NYT Accused of Hamas Ties—Explosive Allegation!

Magnifying glass over The New York Times website.

A pro-Israel House Democrat is publicly questioning whether The New York Times is on Hamas’s payroll after the paper’s star columnist published an unverified, explosive column accusing Israeli forces of using dogs to sexually abuse Palestinian prisoners.

Story Highlights

Rep. Josh Gottheimer blasted The New York Times after columnist Nicholas Kristof published allegations of dog-facilitated sexual abuse of Palestinian prisoners — claims experts and Israeli officials flatly reject.
Kristof himself acknowledged in the column that “there is no evidence that Israeli leaders order rapes” and that his reporting relied on conversations with 14 unnamed sources.
Jewish and pro-Israel commentators are calling the column a “modern-day blood libel,” while the Washington Examiner labeled it “grotesque journalistic malpractice.”
Gottheimer, a Jewish Democrat from New Jersey, has previously written that too many in his own party are “noticeably, shamefully silent” about antisemitism on the far left.

Democrat Fires Back at the Times

Representative Josh Gottheimer, a Democratic congressman from New Jersey and one of the most vocal pro-Israel voices in his party, publicly condemned The New York Times after Nicholas Kristof published a column containing unverified allegations of sexual abuse of Palestinian prisoners by Israeli forces. Gottheimer’s reaction was blunt — questioning whether the paper is effectively on Hamas’s payroll. His statement was rhetorical, but the fury behind it was real and reflected growing frustration with legacy media’s Israel coverage.

Gottheimer’s outrage did not emerge in a vacuum. He has previously written in The New York Times itself that too many Democrats are “noticeably, shamefully silent” about Jew-hatred on the far left, calling it a “glaring double standard.” His willingness to call out his own party — and now one of the left’s most trusted media institutions — signals that the post-October 7 reckoning over antisemitism in progressive circles is far from over.

What Kristof Actually Wrote — and Admitted

Kristof’s column alleged that Israeli forces used dogs to sexually abuse Palestinian prisoners held in detention. Critically, Kristof himself acknowledged within the piece that “there is no evidence that Israeli leaders order rapes” and that his reporting was based on conversations with 14 unnamed individuals. No named witnesses, no medical documentation, no prison identification records, and no corroborating physical evidence were cited. Experts who reviewed the column slammed it for relying entirely on unverifiable, anonymous sourcing on an extraordinarily serious allegation.

Israeli officials and the Israel Defense Forces rejected the claims outright. Jewish advocacy organizations and analysts described the column as a revival of the “blood libel” — the centuries-old antisemitic trope of accusing Jews of horrific crimes against innocents without factual basis. Jewish Insider’s daily briefing captured the reaction succinctly, headlining its coverage “NYT’s modern-day blood libel.” The Washington Examiner went further, calling Kristof’s work “grotesque journalistic malpractice” for platforming unverified atrocity allegations against a U.S. ally.

A Pattern of Unaccountable Media Bias

This episode fits a disturbing pattern in how major legacy outlets like The New York Times cover the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Opinion columnists with massive platforms publish inflammatory, poorly sourced allegations that damage Israel’s reputation globally — and face virtually no institutional accountability when the sourcing collapses. Kristof even noted pushback from Iranians after a separate column criticizing what he called “the folly of attacking Iran,” suggesting his editorial instincts consistently align with narratives hostile to U.S. and Israeli interests in the region.

For conservative readers who have watched the mainstream media spend years pushing unverified narratives — from Russiagate to COVID lab-leak suppression — none of this is surprising. What is notable is that a sitting Democratic congressman is now making the same argument conservatives have made for years: that The New York Times operates with an ideological agenda that distorts its coverage. There is no documented financial link between the Times and Hamas, and Gottheimer’s “payroll” language was rhetorical. But the underlying question — why a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist would publish explosive, unverified atrocity allegations against a democratic U.S. ally — deserves a straight answer the Times has not provided.