|
Trending Topics
|
Why We Can't Move On from a Blood Libel
(JNS) Jonathan S. Tobin - On May 11, the New York Times published Nicholas Kristof's astonishing compendium of charges that the State of Israel is deliberately raping Palestinian Arab prisoners by training dogs to sexually assault them. In the week since then, the question hanging over both the newspaper and its critics is: what, if any, consequences would there be for publishing a 21st-century blood libel. Yet this piece of journalistic malpractice generated applause from its core readership. The article sparked outrage from those who pointed out the lack of credible evidence to back up this astonishing charge. It also prompted cheers from Israel-bashers and antisemites everywhere, who view it as something they could place alongside the false accusations about the Jewish state committing "genocide" and creating mass starvation in Gaza, as well as practicing "apartheid" at home. The paper's management stood by Kristof. Israel's government is likely to follow up on its threat to sue the newspaper, even if most legal experts think that such an effort would be a waste of time. There is a genuine danger of embarrassing and damaging revelations for the newspaper in any legal proceeding, regardless of whether it would be successful. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley points out that while the Jewish state is unlikely to be able to sue the Times and Kristof for libel, soldiers who were implicated in the story may be able to do so. Mark Goldfeder, CEO of the National Jewish Advocacy Center, thinks Israelis can sue the Times in an Israeli court, though not for libel. By holding them accountable under a civil-law charge of "injurious falsehood" and "negligent publication," they can create a viable case. Doing so will mean an opening that will allow Israelis to go to the federal district court in New York City, and then "compel evidence production from a U.S. entity for use in foreign litigation." He notes, "A properly framed application does not ask the court to adjudicate the case; it simply asks the court to order the Times to produce the factual basis for one published allegation." The result would mean that the Times and Kristof would have to produce the evidence it claims to hold, how it obtained that evidence, and other information and communications that might undermine its credibility. The newspaper crossed a line with its absurd story about dogs being trained to rape human beings. The dog-rape charge is so ridiculous and utterly without substantiation - animal trainer after animal trainer have attested to the improbability and impossibility of it happening - that only someone already drenched in both Jew-hatred and ideas about journalists not having to prove their allegations could believe it.