt for decades after the 1948 war – and it was a thorn in Egypt side.
At the same time the West Bank was part of Jordan and the Palestinians in the west bank destabilized the government of Jordan and assassinated the King.
Israel would gladly let Jordan have the West Bank and Egypt have Gaza – and both nations have not only said NO – but H311 No!.
Israel has been trying to give control og Gaza and the West Bank to anyone – for as long as they have controlled it.
Again Israel has offered repeatedly to give the Palestinians their own country.
The Palestinians – especially those in the west bank want one thiung – “From the river to the sea”
They want the extermination of all jews in the mideast and to take over Israel itself.
That is not happening.
“Currently extremist israeli settlers are engaging in violence and abuse of Palestinians with impunity and under the protection of the IDF.”
Because you say so.
There are ZERO israeli settlers in Gaza and have not been for decades.
There has been some Israeli settlement in small portions of the west bank.
These would have been forceably dismantled by Israel had The Palestinians agreed to peace.
But that did not happen. A separate secret peace deal with Fattah regarding the West bank which has divided the west bank into 3 zones – exclusively PA administered, joint administration and exclusively Israel administered.
Has actually held – though progress towards actual Palestinian statehood has collapsed since the Assassination of Itzak Rabin and the two Infatfadah’s and the Oct 7 terrorist attack.
Regardless Israels relationship with the PA (not GAZA) is holding and there have been no hostilities involving the west bank for over a decade and there is reasonable hope of expanded autonomy and eventual statehood for the west bank.
Gaza has been a disaster from the start – as noted before even Egypt could not preserve the peace there when it controlled it.
One of the Trump plans for “rebuilding Gaza” is to relocate Gazan’s to the Sinani near Gaza while Gaza is being rebuilt.
The Egypitons have nixed that – they want absolutely nothing to do with Gazans – no country in the world is willing to accept people from Gaza on even a short term basis.
The Kuwaitis accepted Palestininas prior to the first Gulf War – and the Palestinians betrayed them and actively supported Sadam. I beleive Kuwait has sent all Palestinians back to the West Bank or Gaza.
There are few if any Palestinians in any arab countries – except Jordan – which claimed the West Bank after the 1948 war, but has since completely walked away from that, and wants to ship the Palestinians in the east bank back to the west bank as they are destabalizing the country
You rant about supposed Attrocities – but ignore specifics
That is what Israel is after with a Defamation trial against NYT.
It is lookjing to FORCE left wing nut idiots like you to have to put up or shutup regarding these “attrocity” claims.
Contra your idiocy – prettyy much all claims of actual attrocities committed by Israel have never been substantiated – and most have been thoroughly debunked.
Conversely actual attrocities are committed by HAMAS, Gazans and Hezbolla every day – increasingly the West Bank has opted for peace.
” Israel’s reputation among Americans is tanking. ”
That is correct – because left wing nuts like you beleive lots of stupid nonsense.
Not just about Israel – there is a long long list of major issues you have been completely wrong about.
Most of which you still will not admit.
“Under the Trump administration they have been able to attack, and commit war crimes against the Palestinians.”
The Gaza War occured almost entirely While Biden was president.
The Cease Fire has continued for over 6 months.
The Gazans have either because of exhaustion or choice stayed out of the conflict with Iran.
“They are no longer hiding their true intentions.”
Israel has never been hiding its intentions – it does not want Gaza or the West bank – but no other nation will take them. And it is not going to allow palestinian statehood in gaza and the west bank until the Palestinians agree to coexist peacefully
Everyone in the world who is NOT a moron, KNOWS that if the Palestinians laid down their weapons – there would be peace.
It the Israeli’s laid down their weapons there would be genocide.
You are delusional.
“The irony is how the Israelis are now treating the Palestinians, just as they were treated by the Germans.”
Really ?
The germans killed nearly every jew – 7m in Europe in about 18 months.
There are more Palestinians every month than there were the previous month – despite any fighting.
No one is trying to exterminate palestinians.
And you are completely full of misinformation.
There are no jewish settlements in GAZA – none – and there have not been for decades.
The Israelis forceably removed them.
It is not safe for any Israeli to be anywhere near Gaza and never has been.
Conversely while everything is not perfect on the West bank – the West Bank is moving forward towards eventual independence.
Dear John, Say: Great summary. I copied it and edited it somewhat for punctuation and spelling. Please permit me to save it for use in responding to the usual crowd. Let me know. Thanks.
“At the same time the West Bank was part of Jordan “
I understand your meaning, but Judea and Samaria IWest Bank) were never part of Jordan though Jordan occupied that land after the 1948 war for 19 years.
According to Jordan, those areas were part of Jordan. That’s why it changed its name from Transjordan to just Jordan, because it now was on both sides of the river. And that’s why the areas it annexed west of the river came to be called “the west bank”, as opposed to the original Transjordan which was “the east bank”. Once it renounced its interest in the so-called “west bank”, it should have changed its name back.
To this day, Jordanian law still applies in these areas, since that was the prevailing law when Israel captured them.
According to Jordan, the West Bank was annexed., but according to international law it wasn’t. Jordan occupied that space. Most of the world, the Palestinians and the UN did not accept Jordan’s annexation.
What “international law”? There is no international law about annexation. Jordan annexed it, and to this day Jordanian law applies there. Only Pakistan and the UK recognized it, but that’s not a requirement. And the rest of the world, while claiming not to recognize it, did go along with the name change from Transjordan to just Jordan, which necessarily means they accepted that Jordan was now on both sides of the river.
This is all based on internationall law created in the 1920’s and the laws governing the British mandate.
John Say is wrong on every claim.
From 1948 until 1966, Israel placed its Arab citizens under strict military rule (martial law). They faced severe restrictions on freedom of movement, curfews, administrative detentions, and land expropriation without standard civilian legal recourse. While they hold voting rights today, human rights organizations and legal experts note ongoing systemic inequalities in housing, budgetary allocations, and land planning.
Claims of extremist Israeli settler violence are unsubstantiated (“Because you say so”) and “there have been no hostilities involving the west bank for over a decade.”
Wrong. Settler violence and military hostilities in the West Bank are heavily documented by international bodies, Israeli organizations, and foreign governments.
Human rights organizations like B’Tselem and the United Nations (OCHA) log hundreds of settler attacks annually against Palestinian civilians, including property destruction and physical assaults. Furthermore, the claim of “no hostilities for a decade” is false; major military operations, deadly raids, and clashes have regularly occurred in cities like Jenin and Nablus. The U.S. and European governments have explicitly issued sanctions against specific extremist Israeli settlers due to rising violence.
Pretty much all claims of actual atrocities committed by Israel have never been substantiated—and most have been thoroughly debunked.”
Nope.
Major international bodies—including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and various UN Fact-Finding Missions—have verified instances of disproportionate use of force, unlawful killings, and collective punishment. Investigating bodies look at actions by all sides, documenting war crimes committed by Palestinian militant groups (like Hamas) while also verifying systemic violations committed by the Israeli military.
Israel has been trying to give control of Gaza and the West Bank to anyone—for as long as they have controlled it.”
False.
Israel’s official policy has never been a blanket attempt to give away all of these territories to any willing country. Instead, parts of the political establishment have actively sought to retain permanent control over parts of the West Bank.
Palestinians “have repeatedly refused” opportunities for a state because they only want the “extermination of all Jews.”
Hello, the Oslo accords.
Human rights organizations like B’Tselem and the United Nations (OCHA) […] Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and various UN Fact-Finding Missions
None of these have the slightest shred of credibility or principles. Every single one of these are dedicated antisemites and neo-nazis. Specifically including B’tzelem, which in any normal country would have been prosecuted for treason, but the Israeli judicial and legal establishment is totally controlled by the left and defies the elected government’s authority.
There was a war in 1948, just like 1945, when America defeated the Germans and Japanese. What do you think we did in Germany and Japan, you knucklehead? You can’t think historically; you are brain-damaged and can only follow the left’s antisemitism.
With peace, Arab citizens were integrated into Israeli society and, from the start, had representation in the Knesset and, later, in the Israeli Supreme Court. They are not forced to serve in the army, but many do, with many performing heroic actions to protect Israel.
I will not reply to the rest of your erroneous comments because antisemitism seems to rule the UN and parts of the world. Take note, one of the major sites of missiles shot into Israel occurred right under the UN building, so Israel would not return fire. The UN has been complicit on the side of terrorists.
I know the UN well. I was there for the first conference on antisemitism that occurred at the UN. It was in the Security Council room but walking to there were newly fabricated walls of antisemitic propaganda and pictures, most of it false. One would have thought the UN would have not permitted these walls of hate to be constructed on their grounds.
Bollocks, Mohammed.
The myriad events of the past quarter century or more, both home and abroad support the writings of historian Bernard Lewis that the West is indeed embroiled in a religious war with Islam. The theocracy of Iran and the movements they support have been self-evident since 1979. The events of recent days, with the elimination of an Islamic Jihad commander leader and the arrest of an Islamist terrorist further amplify the war against Jews, Christians, and the Judeo=Christian ethic upon which the evolution of Western Civilization and the founding of our Constitutional Republic were founded. The migrations from the lands of the Levant and elsewhere foster the insinuation of their cultures and philosophies into the fabric of the West, seeking to subsume it to obedience to Allah as was done in Europe during the 16th Century. Their absence of any intent to assimilate lends support to Lewis’ contentions. Kristof, and other ‘Jew Haters’ of his ilk merely serve as their useful tools, not only with respect to the destruction of that community, but any other which stands in the way of disseminating the teachings of the Prophet and his purpose. Submission!!
“. . . the Judeo=Christian ethic upon which the evolution of Western Civilization and the founding of our Constitutional Republic were founded.”
Western civilization was founded in the 15th century, with the Renaissance. By that point, Christianity had been the dominant ideology for some *1,100* years. What took so long?
America was founded in the 18th century. By that point, Christianity was some *1,400* years old. Again, what took so long?
If you meant to imply that your rewriting of history comes from Lewis, you are misrepresenting his ideas.
Re: “ if you meant to imply.”
I neither meant to imply, nor rewrite anything. Clearly, the word evolution is there with no fixed dates given. The essence of my comment references, the moral and ethical principles which underlie it’s foundation and that of this nation. Contrary to that is the moral high ground of a culture the nature of which is such that it deems Itself justified in murdering anyone who violate their principles and beliefs. To be quite honest with ourselves, it’s only within the past hundred years that the Irish Catholics and protestants have ceased doing that to each other. I suppose one could say that we’ve made some progress. If the antisemites of the world Could find it in their hearts to coexist with the Jewish community, whose contribution to the human condition have saved their sorry asses in more than one way, they would’ve taken the first step to differentiate themselves from the subhuman pieces of shit who established, supported, and enabled, Nazi Germany’s final solution to their Jewish question.
Turley’s observations of Democrats views regarding Palestinians is enlightening and terrifying.
It is evidence of the delusional thinking of a significant portion of the left.
It is also weird because it is occurring at a time when Israel has made peace with most of the mideast and is at this moment in JOINT military operations with Arab Allies against Iran.
Most of the Mideast is FED UP with the Palestinians – there is NO Mideastern nation – no nation in the world that will take them. Palestinians immigrants have sewed vioilence and destruction EVERYWHERE they have gone – in Europe they engaged in terrorism. In Jordan they engaged in political assassination, in Kuwait they held Sadam invade the country.
Outside of the left and antisemites – no one believes the Palestinians about pretty much anything.
Israel is not the perfect nation – there are many actions of Israel that I oppose.
But that is true of all nations. The US is not perfect either.
That does not alter the fact that whatever its flaws Israel is the most morally behaved nation in the mideast.
It is often pointed out to those on the left that if you are gay in Israel you are accepted and protected.
Anywhere else in the mideast you are thrown off a building and killed.
The point is NOT about homosexuality – it is that Israel is far closer to the lefts idea of Utopian than any other nation in the mideast and most other nations in the world.
There is a differences between being willing to be critical of a nation or people when they err and deciding that they are evil when they are proveably by fact better behaved than most nations in the world.
My point is that Turley’s statistics on the views of democrats regarding Israel tell you far far more about the inability of democrats to engage in rational evaluation of facts in the real world.
Even if this dog rape story were true – which with near certainty it is not – it would demand condemnation of all involved.
But it would not alter the fact that Israel as flawed as it may be is more moral than its neighbors or the Palestinians
I am completely in favor of criticism of Israel – particularly truthful criticism – no Israel is NOT engaged in Palestinian genocide. They are far more protective of the lives of innocent civilians in war – than any other nation on earth.
There were far more civilian casualties in US operations in the Mideast than Israeli ones against the Palestinians.
Genocide is intentionally trying to kill off an entire people. Not failing to perfectly protect civilians in a war in which the enemy hides behind civilians.
Regardless, the point is if Democrats can not figure out that whatever its flaws – the Israeli’s are morally superior to the Palestinians, that proves the inability to think rationally by most democrats.
“It is evidence of the delusional thinking of a significant portion of the left.”
Today, the only possible reasons for anyone to be on “the left” are rooted in pure delusion and fallacy. That is the milieu in which we are currently immersed; anyone who would deny that is either deliberately clueless (emulating all three of the “no evil” monkeys simultaneously) or prevaricating.
“ Turley’s observations of Democrats views regarding Palestinians is enlightening and terrifying.”
It’s also heavily biased.
While personally I would entirely eliminate the tort of defamation.
Defamation law is a mess, successful claims are made that should not have flown,
Unsuccessful claims with great merit die.
Almost all recently successful defamation claims have had those on the right as targets,
and completely loony defamation claims have survived legal challenges.
Conversely meritorious claims by those on the right have died early.
Defamation is one area of the law that most deeply exposes the leftwing bias of parts of the courts.
The solution is just to get rid of the tort of defamation.
The punishment for lying about facts regarding another is the destruction of your own credibility.
The Benefit for eliminating defamation as a tort is that people will be less likely to beleive that a false statement is true because otherwise the speaker would be sued to oblivion.
All that said – NYT made specific factual claims. Those claims are absolutely damage the reputation of others.
Therefore as the law now stands – they better be able to prove those claims – which is highly unlikely, or they should lose disasterously.
“However, the strategy may be in large part an effort to secure discovery (and a public forum) more than a verdict.”
Discovey goes both ways!
EB no it does not.
Discovery requests have to be relevant to the case.
NYT Will actually be able to engage in discovery – subpeoning ANYONE whop can provide evidence of the truth of their claims. That discovery will not be limited to IDF or Israel – though they will have to show some basis that the target of their discovery actually has evidence.
But they can not engage in generalized discovery. Conversely those suing NYT can engage in broad discovery – seeking ANY evidence of malice towards jews or Israel.
This case is a good case for plaintiffs because it involves BOTH antisemitism and libel against Israel.
One of the problems of many claims of antisemitism is that being antisemetic and being anti-israel are not the same.
But NYT is being sure for libel of both jews and Israel and will be allowed broad discovery with regard to both.
NYT conversely will be allowed discovery for the purposes of proving the Truth of the claims it made.
I would STRONGLY suggest to you that those filing a libel claim KNOW the claims are FALSE.
Absent multiple very credible sources this column was a huge mistake by NYT.
This is a FALSE factual claim that is a CLEAR Libel.
According to Turley, only a few of the raped women were identified. I can’t imagine why more didn’t want their names publicly released. All I’m saying is if the goal is a public forum and discovery as Turley opines. Israel may not want all of their related actions facing scrutiny.
Enigma still things it is the Jews doing the raping and not the Muslims that actually filmed themselves raping. You cannot argue with someone that doesn’t admit reality.
EB
Suing – even Threatening to Sue NYT absolutely assures that public attention will be drawn to this.
It is possible these stories are true. If So Israel is making a HUGE mistake.
It is highly unlikely these stories are Both True and Israel does not know they are true.
The ONLY instances in modern history I am aware of, of groups pushing a KNOWN false story are by those on the left.
Rational actors just do not deliberately fly into a box canyon.
Above I noted it is POSSIBLE this story is true.
It is also HIGHLY unlikely.
YOU personally have bet your credibility HEAVILY on a Long list of possibly true naratives that have ultimately proven to be false.
The odds are Excellent that you are AGAIN doing the same.
Please explain Why after a long long list of instances where you have evalutated a story that was almost certaintly eventually going to prove to be either true or false – and pretty close to universally gotten it wrong, that your judgement should be trusted ?
This COULD be the one time you are proven right.
But so far throw darts randomly has proven a better predictor than you.
Why should you be beleived this time, while those who have been right everytime you have been wrong be disbeleived ?
All of us make error of judgement on occasion.
But you have been consistently wrong time after time.
Every single time I get things wrong, I look seriously into WHY I got them wrong.
Find the cause and correct. The result is fewer and fewer errors over time.
I have seen no evidence that you do the same.
“The ONLY instances in modern history I am aware of, of groups pushing a KNOWN false story are by those on the left.”
January 6th was a family outing
Trump won the 2020 election
Obama was born in Africa
Michelle is a man
Gas prices will immediately be lower than before once the Strait of Hormuz is open,
We aren’t in a war?
Each small boat headed from Venezuela to places other than America would have killed 25,000 Americans
Let me know when to stop. A good starting point would be a review of the Dominion lawsuit where tons of right-wing lies were revealed along with private texts of what the talking heads really believed (Hannity, Tucker, etc.)
Please Please go out of your way to prove me right.
You lose automatically when you misrepresent the claims of others.
“January 6th was a family outing”
Who has said that ?
It was a protest.
It turned violent with the CP accidentally teargassed themselves and then protestors.
Now we hear that there was an actual plot within the CP to get rid of Sund,
and to create the violence on J6 to do so.
Sund BTW is not some right wing nut – this is blue on blue – not red on blue.
It is the idiotic claims of the left regarding J6 that have been debunked.
There was no insurrection.
No protestors brought firearms to the protest,
J6 protestors did not even bring things that are normal for left wing protests.
Lasers to blind officers, frozen water bottles balistic sheilds
Even the alleged Gallows – was not on the Capitol grounds it was way over on the other side of the rerflecting pond – Further than the elipsis where Trump gave his speech.
And the gallows had a sign that said “this is art”, and was incapable of doing harm to anyone.
The protestors marching through the capital – a right guaranteed by the first amendment, were all peaceful. Almost all the violence occured at the West Tunnel entrace – where the Tear Gas was fired.
Was J6 entirely peaceful ? No,
But it was far more peaceful that left wing BLM protests that were “mostly peacful” and involved arson and looting.
“Trump won the 2020 election”
Still undecided.
It has ALWAYS been beyond any doubt that the 2020 election was conducted lawlessly.
The only question has been to what extent did that lawlessness result in actual fraud.
And we do not know. The Geofencing data and Security Camera footage that True the Vote aquired demonstrates and organized campaign to engage in very large scale ballot harvesting – which is illegal in every state except California. Get rid of the ballot harvesting and without any dounbt at all – Trump wins 6 more states and the presidency – but that begs the question of whether those ballot harvested votes were real or not. The purpose of ballot harvesting laws is to prevernt voter intimidation and to make it harder to cast a fake vote for someone who did not vote.
We KNOW that 800,000 – 2M ballots in 6 states were harvested, what we do not know is was that Democrat groups showing up at voters doors and with zero pressure or intimidation collecting and delivering ballots. Was there intimidation and coercion ? Or are those harvested ballots completely manufactured – i.e. the actual voter never voted, NGO’s gathered their names from voter registration lists of people who had not voted in a long time and forged ballots for them.
Regardless, it is not possible to prove one way or the other at this point whether Trump won or not.
But it is trivial to demonstrate lawlessly conducted elections and organized fraud on an unknown scale.
2008 Election 69M D 60M R
2012 election 66M D 61M R
2016 election 66M D 63M R
2020 Election 82M D 74M R
2024 Election 75M D 77M R
It should be obvious to pretty much anyone with a brain that 2020 is a massive anaomally.
After losing 3M votes from 2008 to 2012 – Dems never broke 66M votes – until 2020 – when suddenly they manage 16M more votes than 4 years prior. But they did not do so by poersuading people who Voted Republican in the past to vote Democrat – Trump managed to get 11M more votes than in 2016.
Somehbow the least popular Democratic presidential candidate ever – a old senile white male with lots of corruption baggage who did not campaign managed to get 16M more votes than Any prior democrat in a year in which the incumbent republican got 11M more votes than any other republican ever ?
And you do not think that stinks ?
And this is followed by 2024 – when the republican increases his total by a meer 3M,
And the Democrat loses 7M votes to the prior democrat ?
Sorry EB this stinks to high heaven – and you are either far more stupid than I think or you deliberately have your head in the sand.
Regardless after 6 years you have FAILED miserably to prove those who believe Trump won in 2020 were wrong.
The claims YOU got Wrong have been PROVEN wrong.
“Obama was born in Africa”
Are there 10 people in the country that beleived that ?
There are lots of people – myself included who beleive that Obama’s birth certtificate as provided publicly is altered. But very very very few people who do not beleive he was born in Hawai.
In fact what is likely true is that his father is NOT Keynyan.
“Michelle is a man”
It is a meme. Almost no one beleives Michelle is a man. But lots of people beleive Michelle wears the pants in the Obama household.
Regardless, it is a popular meme BECAUSE it gets the goat of idiots like you.
Again almost no one considers it to be the truth.
Just as no one think Trump is actually Jesus Christ or superman or batman or ….
“Gas prices will immediately be lower than before once the Strait of Hormuz is open,”
Now you are going looney.
Evrything we have dealt with until now was a FACT at the time the claim was made – just not one we KNEW until the evidence was discovered.
Absolutely those on the left are far worse at predictions – than those on the right.
But predictions are NOT the same as FACTS.
The straight is not considered opened yet. We do not know how much prices will drop when things return to normal, or how fast they will drop. Is Trump painting an overly rosey picture – absolutely, and no one beleives it. But at the same time he is with near certainty correct that prices will drop, and that they will drop BELOW where they were before EVENTUALLY.
Why ? Many reasons, OPEC has fragmented, the gulf states OWE the US, any resolution of this will likely result in MORE oil entering the market – from Iran, From Venezeulla and from others who have boosted production
“We aren’t in a war?”
Interesting question – Iran declared war on the US in 1979 – just as Germany did in 1942.
So arguably we have been in a war for 50 years.
But the US has never declared war on Iran.
Nor is this the only use of US military force without a declaration of War.
There is an AUMF for Vietnam and Iraq – but no declaration of War
No declaration of War in Korea – no AUMF either – just a UN respolution.
What of Syria, Libya, Boznia, Somalia ?
Were they Wars ?
We are undeniably in a military conflict – as we were in Barbary on multiple occasions.
We built a navy to fight those conflcts – but did not declare war.
There was no declaration of war for the civil war
“Each small boat headed from Venezuela to places other than America would have killed 25,000 Americans”
Once again you are fixating on occasional statements made by a few or one person – not general false beleifs held by nearly half the country.
Regardless the drug overdose rate in the US has been declining since the start of the Trump presidency and continues to do so.
If you had claimed “Those on the right beleive that the operation against Maduro and Venezuella will reduce drug overdoses in the US” – that would be a correct statement of the beleifs of MAGA americans.
It also appears to be a true statement.
There is an AUMF for Vietnam and Iraq – but no declaration of War
An AUMF is a declaration of war. There is no requirement for a declaration of war to contain some magical formula such as “we declare war”.
There was no declaration of war for the civil war
Yes, there was. According to SCOTUS’s decision in the Prize cases there was a legal state of war, which began de facto on April 12, and was ratified by Congress on July 13.
“This Act of Congress, we think, recognized a state of civil war between the Government and the Confederate States, and made it territorial. The Act of Parliament of 1776, which converted the rebellion of the Colonies into a civil territorial war, resembles, in its leading features, the act to which we have referred.”
“Let me know when to stop.”
You can stop when you actually provide something that meets the criteria
The criteria
is a GROUP – and I do not mean a handful of people – I mean a significant portion of a political party, a significant portion of the media.
Pushing a KNOWN false claim.
Known false – i.e. NOT a claim about the future.
Not a single example I gave was of bad left wing nut claims regarding the future.
Not a single example I gave was of a FEW people trying to shill some claim.
Though the point is NOT about those shilling nonsense.
It is about those with so poor intellectual skill they are unable to tell when a claim about FACTS has a high probability of being false.
My point was not about Who was Selling garbage – it was about who was Buying it.
it was also not about predictions or claims that remain to this day uncertain.
It was about buying claims about FACTS that with near certainty would be KNOWN eventually, and that were actually predictable.
” A good starting point would be a review of the Dominion lawsuit ”
Why ? Thje lawsuit was settled – I think that was a mistake.
But settling a lawsuit does NOT establish facts.
“where tons of right-wing lies were revealed along with private texts of what the talking heads really believed (Hannity, Tucker, etc.”
Once again left wing nut inablitiy to comprehend FACTS.
Please cite a SINGLE text in which anyone was able to state with CERTAINTY what the FACTS were.
Your expose of Fox establishes nothing beyond that some people in Fox beleived that the specific claim regarding Dominion was weak.
I would note that even to this day the truth regarding Dominion has not been established.
Though the AZ and NH audits both reveal that as badly as those elections were conducted there was no conspiracy by Dominion to rig the election in those states.
Both audits revealed LOTS of flaws in the 2020 election.
They also exposed that ONE SPECIFIC claim of fraud regarding the 2020 election was not true in those state.
But Both audits – as well as later evidence uncovered by TTV or DOJ or just public hearings did establish hundreds of thousands of illegitimate ballots.
The beleif of those on the right – actually 56% of the country is NOT that Dominion using fractional voting, or hackers from Italy or Germany or … used Dominion systems to rig the election.
The beleif of those on the right is that the election was rigged.
There is LOTS of evidence to suggest that is correct.
I presented SOME earlier.
I made a specific claim – the details are important.
The claim was NOT about the relative ability of those on the right or left to accurately predict the future.
Or about the fact that politicians of all parties shade spin, massage the truth.
My claim was SPECIFICALLY about the inability of those on the left to correctly evaluate claims that are FACTUAL claims – they are about things that have already happened, but that the public does not KNOW all the evidence to prove or disprove those facts.
Your response is about specifics of claims by individuals. About details.
Did the actions Trump took regarding Venezuella reduce drug overdoes deaths in the US ?
While that is not absolutely proveable.
It is without doubt that drug overdoses subsequently are declining.
Was the 2020 election a horrible mess that was not trusted and should not be trusted ?
Absolutely.
We servers in ilaly used to rig DVS machines and tip the election ? No.
Nor did large numbers of people beleive that specifically.
The Collusion delusion is NOT about did Papadoulis tell Downer that Wikileaks hacked Clinton’s email.
A claim that is absolutely false on multiple levels.
What is it about is that millions of left wing nuts – and far too many still,
Beleived that the Trump campaign and Putin conspired to rig the election.
That did not happen and any intelligent person could know that claim was likely to be false without knowing the details.
If you wish to fixate on details there are thousands of false claims that make up the collusion delusion alone – and you beleived all or most of those.
You have heard the phrase “apples and oranges” – your response is “apples and Wildebeasts”
You went off badly on an unrelated tangent.
Wildebeest. No A. Also known as gnu.
EB – what do you think the odds of this story being True are ?
What did you think the odds of the Collusion delusion being true were ?
What did you think the odds of the Hunter Biden Laptop being Russian disinformation were ?
What did you think the odds of Covid coming from a Wet Market were – particularly when an immediate zoonotic source was not found within 90 days ?
What did you think the odds of the public policies regarding Covid working were ?
And on and on.
My point is that not only you but the far left and apparently 2/3 of democrats are getting issues that have even the tiniest political bias to them wrong – pretty much universally.
Absolutely at the time of first reporting – while these stories were either factually true or false, the information available to most of us did NOT allow determining that with certainty.
So Why do some people get them near universally right and others near universally wrong ?
When I am wrong ONCE – much less near universally on matters of public interest, I look deeply into why I made the wrong evaluation, and try to correct whatever lead me down the wrong path.
It does not even appear that you think there is a problem with the fact that with most controversies that are uncertain at first – you with near certainty get it wrong.
Turley notes above that 67% of democrats get it wrong regarding Israel.
That is not even a case where the facts will not be known with certainty for some time.
The critical facts to judge Israel relative to the Palestinians are all known.
And the answer is easy to decern .
Israel is not all good
the Palestinians are not all bad.
But Israels conduct has been an order of magnitude more moral than that of the Palestinians.
This is not even a close call.
Regarding Israel, I suspect there is no question about truth in the story but I have no idea the degree of truth. If Israeli soldiers aren’t raping Muslim women, it might be the first war of that scale where it didn’t happen. How much do we hear about Americans raping women in every war? Almost nothing. But it’s generally covered up.
I haven’t come here on a defense of Palestine but if Israel is committing war crimes, they don’t get dismissed because Palestine is worse.
Hunter Biden’s case can be two things at the same time. He could have been trading his name to enrich himself illegally and Russians could have been promoting misinformation to cause turmoil. If you can see what Hunter was doing but are blind to Jared, Don Jr, Eric, Ivanka, Melania (28 million for a documentary) and Donald. That plank in your eye must be huge. How is Barron Trump worth $150,000,000? Hunter’s major crime was that he settled for a pittance.
“Regarding Israel, I suspect there is no question about truth in the story but I have no idea the degree of truth. If Israeli soldiers aren’t raping Muslim women, it might be the first war of that scale where it didn’t happen. How much do we hear about Americans raping women in every war? Almost nothing. But it’s generally covered up.”
Ignoring some spin on your part – you are correct. The winners write the story of the war and rarely do they speak of their own sins.
I do not think anyone right or left would claim that in the GAZA war not a single Israeli soldier committed an attrocity or war crime.
But that is NOT the question nor relevant.
Though the defamation case will hinge on claims like training dogs to rape prisoners – BTW I am unaware that claim is specific to women prisoners.
The heart of MY issue with you is whether on the whole Israel is not at least an order of magnitude less likely to commit atrocities than the Palestinians.
MOST of my issues with you are whether one side is significantly more likely to engage in bad (or good) conduct than the other, AND is one side significantly worse in their judgement evaluating facts where at the moment all the evidence is not known than the other.
Pretty much universally – the left gets it wrong – ALWAYS.
Is there ANYONE arguing that the US or Israel or their people are perfect ?
But lots of us are arguing that there is nothing close to moral parity.
Those of you on the left agree there is no moral parity, but you universally conclude the more moral actors are the less moral actors.
I do not think anyone right or left would claim that in the GAZA war not a single Israeli soldier committed an attrocity or war crime.
No one would claim that not one has committed an atrocity of some kind, but it is an established fact that not one has raped an Arab woman.
“I haven’t come here on a defense of Palestine but if Israel is committing war crimes, they don’t get dismissed because Palestine is worse.”
Atleast you APPEAR to be admitting that the palestinians are worse – I hope.
“Hunter Biden’s case can be two things at the same time. He could have been trading his name to enrich himself illegally and Russians could have been promoting misinformation to cause turmoil. ”
Absolutely – though I will note that Hunter can trade on his name all he wants legally.
In YOUR framing Hunter did nothing illegal.
And separately – while Russia loves to cause chaos in the US – there is ZERO evidence that Russia was behind or involved the Hunter Biden story.
The problem with your framing – which pollutes your efforts to find parity with the Trump family,
is that it is NOT about Hunter Biden. It is about the FACT that the VP of the united States DELIVERED on Hunter Biden’s promises. And more specifically that he delivered very specific acts that hunter promised that were NOT in the US interests.
Or more simply that Joe Biden was being bribed.
“If you can see what Hunter was doing but are blind to Jared, Don Jr, Eric, Ivanka, Melania (28 million for a documentary) and Donald.”
Again apples and wildebeasts.
Amazon pays 20-50M each for Ken Burns documentaries.
There is nothing wrong for paying for a documentary.
It is a crime to pay a US govenrment official to use US influence to get a prosecutor fired for investigating the company that is paying you to get him fired.
Like most left wing nuts you are under the delusion that getting paid for anything is immoral.
The reverse is true. Getting paid for a benefit to others that is yours to give is not only moral – but it improves the world.
We do not have less poverty in the world or the US because of mother Theresa and all the charity in the world. We have less poverty because people like Trump have built apartments and offices and …. that has contributed to raising standards of living.
I love Mother Thersa and I hate Bill Gates – but Gates’s life work has benefited the world millions of times more than Mother Theresa’s has.
“How is Barron Trump worth $150,000,000? ”
Did he commit a crime to become wealthy ?
If Hunter is only worth 150M then he is not doing well as Trump’s go.
Donald was worth over 100M at Barron’s age – and that was 50 years ago.
“Hunter’s major crime was that he settled for a pittance.”
There is lots wrong with Hunter. He is practically the caricature of a failed hedonist.
But most of Hunters actual crimes are quite small. Drugs, gun law violations, tax evasion.
Hunter is NOT the big deal. The big deal is that Burisma was able to pay indirectly to use the power of the vice president of the united states to interfere in a criminal investigation of it in another country.
Are the Trump’s profiting off the name ? Absolutely. They have done so before politics.
It is called branding and it is perfectly legal.
I would not buy Trump golden sneakers, or a Trump Bible or a Trump NFC.
And I do not have to – no one is holding a gun to my head, and no one is trading my purchase of a Trump Bible for an excercise of US government power.
Those buying the Trump Brand are buying its possible future value – unless they really want golden sneakers.
Voluntarily Trading value for value is one of the most moral things people can do.
So long as the value being traded belongs to those trading it.
The power of the United State Government is not the property of any individual.
You can profit personally from being in office. You can not profit personally by selling public power.
Golden Sneakers are NOT Public power.
“Donald was worth over 100M at Barron’s age – and that was 50 years ago.”
When Donald was 19 he was a millionaire, probably had been one since he was eight, through no works of his own. He was at Fordham the whole year, paying a friend to take the entrance exams for Wharton.
And your point is?
. If Israeli soldiers aren’t raping Muslim women, it might be the first war of that scale where it didn’t happen
It’s not the first such war, because the same is true of EVERY war Israel has fought. There has never ever been even ONE CASE of an Israeli soldier raping an Arab woman. Not one. It is a thing that just does not happen.
This is so well established a fact that the “Palestinians” managed to come up with a way to spin it. One of their standard accusations against Israel is that it’s racist, because its soldiers refuse to rape Arab women!
Hunter Biden was NOT “trading on his name”. There is nothing illegal in doing so. He was collecting bribes for his father, and that is a crime.
EB – what do you think the probability of this story being true are ?
70% ? 20% ? 1% ?
Do you even make such an assessment ?
One of the political problems we have today is that not just those on the far left,
But democrats as a whole beleive to be true anything that has the smallest possibility of being true, even it the available evidence suggest that the odds are strongly against being true.
I think the chance there are at least a few examples are 100%
Few examples of WHAT ? Individual soldiers committing atrocities, or the organized training of dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners ?
NYT should lose this lawsuit if the SPECIFIC claim they are making is false.
As it is a pretty heinous claim – they should lose it BIG.
But YOU lose because as always the left focuses on motes rather than boards – your reference, which you clearly misunderstand.
It is not the magnitude of the money that matters in comparing the Bidens and the Trump’s.
It is that the Bidens explicitly traded Public Power for personal gain – and a pittance at that.
With respect to Israel YOU lose – not NYT if the atrocities committed by Palestinians are less than an order of magnitude greater than those committed by Israelis.
There is no parity between Israel and the palestinians.
Turley’s most damning observation is that democrats think Israel is WORSE than Palestinians.
That is being divorced from reality.
John Say, why are you responding to him? Take a look at his last sentence regarding Hunters major crime. He’s an opportunist, a criminal therefore dangerous.
Do as you will.
The people I replyu to are not who I am primarily speaking to.
X, EB, Gigi, …. are lost causes. They will never be rational.
But there are others who read here who can be persuaded.
One of the problems of many claims of antisemitism is that being antisemetic and being anti-israel are not the same.
For all practical purposes they are the same. I can think of only three non-antisemitic reasons why someone might oppose Israel’s existence, but none of them are common, and all three of them would result in a person opposing the “Palestinian” cause even more strongly. In practice if someone is an anti-zionist they are an antisemite; their only reason for opposing Israel is because they oppose Jews.
The Times wants credit for “deeply reported opinion journalism,” but you can’t have it both ways.
Either Kristof wrote an opinion piece, which means his claims are clearly labeled as subjective viewpoint and interpretation, or he conducted investigative reporting, which means his factual allegations must be proven true. What he can’t do is make specific factual claims that Israel systematically rapes Palestinian prisoners with dogs, call it “deeply reported,” and then hide behind the opinion label when those claims fall apart.
If you do the reporting and the facts don’t support your thesis, you don’t publish. Period. You certainly don’t publish and then claim “opinion” as a shield. That’s not journalism, opinion or otherwise. That’s advocacy dressed up as fact-finding.
The Times essentially admitted Kristof stated facts when they defended his “on-the-record accounts” and cited UN reports as evidence. You don’t need evidence for opinions. You need evidence for factual claims. And if your “deep reporting” reveals your sources are unreliable, your witnesses have changed their stories, and your supporting organizations have ties to Hamas propaganda, publishing anyway isn’t opinion journalism. It’s reckless disregard for the truth.
They’ve turned “deeply reported” into an admission that they investigated, discovered the problems, and published regardless. That’s not having an opinion. That’s telling a lie.
Olly-well said. The New York Times seems to be on a tear against Jews, Israel, conservatives and just about any other group or individual that does not adhere to its favored view. I will hope for Israel’s success in this lawsuit but, as the professor states, the Discovery should be very interesting. I did not know of the lawsuit against Candace Owens, although I have heard the slurs against Mrs Macron. I wish her success also. Candace Owens has been flinging accusations seemingly right and left with doubtful veracity. I really don’t care if you are progressive or conservative I do not like the rush to publish when even the facts are unknown. Even victory leaves the smeared victim still injured.
GEB, you’ve hit on the central problem. A retraction never undoes the damage because the lie has already done its work.
Think about what happens in the real world. Policies get passed. Careers get destroyed. Billions get spent. International relations shift. Public opinion hardens. All based on the original false claim. By the time the correction comes, if it comes at all, the consequences are already baked in and irreversible.
That’s why the Times calling Kristof’s piece “deeply reported opinion journalism” is so cynical. If they actually did deep reporting, they would have discovered their sources were unreliable, their witnesses had changed stories, and their supporting organizations had ties to Hamas propaganda.
Publishing anyway isn’t journalism. It’s a deliberate choice to run with a narrative they know is shaky.
And they’re counting on exactly what you described. Most people will never see the retraction. The accusation becomes the permanent record. Israel gets tagged with systematic rape allegations. Google indexes it. Wikipedia cites it. It becomes “widely reported” even if it’s completely false. No lawsuit verdict five years from now will erase that.
This is the same game climate alarmists just played. Spend two decades pushing doomsday scenarios they now admit were never plausible, reshape entire economies based on those predictions, then quietly drop the models with a footnote. The trillions spent and industries destroyed don’t come back because they finally admitted the truth.
The First Amendment protects a free press precisely because self-government requires informed citizens. But when the press weaponizes that protection to publish reckless falsehoods, they’re not serving democracy. They’re poisoning it.
Retractions are a form of mitigation of damages.
HIGHLY relevant here is that NYT has refused to retract this claim.
I agree with you that retractions do little to undo the damage – but they do a great deal to diminish liability.
There is no retraction here – there is no mitigation .
NYT has gone “all in”
That is what makes this a huge case
Olly
You delved into other areas – like Climate Alarmism.
Turley addresses that with his observation that most democrats chose the Palestinians over Israel.
Turley is strongly hinting at – as are you, that some people have pi$$ poor ability to evaluate the likely truthfulness of factual claims where all of the evidence is not yet readily available.
I am outright stating – we have a long long long list of false beleif with regard to Factual claims by those on the left.
The frequency with which those on the left get it wrong regarding factual claims is far beyond that of normal people or the right.
That is a reflection of a FALSE perception of the world.
Here we have the claim of Dog Rape of Palestinian prisoners.
You raised Catastrophic Global Warming (Climate change is more left wing word play, the Climate is ALWAYS changing).
Turley raised the distorted view of democrats of Isreal relative to Palestine.
But there are a long long list of other factual claims that democrats and the left were off by 180
The collusion delusion
Hunter Bidens laptop
Myriads of covid claims.
And many many others.
This is NOT just about these issues. It is about what is wrong with the left, and with democrats that they so consistently get things wrong.
The comparison of Utopian dreams and reality is what Democrats engage in.
“If it bleeds, it leads”
Rush to publish when even the facts are unknown. You can’t possibly know what all the facts are at any point in time. I’d say the NYT and any one else in media use the facts as they have them at any point in time and then publish what they have, know or unknown. That’s what reporting is about. Turely stated that the NYT has in the past revised, even apologized, in hindsight, its incomplete reporting. You, like everyone here, refuse and don’t understand the politicization of news reporting since colonial times.
This is not a case of rush to judgement or rush to the press.
There has been plenty of time for NYT to confirm its sources and their credibility.
They have doubled down on this story.
NYT had better have incredibly solid evidence or they are in trouble.
The New York Times did not have an agenda to support Hitler, but its Berlin bureau chief, Guido Enderis, slanted coverage to downplay Jewish persecution and present a favorable view of Nazi Germany during the 1930s. This resulted in significant criticism of the newspaper’s reporting on the Holocaust and its failure to adequately highlight the atrocities committed by the Nazi regim
Don’t forget prize winning “reporter” Walter Duranty!
Horace Greely?
If you do the reporting and the facts don’t support your thesis, you don’t publish. Period. Period you say? Why would they publish something (you think) that is an outright lie?
Anonymous, I don’t know why they’d publish a lie. I can only presume based on the pattern. But as Turley pointed out, discovery may be the real motivation behind this suit in the first place. If Israel can force the Times to produce internal emails and editorial discussions, we’ll see whether editors questioned their sources and published anyway, whether there’s a pattern of treating Israel differently, and whether institutional bias is driving these decisions. The truth will be in the documents they don’t want to produce.
Anonymous, I don’t know why they’d publish a lie….. You do not know if its a lie. You’re talking out of you butt. As usual.
ATS,
I do not know that the story is a lie.
But I DO know how to evaluate factual claims in context and determine whether it is likely they are tree.
That is a very important skill. All of us must exercise it constantly.
We are ALL presented with factual claims that are ULTIMATELY likely to be proven one way or the other – but CURRENTLY can not easily be proven true based on what we know at the moment.
We have had MYRIADS of examples of IMPORTANT factual claims that people relied on for major decisions that significant numbers of people GOT WRONG.
The “collusion delusion” is a giant catagory of such examples.
Myriads of claims regarding Covid another.
The authentiticity of the Hunter Biden laptop another.
And on and on.
Some of us have the skill to evaluate factual claims that we do not at this instant have the ability to prove one way or the other – and make a correct determination with respect to what will prove to be the truth when the facts are all out.
Others of us are NOT able to do so – CONSTANTLY making the wrong choice regarding what we beleive.
It is possible that I am wrong and the Kristof story about Dog rape of Palestinian prisoners is true.
You seem to beleive the probability of it being tue is high.
But I will BET that I am not wrong. I will BET that my rational evaluation of the probability of the story being True is better than your emotional and politically biased judgement.
Turley’s statistics on the overall negative opinion democrats have regarding Israel vs. the Palestinians is the perfect example of the bad, politically biased and emotional judgement of democrats – and why people with judgement that bad should never have power.
The question is NOT is Israel perfect – but is Israel a more moral actor than the Palestinians.
That is a very easy question to answer – yet 2/3 of democrats get it wrong.
“discovery may be the real motivation behind this suit in the first place”
Publicly dragging the NYT through the veritable cesspit they created for themselves and their readers for all to see (all those still capable, at least) would be a very productive outcome imo.
Opinion pieces are NOT protected against defamation claims.
Opinions are.
False statements of fact that damage the reputation of another are defamation,
Whether they are in an opinion piece of straight reporting.
Say, opinions protected, opinion pieces not so much. But “deeply reported” opinion pieces? That’s where the Times really screwed themselves. The more reporting they claim they did, the worse it looks when that reporting should have revealed the problems with their sources and they published anyway.
I’m not replying to you, olly, just a convenience place to post.
PT, it isn’t “fit” to post. The article by NYT is a form of necromancy. Truly the dregs of possible writing of any kind.
It seems like the NYT is using the “No True Scotsman” fallacy to try to untangle themselves from the pretzel Kristoff’s piece has created. Won’t work.
I suspect the real work will be trying to separate anti-Jewish from anti-Israel definitions/labels. If the NYT can make the case that the “piece” (whatever it was) was about the political entity Israel and not about the Jewish race, they might have an escape route; otherwise, they look like roadkill.
-g
Re:”I suspect the real work will be trying to separate anti-Jewish from anti-Israel definitions/labels.” In this someone observed that one might as well attempt to separate the Vatican State from Roman Catholicism, and the Israeli State from Zion. They are each the home of their respective faiths notwithstanding the nation of residence of the follower. However, Israel dates back to historical kingdoms of antiquity as the home of the Hebrew people who were the forerunners of the modern day Jewish community. Hence, one has their work cut out for them in the effort to separate anti-Zionism from anti-Semitism.
“Hence, one has their work cut out for them in the effort to separate anti-Zionism from anti-Semitism.”
Exactly.
-g
A nuumber of years ago a study was done to see how many antizionists were actually antisemitic. 75%
The new antisemitism evolved into antizionism.
How on earth did they manage to come up with that number? How did they distinguish them? The actual number — especially if you exclude Haredi “anti-zionists” who by most people’s definition are actually extreme zionists — is about 99%.
Milhouse, at the time of the study there was a shift from hating the Jew being antisemitism to the claim of antizionism so that one could not be called an antisemite This has nothing to do with Haredi. It was merely a switch of terms.
The Gray Lady and Jane Fonda are more similar that you might think.
Both are getting more gray evert day.
Both create information without truth as a factor.
Both are getting more and more emotional and extreme.
Both think they’re still beautiful and sexy.
and
Both seem kind of bitchy these days.