Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 05/17/2026 5:07:51 PM PDT by Libloather
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.
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%).
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Let the Slushburgers pay and pay.
The NYT is guilty of many Slander and LIES from almost every breath.
Bibi should correctly, “own” the Times.
The World knows this, not just those in the USA.
I seem to remember a similar lawsuit by Ariel Sharon against a U.S. media outlet in the 1980s that kind of faded out of the news.
1. The article was so exceptionally and obviously a gross lie as to defy legal defense
2. The court’s New York Times v. Sullivan high evidentiary standard has proven to have been too strictly rigged in the publishers’ favor — many legal and political science scholars know this —- that it needs some adjusting to strike a much better balance between freedom of the press and the rights of those that get smeared by the press. The original court clearly could or did not foresee such extreme smears lies and character assasinatiobs as we’ve seen in some instances.
I think the suit has a good chance based on the need for repairing the earlier case ruling —
Part 2:
So—-(1) the article appears to meet the strict Sullivan case threshold for recovery — so the case “should” on its merits get to trial
And
(2) The supreme court may very well take advantage of this opportunity to “tweak” or “clarify” (adjust, repair) that (overly- strict) evidentiary it’s card (which has caused many I hired plaintiffs to be blocked from recovering any thing for the D’s she’s harms injuries only ted in them by irresponsible or vicious media )
Ex-Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon sued Time magazine for libel in a US federal court in 1983, following a cover story about his role in the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre in Beirut, Lebanon.
Sharon sued for $50 million, claiming a Time article falsely stated that he had encouraged Lebanese Phalangist militias to massacre Palestinian civilians.
A New York jury found that the article was defamatory.
However, the jury ruled against Sharon because he could not prove “actual malice” —
the legal standard required to prove libel against a public figure in the US.
Although Sharon lost the overall case in the US, he
declared victory, stating he had proved the magazine lied.
Time later settled a separate, related lawsuit brought by Sharon
in Israel, regarding a secret document referenced in their article.
The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com
TIME MAGAZINE AND SHARON SETTLE LIBEL SUIT
Jan 23, 1986
Is this why they ran it as an “op-ed”? They must have known how sketchy were the claims, and that they could distance themselves from Kristof’s “opinion”?
Unfortunately, this article is not a lie. There is extensive documentation and reporting alleging that the IDF has committed acts including sexual violence and other crimes against humanity against Palestinians. Many critics and human rights organizations have described Israel’s treatment of Palestinians as apartheid, and some have accused it of ethnic cleansing or genocide. The sooner the United States separates its policies from Zionist political influence, the better off we will be.
Most likely you are right.
There must be some small print that “these are the author’s opinions and in no way, shape or form reflect the opinion of the publication” or some such legalese.
The allegations, I read them, they were presented with not even a modicum of proof, so I dismissed them as fiction until proven (and I’m nit even talking about dodgy proof, but ZERO proof was offered up by the auth6ir)
All the news that’s fit to print.
I always like to ask why the news media never gets sued for consumer fraud, being their product is news and information , knowing every statement is a statement of TRUTH. Every sentence is predicated by “ it is true that..”
One would think that to print something untrue in that business, it implies malice afforethought
We hope for a great success
Hope so. Probably the newspaper of wretched will wind up on the block, unless saved by some a-hole Demwit judge.
Or a quiet settlement in under not to hurt its image.
<>The sooner the United States separates its policies from Zionist political influence, the better off we will be.<>
Israel has been designated as a U.S. Major Non-NATO Ally under U.S. law.
This status provides foreign partners with certain benefits in the areas of defense trade and security cooperation and is a powerful symbol of their close relationship with the United States.
Consistent with statutory requirements, it is the policy of the United States to help Israel preserve its QME, or its ability to counter and defeat any credible conventional military threat from any individual state or possible coalition of states or from non-state actors, while sustaining minimal damages and casualties.
This requires a quadrennial report to Congress, for arms transfers that are required to be Congressionally notified, and a determination that individual arms transfers to the region will not adversely affect Israel’s QME.
https://2021-2025.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-israel/
Don’t like it? Tough. Petition your Congressional reps.
Israel’s Major Non NATO Ally status and QME policy support defense cooperation and arms sales; they do not legally require the U.S. to go to war for Israel or bypass Congress to attack Iran. Unlike NATO Article 5, there is no automatic mutual defense obligation, and Congress still retains constitutional war powers.
I would argue that attacking Iran without direct congressional authorization is illegal, especially since Iran had not attacked the United States and the IAEA repeatedly stated it had no evidence of an active Iranian nuclear weapons program.
That is a statement of your opinion.
There is extensive documentation and reporting alleging that the IDF has committed acts including sexual violence and other crimes against humanity against Palestinians.
I have never seen "extensive documentation" regarding the allegations raised by staunch enemies of Israel. I have seen many unsubstantiated claims taken at face value by those who oppose Israel.
Many critics and human rights organizations have described Israel’s treatment of Palestinians as apartheid, and some have accused it of ethnic cleansing or genocide.
Ah yes - guilt by accusation! That is a logical fallacy, and is anathema to the United States' collective legal philosophy.
The sooner the United States separates its policies from Zionist political influence, the better off we will be.
You have clearly stated your opinion. I disagree whole heartedly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.