State of Israel v. New York Times?

The vow by Israel to levy a defamation lawsuit against the New York Times for what Jerusalem calls the “most hideous and distorted lies ever published against the State of Israel in the modern press” could prove a watershed. At issue is a column published by Nick Kristof, twice awarded the Pulitzer. He alleges an “organized state policy” of rape against Palestinian Arabs in Israeli prisons, including by dogs “coached to rape prisoners.”Israel’s path to victory, if it actually files a suit, would be steep. Mr. Netanyahu declares that the Times defamed the “soldiers of Israel and perpetuated a blood libel about rape, trying to create a false symmetry between the genocidal terrorists of Hamas and Israel’s valiant soldiers.” Mr. Kristof’s column landed one day before the publication of a documented account by the Civil Commission on October 7th Crimes Against Women and Children.Mr. Kristof leans on lurid dispatches from a Geneva-based non-profit, Euro‑Med Human Rights Monitor, as well as personal testimonies. The group’s current and former chairmen of the board were both in 2013 identified by Israel as among Hamas’s “main operatives and institutions” in Europe. Euro-Med has also promoted debunked allegations that Israel harvested Palestinian organs. It has accused Israel of massacres that never happened.The HonestReporting watchdog takes the position that Mr. Kristof’s dispatch “relies on a patchwork of omissions, dubious sources and ever‑more lurid allegations, serving more to demonize Israel than to clarify what actually happened.” The Times, though, is doubling down. It has issued no fewer than three defenses of what it calls Mr. Kristof’s “deeply reported piece of opinion journalism.” It cites unnamed “independent studies” as ballast.The legal field is tilted toward the Times. Opinion itself is almost immune from attack in court. The libel standard in New York Times v. Sullivan is daunting — “actual malice.” The defamatory statement is required to be made with “knowledge of its falsity” or “reckless disregard for the truth.” Sullivan notes that “No court of last resort in this country has ever held, or even suggested, that prosecutions for libel on government have any place.” Sullivan proved too high a hill to climb even for Governor Sarah Palin in her suit against the Gray Lady. She alleged defamation following an editorial that suggested that an advertisement affiliated with her campaign resulted in the shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords and the murder of six others. In that instance, the Times swiftly corrected and apologized for the insinuation. Ms. Palin has dropped her appeal and vowed to “get on with life.”Israel, though, has no Wasilla to which to retreat. The Jewish state is locked in battle and assailed for acting in self-defense. Whether Mr. Kristof or Israel prevails in court is less important than contesting efforts to invert the identities of victim and perpetrators. Taking seriously credible allegations of abuse is a different matter entirely than laundering the thinly supported claims surfaced by Mr. Kristof. Mr. Netanyahu vows to fight in “the court of law” as well as the “court of public opinion.” A lawsuit in Israel or America might be able to gain access to internal communications that shed light on how a piece dripping with malice — in the vernacular if not legal sense — came to be published. The Sullivan standard has been questioned by, among others, jurists as distinguished as Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Generally, we’re against suits for libel. Allowing a government to sue for libel, if that’s what Israel is considering, could set a dangerous precedent. Yet Prime Minister Netanyahu makes a point when he stresses that the IDF’s valiant soldiers deserve to be defended. Years ago, Ariel Sharon sued Time magazine. He lost the claim of libel, per se, but the jury sharply criticized the magazine. Many felt that Sharon was vindicated on that head.

State of Israel v. New York Times?

State of Israel v. New York Times?

More from the New York Sun

The Midterms: Time, Place, and Trump

Christian Democrat Minister Calls for Possible ‘Last Resort’ Ban of AfD in Germany

Steve Hilton Proposes Eliminating the ‘Symbol’ of California’s ‘Nanny State Bureaucracy’ — the DMV

Trump Dangles Pardon for Cohen After Claiming Former Fixer Recanted Stormy Daniels Accusations

Ford Fights Charge It’s Selling Out to Chinese Manufacturers While Ignoring ‘National Security Concerns’

A Rake’s Progress Through the Rolodex

Can Europe Get Serious on Israel?

Democrats Demand Judge Reverse His Own Ruling on Missouri Redistricting, Citing Kavanaugh’s Decision To Side With Them

More from the New York Sun

The Midterms: Time, Place, and Trump

Christian Democrat Minister Calls for Possible ‘Last Resort’ Ban of AfD in Germany

Steve Hilton Proposes Eliminating the ‘Symbol’ of California’s ‘Nanny State Bureaucracy’ — the DMV

Trump Dangles Pardon for Cohen After Claiming Former Fixer Recanted Stormy Daniels Accusations

Ford Fights Charge It’s Selling Out to Chinese Manufacturers While Ignoring ‘National Security Concerns’

A Rake’s Progress Through the Rolodex

Can Europe Get Serious on Israel?

Democrats Demand Judge Reverse His Own Ruling on Missouri Redistricting, Citing Kavanaugh’s Decision To Side With Them