Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
Meet the ‘famous’ Oxford University library cat who’s been keeping students company during their studies.
Cat Isambard Kitten Brunel, also known as Issy, makes a bus commute to the library alongside his owner Jamie Fishwick-Ford, every day.
Jamie, who is a librarian at Lady Margaret Hall at one of the colleges at Oxford University, began bringing the feline, also known as Issy, to work six years ago.
And the fluffy Siberian forest cat, who spends his days lounging in Jamie’s office, has quickly become a hit with students, gaining a loyal following.
His 43-year-old owner explained that while the cat does not freely roam around the college or the library, he only leaves his office to be petted or for outdoor exercise.
‘He’s proved very popular with the students, and he definitely loves to be loved by them,’ she said. ‘There are some students who come to see him several times a week.
‘Lots of people bring friends and family to meet him, and he’s become a bit of an unofficial mascot. He even appears on some of our outreach team’s stickers.’
After Jamie got Issy in September 2019, he began bringing her to work immediately despite being told the college was ‘very dog-orientated’.
. . .’College had a policy allowing you to bring dogs to work, as long as they mostly stayed in your office and you got permission from anyone else whose office they visited.’
She added: ‘But I prefer cats! I decided to get a cat and bring them to work instead of a dog. I follow the same policy as the dogs’
The much-loved feline mostly travels on his owner’s shoulders and can often be spotted wearing a harness and lead.
‘He’s also used as an unofficial welfare animal, and he’s very empathetic,’ Jamie explained.
‘He’s always very friendly and calm, but he’s even more so when someone is upset or crying, he’s had several people come to him in tears after they’ve accidentally deleted their dissertations or so on.
‘I deliberately got a Siberian Forest Cat because they are hypoallergenic, so it wouldn’t set people’s allergies off as much, both in the library and on the commute.’
There is something about cats and libraries or bookstores. Everyone loves Issy:
Jamie said Issy has become a local celebrity with people stopping her in the streets to ask if he is the famous library cat and to get a photo with him.
‘On the bus he expects to get attention from the other passengers – and will ‘miaow’ until he gets fussed by them,’ she added.
‘He also visits my local pub with me fairly frequently. They have a policy of allowing dogs, and I just apply that to him too.
‘Other colleges also sometimes ask for visits from the famous library cat, so we go to visit them and give their students a chance to meet him.’
Though I can’t put up the pictures, you can see Issy and Jamie in this 2-minute video:
********************
From I Heart Cats, we learn about a white cat named Boy who is a one-truck moggie: he dies flips. Click to read:
An excerpt:
Silence rarely lasts long in Boy’s home, and that is exactly how he likes it. Just when things seem calm, his loud, persistent cries fill the room, demanding immediate attention. It is not the kind of sound that signals trouble or fear. Instead, it carries a sense of urgency mixed with excitement, as if he has something important to share. Boy calls out to his mom with determination, refusing to be ignored, fully expecting her to turn and watch whatever amusing stunt he is about to perform next.
His trick:
Once he knows she is watching, the real show begins.
Boy has developed a routine that feels both chaotic and carefully planned. With a burst of energy, he launches himself into a dramatic front flip. But he does not stop there. His chosen landing spots are often the most unexpected places in the kitchen. Cabinets, appliances, and anything solid seem to be part of his performance space. He flips straight into them with a level of confidence that is both baffling and impressive.
To anyone else, it might look like an accident. But Boy makes it clear this is intentional. There is a rhythm to it. A build-up, a leap, a dramatic landing. And then, without fail, he turns to his mom as if waiting for approval.
Boy does not just want attention. He thrives on it. His loud cries before each stunt feel like an announcement, almost like he is saying, “Watch this.” His mom cannot help but laugh every single time. The way he throws himself into his flips, followed by that proud pause, turns each moment into something unforgettable.
There is something deeply endearing about the way he seeks connection. His antics are not just random bursts of energy. They are his way of bonding. Each flip, each dramatic crash into a kitchen appliance, is followed by that look. A silent request for applause.
You’ve waited long enough: here is Boy doing his trick, including the pre-trick screams:
What a narcissist!
********************
Lagniappe: We have two bits today. First, the evolutionary achievement of house cats:
Extra lagniappe: PHILOMENA!!!!
A famous face from TV is fronting a fundraising campaign to help a small cat rescue in the south Wales valleys to open a new dedicated rescue centre.
Motherland and Philomena Cunk star Diane Morgan was so moved by the story of Moggies Cat Rescue in Aberdare, she stepped in to help and agreed to become their patron.
Now, the rescue, which was founded 12 years ago by friends Eileen Sewell and Doreen Miller, is hoping that with Diane’s help they can grow and raise funds for a new dedicated rescue centre.
A keen animal rights supporter, the actress came to hear about Moggies, which has rehomed more than 125 cats in the past 12 months, through a mutual friend.
She was keen to visit the rescue and on a recent visit to Aberdare met with staff and volunteers, as well the cats currently in Moggies care.
The comedy star, who has Welsh roots, said: “I’m extremely proud to be patron of Moggies. I’m a big animal rights supporter and when I saw what Doreen and Eileen are trying to achieve it really touched me.
“They’re working so hard to provide injured or unwanted cats with shelter and medical help. They rely solely on donations and their kindness is truly heartwarming.
“Growing up I had a cat called Merlin who was my whole world, so I have a real soft spot for cats.”
Now the charity with Diane’s help have launched the fundraiser with an ambitious target of £250,000 to build a new dedicated cat rescue centre in the valleys.
To find out more about the fundraiser and to donate click HERE
Welcome to CaturSaturday, May 16, 2025, shabbos for Jewish cats, and National Barbecue Day. Many countries have barbecue, but the U.S. form, especially Texas beef, is the best. Here’s a giant beef rib dinner from Black’s BBQ in Lockhart, Texas. Look at that plate! (Included: BBQ beans, raw onion, a jalapeño corn muffin, potato salad, and extra BBQ sauce.) I usually get brisket, but that day I treated myself to the pricier beef rib, which turned out to be fabulous. (I did finish my lunch.) If you get to central Texas, be sure to visit Lockhart, which, though small (pop. 14,379), for some reason has become the state’s barbecue capital, with at least five famous joints. I think Black’s is the best.
John Ratcliffe, the C.I.A. director, traveled to Cuba on Thursday, a day after Havana admitted that its fuel oil supplies have been exhausted for consumers and businesses.
Mr. Ratcliffe made the visit to deliver a warning to the government that it had to make economic changes and stop allowing Russia and China to operate intelligence posts in Cuba, U.S. officials said on Thursday.
Mr. Ratcliffe is the highest-ranking Trump administration official to visit Cuba. His trip is part of a multifaceted campaign to escalate pressure against the Communist government and fulfill President Trump’s demand for regime change.
In a statement, the C.I.A. said that Mr. Ratcliffe had traveled to Havana to personally deliver President Trump’s message “that the United States is prepared to seriously engage on economic and security issues, but only if Cuba makes fundamental changes.”
The C.I.A. said Mr. Ratcliffe had met with Raúl G. Rodríguez Castro, known as “Raulito” or “El Cangrejo” (the Crab), the influential grandson of former president Raúl Castro. Mr. Ratcliffe also met with Lázaro Álvarez Casas, the minister of the interior, as well as the head of Cuba’s intelligence services, a C.I.A. official said.
At the same time, federal prosecutors in Miami were working toward securing an indictment of the elder Mr. Castro, who remains a force in the country’s politics, according to several people familiar with the matter. The scope of the indictment and the number of defendants is being debated, but it could include drug trafficking charges and accusations connected to Cuba’s downing in 1996 of planes run by the humanitarian aid group Brothers to the Rescue, two of the people said.
Mr. Ratcliffe arrived in Cuba the day after Vicente de la O Levy, the minister of energy and mines, announced that oil supplies for domestic use and power plants had been exhausted.
“We have absolutely no fuel oil, absolutely no diesel,” he said. “In Havana, the blackouts today exceed 20 or 22 hours.”
The lack of oil has forced people to rely on charcoal or even wood to cook, and some people have taken to the streets, banging on pots and pans to express their frustration.
The Cuban government has been grappling with a severe energy crisis for more than two years because of crumbling infrastructure and a dwindling oil supply from Venezuela, its longtime benefactor.
Venezuelan fuel stopped flowing to Cuba entirely in January, after the United States seized Venezuela’s leader and took control of its oil industry. Later, the Trump administration imposed an effective blockade barring all foreign oil from reaching Cuba, which had also received shipments from Mexico.
I retain an affection for the people of Cuba, as everyone I know who’s visited the country remarked on the friendliness of the people. I have no use for their despotic government, but does the U.S. have the right (or the ethical impetus) to blockade the oil of that country? I don’t think so. I would dearly love for Cuba to become democratic, and I would like to visit (you can’t now unless you are part of a tour or get an official invite), but the U.S. has no business forcing Cuba to undergo regime change. We are not the world’s police.
Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and foreign minister, Gideon Sa’ar, have threatened to sue the New York Times for defamation over the publication of an essay by Nicholas Kristof detailing allegations that Palestinian women, men and children have been raped and sexually abused in Israeli military detention.
“Following the publication by Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times of one of the most hideous and distorted lies ever published against the State of Israel in the modern press, which also received the backing of the newspaper, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar have instructed the initiation of a defamation lawsuit against The New York Times,” Israel’s ministry of foreign affairs wrote in a social media post on Thursday.
“They 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,” Netanyahu added in a statement to Reuters. “We will fight these lies in the court of public opinion and in the court of law. Truth will prevail.”
“This threat, similar to one made last year, is part of a well-worn political playbook that aims to undermine independent reporting and stifle journalism that does not fit a specific narrative,” Danielle Rhoades Ha, a New York Times spokesperson, said in a Thursday statement. “Any such legal claim would be without merit.
“Nick has covered sexual violence for decades, and is widely regarded as one of the world’s best on-the-ground journalists in documenting and bearing witness to sexual abuse experienced by women and men in war and conflict zones,” the statement continued.
The paper has repeatedly defended Kristof’s reporting over the last few days.
But can Israel sue a newspaper for defamation? The article implies not:
It is not clear in which jurisdiction Israeli officials would bring the lawsuit or whether defamation claims could even be filed by a government.
“There is no chance a US court would countenance such a case,” said David A Logan, a professor emeritus at the Roger Williams School of Law and media law expert.
There is a legal consensus, he added, that the first amendment bars lawsuits or prosecutions of critics of government brought by the government.
Mark Stephens, an expert in international media law, called the idea of Israel suing the Times “ludicrous”. “Libel is about hurt feelings, being shunned and avoided and isolated as a human (sentient) being,” he said in an email. “This is as much about politics as it is about law – and courts are alert to the difference.”
In some ways this is unfortunate, as Kristof made specific allegations, but perhaps suppose that unnamed Israeli authorities or soldiers could consider themselves defamed if their organization is defamed for sexual assault on Palestinians. I do wish that there were some way that Kristof could be called to account–made to defend his allegations more precisely. We will not, however, see a news piece in the NYT following up on Kristof’s claims. He’s there for good.
*As usual, I’ll steal a few items from Nellie Bowles’s weekly news-and-snark column in the Free Press, called this week, “TGIF: sort of a fat slob.”
→ 2028 coming into swing: Polls for the next presidential race are starting! Already! It’s LOL-a-poll-ooza. And 2028 is going to be our first election without Trump in 800 years, so it’s sure to be very weird. This is the latest from AtlasIntel, a reputable shop, but still, polls now are primarily just licking a finger and waving it around in the wind.
From the Dems, we have, despite no one announcing their candidacy: AOC at 26 percent, then Buttigieg and Newsom right behind her at 22 and 21 percent. From the Repubs, it’s RUBIO at 45 percent, then Vance at 30 percent, and DeSantis at 11 percent. We might have a Latina versus Latino presidential race in 2028, and I, for one, cannot wait. I can see it now. There will be many references to abuelas, debates over whether the American dream is real, or if Cuban counts as Latino at all, a memory hole of Latinx, you know what’s up. We are all going to have to pretend that descendants of the hottest, most ruthless conquistadors are indigenous tribespeople. Okay, that’s just AOC. But I’m really excited. I genuinely like them both. I’m rooting for them both. I’d even love Meatball Ron versus Gavin Newsom.
AOC leading the polls? Shoot me now! But wait!— there’s more!
→ Go ahead, AOC. Say it to Beyoncé: Appearing on comedian Ilana Glazer’s podcast in a May 7 interview, AOC said: “There’s a certain level of wealth and accumulation that is unearned, right? You can’t earn a billion dollars. You just can’t earn that. You can get market power, you can break rules, you can do all sorts of things. You can abuse labor laws, you can pay people less than what they’re worth, but you can’t earn that, right? And so you have to create a myth, that—since you didn’t earn that, you have to create a myth of earning it.” So, you’re saying Beyoncé didn’t earn it? You think she didn’t fight for every penny? How about Oprah? The scoreboard doesn’t care about your excuses, AOC. I dare you to tell Taylor Swift that she’s only a billionaire because she abused labor laws.
→ Oh no, the Russian nuke ship accidentally sank:
The only thing I share with antisemites is a belief that when something mysterious happens, I figure it must be Israel.
→ NYU kids vs. Jon Haidt: In an episode so validating it almost feels made up, NYU’s Student Government Assembly issued a statement opposing the selection of Jonathan Haidt as the Class of 2026 commencement speaker, because of what they say is his “disturbing rhetoric.” They call his selection “deeply unsettling.” Haidt is the author of The Anxious Generation and has been a major figure in the movement to reduce screen time in childhood. He also warned that shielding students from opinions they disagree with, or even find offensive, might be to their detriment. Here’s from the NYU Student Government Assembly letter protesting him:
Since the announcement on Thursday, April 30, many students have reported feelings of disappointment, disgust, unenthusiasm, defeat, and embarrassment—feeling that their commencement, intended to be a celebratory moment, has instead become another instance of being misunderstood.
Well, indeed. His graduation speech, delivered this week, spewed vile bigotry such as: “What you pay attention to shapes what you care about. And what you care about shapes who you become.” It included these deeply disturbing lines from a poem by Mary Oliver: Pay attention. / Be astonished. / Tell about it.Students booed. And I stand with them. Why? Because it’s enough already, Jon Haidt. Your book was on the bestseller list for, what, a billion weeks? (Actually, 106 weeks. One hundred and six weeks.) Leave some room for some other heterodox Free Pressers. When I think about that fact and your literary success, well, Jon, I also report feelings of unenthusiasm and defeat.
Haidt in fact turned out to be a good graduation speaker, but what he said doesn’t matter to the kids; he’s demonized for his (entirely reasonable) books. You can see part of his speech here.
A 38-year-old Washington man has been arrested for allegedly throwing a rock at a monk seal on the shores of Maui in early May, an incident that was caught on video and quickly went viral.
The monk seal is well-known to locals who have named her “Lani.” [JAC: I think they’ve now determined it was a different monk seal, but still one known to locals.]
“Lani, we have your back,” Maui County Mayor Richard Bissen said in a May 7 statement via Instagram. “And we hope to see you swimming by Front Street for many years to come.”
Mayor Bissen noted that members of his team in the Lahaina area of Maui have been tracking and looking out for Lani the seal “for some time now.”
“Lani is not just a seal to us,” he said. “She is part of our ocean ‘Ohana in Lahaina. Many of our residents know her, watch over her, and care deeply about her well being.”
. . .Special agents with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration arrestedIgor Mykhaylovych Lytvynchuk near Seattle on Wednesday, May 13. Lytvynchuk, 38, is a resident of Covington, Wash., roughly 30 miles southeast from Seattle.
On May 5, bystanders took video of a man walking along the beach in the Lahaina area of Maui as he followed a monk seal, Lani, in the nearby shallow water. The seal was swimming and pushing a log. The man then took a large rock — one witness described it as the size of a coconut — and threw it at the seal, nearly hitting its head.The seal was startled and reared out of the water. Lani was motionless for a time, avoiding the shore, after the scare.
“Let me be clear, this is not the kind of visitor we welcome on Maui,” Mayor Bissen said in his May 7 statement. “We welcome respectful visitors who understand that our culture, environment, and wildlife must be treated with care and aloha. Behavior like this will not be tolerated.”
After obtaining video of the incident, agents were able to compare images of the man with Lytvynchuk’s Washington state driver’s license photo. They then tracked him down at a nearby resort. He was contacted there and exercised his right to remain silent.
Lytvynchuk has now been charged with harassing and attempting to harass an endangered Hawaiian monk seal, which is a violation of the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. He made his first court appearance Thursday morning at the federal courthouse in Seattle.
Shortly after the rock-throwing incident, witnesses confronted the man and said they had called police. According to charging documents, the man told witnesses that he was “rich enough to pay the fines” and walked away as Lani was immobile in the water. Such fines could add up to $50,000 for violating the Endangered Species Act, and up to $20,000 under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. He also faces a potential year in prison and supervised release, if convicted.
I am happy they found this jerk, and I hope that, if he’s convicted, they throw the book at him, including locking him up. I think he’s being outed and shunned on social media, and I’m not weeping about that, either. You can see the criminal complaint here. Here is the first page of the full complaint and a picture of the accused (from the complaint):
*Margaret Sullivan was the last “public editor” of the NYT, responsible for publicizing and correcting errors in the paper. As I said yesterday, the paper did away with those editors. But the last one commented yesterday on the paper, her old job, and Nicholas Kristof’s odious column. Here’s the caption from Facebook:
The Times’ last public editor has reshared Hen Mazzig‘s essay “The Last Public Editor,” about the New York Times’ ethical collapse since getting rid of public editors.
Danish authorities were checking on Friday if a dead whale found in its waters might be a humpback nicknamed Timmy whose protracted rescue and release captivated neighboring Germany.
The juvenile male was guided through a freshly dredged channel onto a water-filled barge before being taken out to the North Sea earlier this month in an operation funded by two wealthy Germans off Timmendorfer beach for which it was named.
That split public opinion, with some Germans saying it would be better to put down the whale as it appeared to be disoriented or ill and would suffer too much stress in the operation.
Denmark’s Environmental Protection Agency said the dead humpback found near the small island of Anholt in the Kattegat strait about 200 km (124 miles) away could be Timmy and tissue samples had been collected for potential identification.
Timmy was also carrying a temporary GPS tag, which could also serve as potential identification. It would be very sad if he died, but many experts said that the removal exercise was probably futile.
Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is anxious:
Hili: The vastness of the universe terrifies me.
Andrzej: Ignore it, or go see a psychotherapist.
In Polish:
Hili: Przeraża mnie bezmiar wszechświata.
Ja: Ignoruj to, albo idź do psychterapeuty.
From Masih, who argues that Iran is buying time until the Democrats get into power in the U.S. Have a look at the figures shown at the beginning of this clip.
From Luana: Maeve Halligan, an LGBTQ activist at Cambridge University, argues that some full-alphabet gender activists are making life hard for gay and bisexual people (11.5 minute video, and worth watching):
“No, I don’t subscribe to this ‘kindness’ – I’ll tell the truth instead.”
I spoke at the Cambridge Union last night about LGBs, children’s safety and women’s rights. Full video here: pic.twitter.com/XpUFS4hYjU
I love this annual tour. Translation from the Korean below:
In Minneapolis, Minnesota, a cat tour is held every year. Residents seat their cats by the windows, and hundreds of people come out to the streets to see those cats. This year marks the eighth time. The world’s most peaceful event truly exists.
미국 미네소타주 미네아폴리스에서는 매년 고양이 투어가 열린다. 주민들이 자신의 고양이를 창가에 앉혀두고, 수백 명이 그 고양이를 보러 거리로 나온다. 올해로 8회째다. 세상에서 가장 평화로운 행사가 실제로 존재한다. pic.twitter.com/P5BCEckdYN
— 고양이 트윗 번역계猫ポスト翻訳垢🐱 (@nihongowacaran) May 15, 2026
One I reposted from The Auschwitz Memorial:
This Dutch Jewish girl was gassed as soon as she arrived in Auschwitz. She was 7 years old and would be 91 today had she lived.
And two from Dr. Cobb. First, North America’s only marsupial:
North America's only marsupials, opossums have a 13 day gestation.After birth, the bee-sized babies spend 6-9 weeks in the pouch attached to a nipple, then another 4-5 months riding on mom's back.During the 'baby-bus' phase, she continues to forage.This momma has a mustache made of baby tails.
Duck: King Eiders, which some (mistakenly) think are the world’s most beautiful ducks. In fact, they rank third—after the Mandarin Duck and the Wood Duck.
Birding day with @welshnaturelady.bsky.social few RTD, GND at Tarbet Ness. Osprey at Loch Fleet also King Eider at mouth of Loch Fleet by Littleferry, oddly enough one was reported twice on birdguides at the same time off Skelbo on Bird Guides#BirdingScotland
Raising Hare was published by Pantheon books in 2024; it’s a relatively new and short book (2024; 284 pages) by Chloe Dalton, who worked for the UK government as a foreign-policy advisor. But her regular work receded in importance when she came across a baby female European hare—a leveret—huddled in the bush in her country residence. Her decision to take in the orphaned baby changed her life and character in many ways, all recounted in this wonderful memoir which has won many prizes. I recommend it very highly.
The book is not mawkish at all, but observant and thoughtful. Most of it is devoted to her perceptions of the hare (which she never names), an animal that she lets run free indoors and out, though it usually spends most of its time in her house. The narrative lasts three years, during which the hare has six leverets of her own. Dalton becomes engrossed with its behavior and studies the literature on hares extensively in addition to her own constant observations. All this results in the reader becoming deeply educated about an animal that few see—except running away at a distance.
It turns out that hares are not only playful, but extraordinarily patient, sitting in one spot for hours. (The leverets are largely left alone after birth, huddled inconspicuously in the vegetation save for a brief daily period when the mother suckles them.) The adults, too, spend a lot of their time flattened in places where predators are less likely to attack them. After all, hares have been called “nature’s buffet,” for they are herbivores but are attacked by all manner of carnivores.
Dalton spends a fair amount of time in introspection, wondering what it’s like to be a hare (a question never answered) and seeing how she herself has been changed by the constant presence of a wild animal. (I have to say that I’ve gone through something similar with ducks.) At any rate, the writing is first-rate, the natural history is thorough, and this is one of the best human-and-biology books I’ve ever read.
Two friends who have good taste in books recommended Raising Hare, and I didn’t look up any reviews before I read it. Now I will, so I’ve just read the NYT review here. An excerpt:
Despite less-than-encouraging words from a local conservationist about the leveret’s chances of survival, Dalton committed. For anyone who has hand-fed an unweaned animal in the hopes of saving its life, her anecdote about desperately eye-droppering lamb formula into the leveret’s mouth on their first night together will spark an instant flashback.
As she found out, the internet is full of information about rabbits (the hare’s smaller domesticated cousin), but there’s not much on hares themselves. She dug deep into the research, even consulting the 18th-century poetry of William Cowper for clues on which solids to feed the leveret, and reports, “Porridge oats were the final revelation. When I sprinkled a few oats in a bowl, it swallowed them with every appearance of satisfaction.”
Dalton did not name, tame or cage the animal, turning her house into a free-range hare bed-and-breakfast. Its behavior began to change her own: “I was moved by the leveret’s dignity, the sense of well-being and calm it spread, and the simplicity of its life.”
Adapting her own work-driven existence to the daily rhythms and environmental awareness introduced by her furry new housemate, she had an epiphany: “I’d been waiting for life to go back to normal, but if I could derive this much pleasure from something so simple, what else might be waiting to be discovered?” The irony of learning to slow down from an animal known for its speed is not lost here.
. . . To divulge much more of the book’s arc would rob the reader of its most revealing moments, especially as the hare matures and her priorities shift. But Dalton’s clear, measured prose and Denise Nestor’s delicate drawings provide a gentle cottagecore vibe and a bit of solace in a world that has now returned to an even more frenetic state. In “Raising Hare,” nature, indeed, takes its course.
The review is, in my view, far less enthusiastic than the book deserves, so here’s a bit from the Guardian review:
The cover and endpapers of Chloe Dalton’s debut, Raising Hare (beautifully illustrated by Denise Nestor) at first seem to resemble these children’s books: there are no rabbits, but hares, doing what hares do: inspecting berries, leaping, boxing, feeding young and gazing outward, apparently, towards the reader. The story of this excellent book is in one sense familiar: a narrator, experiencing a rupture or crisis, is transformed through a magical encounter with a “wild” creature, a hare. But there is much more going on here. As hare and narrator enter into conversation, their strange dialogue begins to shed light on our relationship with our non-human neighbours, bringing into question assumptions about control, consent, boundaries and autonomy. Unlike my daughter’s books, this is a sustained and patient attempt to cross the species abyss, and to see the world through the hare’s eyes.
That’s more like it. Here’s the cover, and you can click on it to access the Amazon review.
The NYT gives a photo of Dalton’s hare attributed to Dalton, so I don’t think I’m violating any journalistic rules to show those photos. Isn’t she beautiful?
(From the NYT): The hare at the heart of Chloe Dalton’s memoir.Credit…Chloe Dalton
Here’s an 18½-minute video of Dalton reading from the book and discussing its contents, including the changes the hare wrought in Dalton herself.
By now the whole world–at least the world that reads the news–knows about Nicholas Kristof’s long NYT op-ed column accusing Israel of systemic, institutional sexual violence against Palestinian prisoners. For those who already hate Israel, his unsubstantiated allegations will serve only to reinforce their hatred and antisemitism. For those who are open-minded or sympathetic to Israel, well, they do have to admit that the allegations are unsubstantiated. But, as the saying goes, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” Kristof is no dummy, and surely he knew that his claims would be snapped up by Israel haters and antisemites.
That is a good reason for Kristof to have verified all his sources and ensure that they had no history of bias (or at least the bias should have been made explicit)—something he did not do. This is in contrast to the Civil Commission on the October 7 Crimes Against Women and Children report, documenting Hamas’s sexual abuse during its invasion of Israel. The Commission has verification of all of its sources, including forensic evidence like photographs and bodies.
As most of Kristof’s critics have said, it is impossible to affirm that there was never any abuse of Palestinians by the IDF. But if you make an accusation that the abuse was both widespread and systemic, you’d better be able to back it up with evidence. Unfortunately, the NYT sees no need for that. relying on Kristof’s two Pulitzer Prizes and his claim that he interviewed witnesses brought forth by groups or people who can hardly be said to be unbiased. But yes, his claims should be investigated, but he would have to help the investigators by providing identities and documentation. I wouldn’t hold my breath until he does that.
In the meantime, it’s not hard to find criticisms online. I’ll just link to five new ones, showing an excerpt from each. I haven’t found people approving of Kristof’s claims, but then again I don’t read the kind of site that would do that. And those sites would have to independently try to verify Kristof’s claims, which nobody has done.
In [Kristof’s] piece, published curiously as an op-ed rather than a news investigation, Kristof accuses the State of Israel, its prison system, the IDF, and the Shin Bet of systemic rape of Palestinian prisoners—primarily men, but also women. These are serious accusations, and it is certainly possible, if not inevitable, that abuse, even sexual, occurs within the prison system, as it does in almost every prison system worldwide. Whenever there is real evidence of such acts, it must be properly investigated and the guilty punished. However, for accusations to be taken seriously, they must be backed by actual evidence. In this regard, Kristof’s column is an absolute failure.
The column falls short of almost any journalistic standard, according to [Hebrew University professor Danny] Orbach. He points out that the reporter relies on only 14 unverified and uncorroborated testimonies, lacking details that would allow for investigation, verification, or refutation, to claim that systemic sexual abuse is widespread throughout the Israeli prison system. For comparison, in 2020, approximately 16,000 complaints of sexual assault and harassment by guards against prisoners were recorded in the United States, with only a tiny fraction proven to be based on real incidents. Of Kristof’s witnesses, only two identify themselves by name or provide details that could help locate the case. One of them, Sami al-Sai, is presented by Kristof as a “journalist.” In reality, he is a Hamas propagandist who cheered the mass murders of October 7—hardly a reliable source. At the very least, Kristof owed his readers a disclosure regarding who this man is. Prominent journalists have already pointed out that the two identified witnesses provided Kristof with “reheated noodles”—versions that changed and became “more sophisticated” over time, adding new gruesome details every time they spoke to a different reporter.
If it ended there, one could dismiss Kristof’s article as merely a negligent op-ed, but Orbach stresses that from here, things deteriorate. He explains that a large portion of the anonymous testimonies come from Euro-Med Monitor, which Kristof presents as a “human rights monitor.” In reality, this is a Hamas front organization whose chairman, Ramy Abdu, cheered October 7 and spread debunked lies and conspiracy theories—such as massacres at Shifa Hospital, organ harvesting, or the claim that humanitarian aid contained only burial shrouds—claims not taken seriously even by most anti-Israel journalists during the war. Unsurprisingly, Kristof mentions nothing to his readers about this organization’s reputation. Furthermore, another “source” Kristof cited in a video interview as a “man in the know” is actually an Israeli Hamas supporter and delusional conspiracist who was dismissed from the university where he worked due to sexual offenses. A “man in the know,” indeed.
The interviewees, of course, were not found or selected by chance. This raises the question: who was Kristof’s “fixer”? Reporters who do not know the language almost always rely on local fixers, and Kristof claims he found the interviewees through “human rights organizations,” which Orbach suggests points to a pre-planned direction by Euro-Med or its ilk. In the Palestinian arena, there is a documented pattern of witness coaching and bias, a phenomenon rarely caught but exposed during the “Jenin Massacre” libel that never was in 2002.
. . . . So, what do we have here? A “respected war correspondent,” winner of two Pulitzer Prizes, accusing a state of systematic rape based on 14 testimonies—12 of them anonymous, two public but highly problematic—with zero disclosure regarding the witnesses or the biases of the organizations providing the information. Unlike the Civil Commission’s report on October 7, Orbach emphasizes that Kristof made no real attempt to cross-reference the testimonies, used no forensic evidence, and did not attempt to interview Israelis who served in prisons or civilian doctors. The only senior Israeli he did interview, Ehud Olmert, apparently never said what was attributed to him.
This is not Kristof’s first time. In the early 2000s, Kristof championed a Cambodian anti-prostitution activist, calling her a “hero” in column after column. When it turned out she was a fraud who staged the scenes that brought her fame, Kristof admitted the mistake and the paper apologized. His current column shows that his tendency to believe anyone who seems “just” to him, without critical source analysis, remains intact. He has learned nothing, Orbach concludes.
Nicholas Kristof raped my dog. At least that is what I have heard, from an anonymous source. A source who is intensely hostile to the New York Times columnist. And that’s good enough for me. Now I come to think of it, my pet pug has had a strange look on his face lately.
As it happens, the rumor that I have just attempted to spread is far less lurid and fanciful than the one that the New York Times chose to spread around the world this week.
In a piece which has already been widely debunked, Kristof claimed that Israeli prison guards routinely use rape as a method of torture on Palestinian prisoners. The piece portrayed Israeli prison guards and soldiers as rapists, sadists and akin to Nazi prison camp guards. Perhaps even worse.
. . . So here we get to the true question. Why would anyone make such a claim? And why would a purportedly serious newspaper publish it?
The reasons are several-fold. The first is that the New York Times story landed just a day before an anticipated report into Hamas’ use of sexual violence on October 7, 2023.
Many of us did not need further evidence of the crimes of that day. But the release of the commission of inquiry sets out in remorseless detail the “systematic, widespread” use of rape by Hamas on that day and the way in which sexual violence was “integral” to their attack.
It lays out the calculated way in which Hamas terrorists raped men and women on the day of the attack and raped Israeli hostages — men and women — while they were held in captivity in Gaza.
The findings include descriptions from footage, first-hand, eyewitness accounts and from mortuary photographs of the way in which Hamas members gang-raped women while killing them, and even raped their victims after killing them. It is impossible to think of crimes worse than those which Hamas committed on that day.
Unless you are Nicholas Kristof.
Because if you know that a report is coming out into Hamas’ use of sexual violence then it is clearly very important to invent a claim even more appalling than the real-life crimes of Hamas.
For the New York Times, it seems to have been crucial to throw a lie into the system in order to overwhelm or block any sympathy or understanding that might go in the direction of the Israelis.
The New York Times has leveled claims of antisemitism against a number of people in the past year. Sometimes accurately, sometimes not. But none of the worst things that Tucker Carlson or Nick Fuentes have ever said even comes close to the lie the New York Times has printed in its own pages. A paper that claims to be opposed to conspiracy theories has just mainstreamed the most disgusting conspiracy theory imaginable.
And just consider the effects of this.
The effect is to portray the soldiers and prison guards of the Jewish state as uniquely evil, uniquely disgusting and uniquely inhuman.
What wouldn´t someone do to express their disgust at such people? If Jews are the sort of people who can even turn dogs into rapists why shouldn’t a mob assemble outside the synagogues of New York? Why wouldn’t masked “activists” demonstrate their outrage by hounding Jewish children on the streets of this city? After all, the people they are going up against are uniquely evil. Right?
DS: You spent years inside the Associated Press bureau in Jerusalem. You know how sources are used, how the editorial decision-making works, and what the checks are on a reporter. Walk me through how a piece like this gets through.
MF:I was a correspondent for the AP from 2006 to 2011, and one thing that often isn’t clear to readers is the role NGOs play in creating the reporting readers actually see. The press corps is much weaker than it used to be—smaller staff, less experienced reporters, poor pay—and the demands of the 24-hour news cycle are much greater.
Into the vacuum created by that change come political NGOs, who have a lot of money and an interest in swaying coverage in their direction. When I was at the AP, I saw this happen. Big NGOs like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as smaller ones operating around this conflict, were mostly funded by European governments and progressive foundations. They became, essentially, the source of information for reporters. Human Rights Watch, for example, would come out with a report, and the AP would write it up as news.
When I read Kristof’s article, I saw this machinery right away. Kristof was handed a package by NGOs. He mentions Euro-Med [Human Rights Monitor], which has proven ties to Hamas and has openly claimed that Israel is using weapons to “vaporize” Palestinians and that Israel is harvesting organs. Relying on Euro-Med is a bit of a stretch even for the world of the mainstream press. Kristof also mentions an anti-Israel activist named Sari Bashi, who is based in Ramallah. So local activists handed him the story, introduced him to his sources, and fed him the inflammatory, unverifiable material.
Senor also says this:
When you read the piece, you have to use your own compass to decide which charges could plausibly be true and which charges come from the world of conspiratorial, anti-Israel fantasy. I think there is a plausible reason for concern about sexual assaults of prisoners. I don’t think we can dismiss every account of sexual assaults against Palestinian detainees.
. . . we have to be able to look at our prison system and our military and say we want our institutions to observe the highest standard, and we’re clearly failing. Terrible things are happening, as they are in the carceral systems in New York, or in Iraq. I wish Israel could say that we’re better than everyone else. I’m not sure that we can say that. We need to be able to address our own moral issues without participating in this kind of deranged discourse.
. . . Allegations involving sexual violation by animals do not enter political discourse as neutral facts. They belong to an old repertoire of dehumanising horror. They turn the accused into something beyond cruel: a corrupter of species, a handler of filth, a director of bestial desecration, and a violator of the most basic taboos around moral and sexual hygiene. Is the claim true, false, exaggerated, mistranslated, or planted? Kristof does not know nearly enough to employ the claim in the way that he does. He treats it as a detail within a larger moral picture. A responsible and competent editor would have stopped reading right there and demanded to know what, exactly, has been established.
. . .None of this excuses abuse. The Sde Teiman case, involving alleged abuse of a Palestinian prisoner by Israeli reservists, deserved investigation so that truth could be separated from rumour and accusation. Where Israeli guards, soldiers, interrogators, or settlers have committed acts of sexual violence, they should be exposed, investigated, tried, and punished. Any attempt by Israeli politicians or mobs to shield abusers deserves condemnation. A society at war must still guard its own standards.
But it must also guard the truth. Taking rape and abuse seriously does not require us to accept propaganda dressed up as sexual horror. Nor does it require us to pretend that anonymous testimony, activist reports, and humanitarian vocabulary automatically produce truth. The harder task is to investigate abuse without surrendering judgment. A serious press should be able to do this. It should also be able to honour Israeli victims without handing their suffering to those who spent months demeaning it.
A columnist like Nicholas Kristof may even believe he is writing in defence of Palestinian victims. But when his essay relies on the same information ecology that sought to excuse, minimise, and invert the atrocities of 7 October, it risks becoming something else: a mouthpiece for those who defended the events of that day, or who needed its victims to disappear beneath a more useful accusation. This is what divides moral inquiry from propaganda.
there does appear to be some level of sexual violence that goes on in Israeli prisons and, similar to the rest of the world, often the perpetrators are not held accountable. The fact that this goes on in prisons worldwide does not, of course, make it acceptable practice and Israel has taken a strong policy position against such activity.
But Kristof often relies on sources that themselves have been found to be unreliable. In a series of posts on X, the pro-Israel media watchdog HonestReporting challenged Kristof’s journalism, noting that the most explosive accounts in his op-ed came from unnamed sources, while the stories of those named had grown “steadily more lurid over time, with dramatic new details added years later.”
For example, one of Kristof’s sources, Sami al-Sai, had taken to social media on October 8, 2023, to praise the Hamas onslaught one day after it occurred, and eulogized the leader of a West Bank terror cell as “our martyred prince.”
HonestReporting also noted that, about a year ago, Sai spoke to Israeli human rights group B’Tselem about his alleged assault, and did not mention several specific, graphic details that he provided to Kristof, including being sodomized with a carrot, having his genitals grabbed by a female guard, and discovering “other people’s vomit, blood, and broken teeth” in his skin.
It also pointed out that Issa Amro, who told Kristof in 2024 that he had been assaulted on the day of the Hamas attack, had earlier told The Washington Post that he had been “threatened with sexual assault” on that day, not that he had been assaulted.
None of this, of course, excuses illegal activity of prison guards or, here in Israel, members of the IDF. Nor does it give a pass to a government that drops the charges against the accused, as it did in the Sde Teman case, simply because of community pressure.
This kind of activity is certainly not in keeping with the values of a county such as ours, which promises in its Declaration of Independence: The State of Israel “will be based on freedom, justice, and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants, irrespective of religion, race, or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education, and culture; it will safeguard the holy places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the charter of the United Nations.”
. . . Finally, Kristof engages in illogical overreach when he states: “Yet our American tax dollars subsidize the Israeli security establishment, so this is sexual violence in which the United States is complicit.”
Truth be told, the $3.8 billion of annual US military aid to Israel is used to purchase armaments from US defense manufacturers and, of course, has nothing to do with the prison system or its faults. A weapon used by an IDF soldier in Gaza cannot be linked to prison abuses. Actually, it is the weapons used against us on October 7th and afterwards, paid for by the Iranians and Qataris, that are more logically linked to the alleged abuses in Kristof’s piece.
The commonality of these stories is that they admit the possibility of sexual abuse of prisoners, but argue that, given the fact that interrogations are recorded and photographed, and Israel’s history of prosecuting those who violate its law, the likelihood of widespread and systemic abuse known to the authorities is low. The articles argue that Kristof’s sources are biased and that some of their stories have changed over the years. And they say that the dog-rape story is not credible.
What should happen now? Well, Israel should conduct an investigation of the allegations. And so should the NYT, making Kristof reveal his sources and check them itself. The former will happen; the latter won’t.
If anybody else had done this rather than Kristof, they would be fired by the NYT. Remember that editorial-page editor James Bennet was forced to resign in 2020 after a social-media outcry following the publication of an op-ed by Republican senator Tom Cotton. Cotton’s argument, that U.S. troops might be used to quell riots following the death of George Floyd, was at least worthy of discussion, but the editor who approved it became the victim of “progressive” ire.
Kristof won’t be fired, though his careless accusations were far worse than the argument made by Cotton. But at least some of the shine is off Kristof’s Pulitzers, and the sentient world now knows him to be a crappy journalist, willing to tar an entire country on the basis of unverified claims.
If you’re not familiar with Tickle v Giggle, click on the Wikipedia link above. Here’s the summary:
Tickle v Giggle is an Australian federal legal case regarding the legality of the membership policies used on Giggle, a social media app for women. Giggle excluded trans women in their membership policy, and withdrew membership from Roxanne Tickle, a transgender woman from New South Wales, on that basis. In 2022, Tickle brought the case against Giggle, and in August 2024, the court found that Tickle had been indirectly discriminated against under Australia’s Sex Discrimination Act, and ordered Giggle to pay costs of the case and damages. That finding was appealed both by Tickle and by Giggle’s CEO, Sall Grover, with hearings on those appeals held in the Federal Court of Australia (NSW Registry) from August 4 to August 6 2025. The appeal judgment was delivered on 15 May 2026 at 2pm AEST. The court upheld the original judgment, dismissing Grover’s appeal and allowing Tickle’s cross-appeal, with the court finding two instances of direct discrimination against Tickle and awarding damages of $20,000, double the award at first instance. Grover has said she will appeal to the High Court of Australia.
Welcome to Friday, May 15, 2026, and Malcolm X Day, celebrated on the third Friday in May. Here’s a near-final scene from Spike Lee’s great movie “Malcolm X” (1992, my favorite of his). Malcolm drives to the auditorium where he’ll be assassinated, passing his killers in another car, and then walks–or rather rolls–to the venue. The music is the greatest of all soul songs: “A Change is Gonna Come” by Sam Cooke.
Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this day by consulting the May 15 Wikipedia page.
Da Nooz:
*At the summit between Trump and Chinese leader Xi in Beijing, the priority for Trump is economic agreement, while for Xi it appears to be getting the U.S. to soften its support for Taiwan, which Xi wants to take over. The WaPo reports on the difference in emphasis.
Chinese leader Xi Jinping warned President Donald Trump on Thursday that “conflicts” could emerge if the two powers mishandle Taiwan, declaring that Beijing’s top priority in talks with the United States is the fate of the contested island long supported militarily by Washington.
Xi’s message — delivered behind closed doors in an hours-long meeting in Beijing’s Great Hall of the People — was all the more striking given Trump’s effort to warm up relations and deliver trade deals to boost the U.S. economy. It came after Xi welcomed Trump at an elaborate ceremony overlooking Tiananmen Square, where the Chinese military crushed pro-democracy protesters in 1989.
Trump brought dozens of top U.S. business leaders with him on the trip and has made deepened trade ties a focus, downplaying the military rivalry between the two nations. Although Trump said later that the meeting was “great,” Xi’s remarks, as reported bythe Chinese Foreign Ministry, made clear that the Chinese leader intended to focus on security at a moment when Trump has shown greater willingness to flex U.S. military might.
“The Taiwan question is the most important issue in China-U. S. relations,” Xi said, according to the Foreign Ministry readout. “If it is handled properly, the bilateral relationship will enjoy overall stability. Otherwise, the two countries will have clashes and even conflicts, putting the entire relationship in great jeopardy.”
. . .China has long claimed sovereignty over Taiwan, a democratic island territory that is a powerhouse manufacturer of semiconductors and other technology. The United States, while not officially recognizing Taiwan as an independent country, is the territory’s major military backer. U.S. war planning for east Asia envisions how to defend the island against a Chinese invasion aimed at reasserting Beijing’s authority.
“China’s military threats are the sole cause of instability for the Taiwan Strait and the Indo-Pacific region,” Taiwanese government spokeswoman Michelle Lee told reporters Thursday. “Our government views positively any actions that contribute to regional stability and help manage the risks posed by the expansion of authoritarian influence.”
The U.S,. has no formal defense treaty with Taiwan (we once did, but it was ditched in order to establish relations with China), but we do have nonbinding agreements to provide Taiwan with arms and other defense aid if it’s attacked. But we have no obligation to give military help. What this means to me is that it would be easy for Trump, if he wants better economic relations with China, to tell Xi that we’re not going all out to defend Taiwan against Chinese military action. The PRC has implied that “reunification” should occur fairly soon, but not necessarily by military means. But the Taiwanese will never assent to joining with China, so any “unification” would have to be done by force.
*In Amit Segal’s latest column at “It’s Noon in Israel,” the author speculates about how the Israeli elections, which have been moved earlier, might turn out, and reports on Netanyahu’s recent interview on 60 Minutes, where the PM “squirmed” when asked about Chinese involvement in the war in Iran. Segal then discusses that involvement:
China, unlike Qatar, does not support Iran out of love for the Ayatollahs, nor out of hatred for Israel. It does so because it needs chaos in the Middle East that will drain US resources and attention away from Taiwan and the South China Sea. For Xi Jinping, every dollar the US invests in interceptors for Israel is a dollar not invested in submarines in the Strait of Malacca. This quiet war is China’s way of buying time in the clash of titans against the United States. The Iran war is where the Chinese are testing American boundaries and their willingness to go all the way.
The event is only getting more complicated. Take the Strait of Hormuz, for example. The Iranians are trying to create a new equation and control the world through violent control over the straits. This might be good for the Iranians, but for the Chinese, it is terrible. Why? Because while transit through Hormuz is important to the Chinese, transit through the Strait of Malacca is much more important. This is a narrow strait between Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Singapore, practically controlled by the US. Eighty percent of China’s oil imports pass through it. If the method of blocking shipping lanes becomes a legitimate means, it means the US will acquire almost absolute control over the Chinese. And that is just one example.
Another example comes specifically from Israel: the amount of military knowledge and capabilities built and tested here over the past three years is historically unprecedented. Israel is considered today around the world as a formidable power with field-tested experience. The war is the world’s largest testing lab for artificial intelligence on the battlefield. When Israel disrupts UAV swarms or eliminates 20 scientists in Iran in a few seconds, it makes its superiority practical. Trump brings receipts showing that Chinese technology is inferior to the Israeli-American mind, clarifying to them that he holds the tap to the knowledge and the blockade against everything they are trying to achieve. In this battle, Israel is the US’s combat R&D department, and for Trump, this is a tremendous bargaining chip.
Trump knows that the one keeping Iran alive today, even if quietly, is the empire from the East. They are the ones still trading with the Iranians while bypassing sanctions; they are the ones providing them with intelligence and even certain types of weaponry. For the Chinese, for example, air defense batteries are considered offensive weapons, but ballistic missiles are somehow defined as defensive weapons. Go figure.
Just as Israel set a goal for itself to break the Middle Eastern axis of evil, Trump set a goal for himself to break the Chinese-Russian-Iranian-North Korean axis of evil. If he disconnects the Chinese from the axis—he will weaken it significantly and bring it closer to the goal he desires so much: an absolute and indisputable victory, in a short time, and with a relatively low number of casualties.
The talks in Beijing are ongoing, and so far not much has been leaked.
In response to the release of the Civil Commission Report on sexual violence against Israelis on October 7, and Nicholas Kristof’s ill-sourced column on Israeli sexual violence against and dg rape of prisoners, the WSJ has issued two editorials. The first is about the Report itself, “The truth about Hamas,” You can read about these examples in the Report (you can find it here).
Reading “Silenced No More,” the new report by the Civil Commission on October 7th Crimes by Hamas Against Women and Children, we were transported back to Oct. 27, 2023, and a screening of the raw footage of Hamas’s atrocities. The mouths of journalists were agape, but time dulls horrific reality.
The new report is a catalogue, for memory’s sake, of Hamas depravity. Testimony from site after site attests to rape and assault. Screams and pleas. Gunshots to the face and genitals. Mutilation. Burning. Bodies naked, legs spread. Grotesque scenes staged. All forming an evidentiary record, the result of more than 10,000 photos and video segments and more than 430 interviews, testimonies and meetings with survivors, witnesses and experts.
Yoni Saadon recounts another horror: “She fell to the ground, shot in the head, and I pulled her body over me and smeared her blood on me so it would look as if I was dead too. . . . I will never forget her face. Every night I wake to it and apologize to her, saying ‘I’m sorry.’” Later he saw “a beautiful woman with the face of an angel and 8 or 10 fighters beating and raping her.” The last one shot her in the head. Each example here is of a civilian non-combatant.
Why is this being published when the details are out in the open? Because many people don’t believe them or choose to ignore them. As the article says:
We regret having to relate such details, but it is crucial to remember when the understandable human impulse is to forget such horrors. All the more so because the sexual violence by Hamas has been aggressively denied by an antisemitic global left that wants us to forget. Everywhere denial serves the same purpose: to distort Israel’s defensive war as if it were wanton violence. Such deniers prefer anything to reminding the world why Israel has no choice but to fight for its life.
The other op-ed, “Kristof’s unbelievable tale” (subtitle: “The columnist publishes a poorly sourced, fantastical tale of torture and dog rape in Israel”), goes after the columnist’s (and the NYT’s) hamhanded piece:
A little‑known Geneva‑based NGO called Euro‑Med Human Rights Monitor published a report in June 2024 alleging that the Israeli military was using dogs to attack Palestinian civilians in Gaza, including to “sexually assault prisoners and detainees in Israeli detention facilities.” Quoting testimony attributed to Palestinian detainees, Euro‑Med claimed that the dogs, equipped with “surveillance cameras” strapped to their backs, were “let loose” on prisoners, torturing them “systematically and sometimes collectively.”
Euro‑Med’s report received no attention from mainstream outlets when it was released, and for good reason. Israel has linked the group’s leadership to Hamas. Euro-Med has a documented record of promoting wild allegations against Israel, including claims of organ harvesting of Palestinian detainees, mass executions in hospitals, and denials of well‑established Hamas activity at Gaza’s Al‑Shifa hospital. This week, Euro-Med’s far‑fetched allegations found their way into a New York Times opinion piece penned by Nicholas Kristof.
Mr. Kristof cites allegations by “Palestinian prisoners” and “human rights monitors” that Israeli police dogs have been “coached to rape prisoners.” He offers no evidence for this in the column, but later defended the claim on X, citing “three different medical journal articles” about rectal injuries from anal penetration by dogs. Yet the scientific literature describes human‑initiated bestiality, not dogs assaulting humans, which may not even be anatomically possible.
The more I read about Kristof’s defense the angrier I get. How dare he use evidence from bestiality to buttress claims of Israelis dog-torture? Anyway, the article goes on to debunk two of Kristof’s named sources as shill for Hamas propaganda, and ends this way:
Sexual assault in prisons is an unfortunate reality worldwide, and sexual violence in war is well‑documented. Hamas used systematic rape and sexual violence during its attacks on Israel on Oct. 7 as detailed in a comprehensive report released this week by the Israeli Civil Commission on October 7 Crimes. Such allegations are grave and demand proper investigations and rigorous reporting.
Mr. Kristof’s column doesn’t meet that standard. Instead, it relies on a patchwork of omissions, dubious sources and ever‑more lurid allegations, serving more to demonize Israel than to clarify what actually happened. Worse is that this kind of reporting erodes trust in journalism and makes it harder for genuine victims of sexual violence to be believed. They deserve better.
You don’t often see one MSM outlet go after another like this, but both Kristof and the NYT deserve it. I don’t often quote WSJ op-ed pieces as I find them too far on the right for my liking, but both of these editorials are sensible and, what’s more important, moral. The NYT’s actions here are both stupid and immoral, spreading undocumented assertions that will hurt Israel, as the paper and Kristof surely know.
The notion that liberal democracy is only for Westerners and is the product of specifically Western religious traditions has always been asinine, however plausible it may have seemed in the early twenty-first century. Japan and South Korea are part of ‘the West’, after all. Far from being a sign of democratic solidarity, Christian identity politics has become the friend of every enemy of Western democracy.
Before I go further and explain why, I need to introduce a plethora of caveats. I am not talking about, let alone criticising, the majority of European Christians, who are as likely to support liberal ideals as anyone else. I am not finding fault with this aspect of Lutheran doctrine or that Vatican pronouncement. Cultural determinism is as wrong when it is used to maintain that religion poisons everything (as the late Christopher Hitchens used to say) as it is when it is used to announce that Christianity blesses everything and has given us democracy, feminism, human rights, and all that is good and lovely in the world. Totalising explanations always fail. They cannot handle complexity.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali recently made my point for me. Last November, the former atheist announced her conversion to Christianity and unintentionally revealed the fatuity of Christian identity politics as she did so. Any genuine Christian reading the articles and interviews that accompanied her conversion would notice there was no embracing of the Nicene creed; no declaration that Hirsi Ali now believed in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father.
. . . . Citing Tom Holland’s claim in his 2019 book Dominionthat Western morality, values, and social norms are ultimately products of Christianity, the former atheist said that she had realised that Christianity was the source of Western safeguards for freedom and dignity. ‘All sorts of apparently secular freedoms — of the market, of conscience and of the press — find their roots in Christianity,’ she continued. To believe in freedom and to defend it one ought to be Christian.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali has shown extraordinary courage in standing up to the threats of radical Islamists. Tom Holland is the nicest and most intellectually generous historian I have met.
But this is hopeless stuff. In much of Europe the struggle for human rights, which Hirsi Ali presumably admires, was in part a struggle over state religion. The Enlightenment was a reaction against the bigotry and slaughter of the European wars of religion. To this day French liberals insist on defending secularism because they remember the arbitrary power of the Catholic church and fear the arbitrary power of Islam. The drafters of the US constitution wisely prevented the state from passing any law affecting religious worship and belief because they wisely feared the power of the religious persecution. It is not just that so many Western freedoms originated in the anti-clerical struggles of the Enlightenment – and it is ridiculous to say that they are nevertheless still somehow ‘Christian’ freedoms – but that the argument is circular. If everything comes from Christianity, even freedoms that were achieved in opposition to the constraints of state religions, then there can never be real change in the world. If everything comes from Christianity, then religion is stretched so thinly that it all but vanishes, as it clearly has in Hirsi Ali’s strangely faithless conversion. If everything is Christian, then nothing is Christian.
. . . Few people can go along with Hirsi Ali’s argument today. Those that do will be on the right or the extreme right. Liberal Christians or those who identify with the Christian tradition, such as Tom Holland, see democracy and human rights as flowing from Christian beliefs. But Christians with actual power are making a nonsense of their argument.
Extreme religious belief makes assaults on the Constitution easier. The faithful are obeying the Lord’s commands and they do not admit the right of any earthly constitution or ballot to restrain them. Hirsi Ali and many others fail to draw the parallels with the woke movement they deplore. To the worst type of progressive the West is the sole source of global oppression. Whiteness and Eurocentric beliefs are sins. And yet in the US Christian conservatives, who are spurred on by their opposition to progressive authoritarians, are no more willing to defend the West than their left-wing enemies.
This year will be a decisive year for the West. One way to get through it would be to end our self-serving and flattering cultural exceptionalism. The enemies of democracy are not only to be found in foreign tyrannies, they are among us. And the more devoutly they claim to uphold Western Christian values, the more likely it is that they are willing to subvert Western civilisation.
I suppose the thesis could be defended by arguing that “well, Christianity formed the good values, and they’ve being subverted historically by religion.” But that ignores the historical Enlightenment development of humanism as a reaction against Christianity and other religions.
As you may have heard, TheNew York Times revealed this week that Israel has a secret animal training program that literally teaches dogs how to waterboard prisoners. Scarily, that’s not all they’re teaching animals. Here are seven more shocking things that The New York Times has reported that Israel has coached animals to do:
Trained goldfish to only live for three weeks and make kids sad when they die: Horrifying.
Taught cats to be emotionally detached and self-centered: The evil is sickening.
Trained a chicken to make that mocking chicken noise, but only when it sees New York Times writer Nicholas Kristof: So mean.
Trained pigeons to fly around pooping on people: Unbelievably twisted.
Taught a guinea pig how to pilot an Apache attack helicopter: Okay, that is a scary image.
Trained a parrot to repeat whatever is said, slowly driving people insane: What kind of sick people are these?
Taught a golden retriever how to play basketball and ultimately lead a Midwest high school team to the championship: We could not be more appalled.
We hope this list wakes people up to the disturbing reality of what Israel is doing with these poor, innocent animals.
And here’s one from Facebook:
Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is smelling the flowers
Hili: The scent of wisteria reaches all the way here.
Andrzej: It’s a nice smell.
Hili: I prefer the smell of catnip.
In Polish:
Hili: Aż tu dociera zapach wisterii.
Ja: To miły zapach.
Hili: Wolę zapach kocimiętki.
From “Captain” Ella, with the English translation below:
Standing before the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem… And upon the Holy Quran… An Arab Muslim fighter in the Paratroopers Brigade—swearing allegiance in the Israel Defense Forces Long live the State of Israel.
This Arab IDF member wouldn’t dare go near the Al-Aqsa mosque on top of the Western Wall, as he’d be killed. He’s thus forced to swear fealty before the remains of the Second (Jewish) Temple.
من أمام حائط المبكى في أورشليم القدس…
وعلى القرآن الكريم…
مقاتل عربي مسلم في وحدة المظليين – يقسم الولاء في جيش الدفاع الإسرائيلي
— Lieutenant Colonel Ella Waweya | إيلا واوية (@CaptainElla1) May 14, 2026
From Luana; NYU students are trying to get Jonathan Haidt, who wrote about the hypersensitivity of students, banned as a commencement speaker because he wrote about the hypersensitivity of college students. In fact, I can’t think of a better commencement speaker. The link to the article is here.
NYU student:
“Haidt’s selection is a gutting reminder that our institution is more committed to platforming speakers who won’t rock the boat rather than those who would encourage us to make a change for the better.”
And two from Dr. Cobb. First, the world’s most beautiful duck. Be sure to watch the video; that is some sexual dimorphism!
The Extraordinary male Mandarin Duck, the lighter one is the female is soft colours brown-grey with white and hint of blue at wing. They live in Eurasia. Life span is 3-6 years in the wild, and 10-20 in protected areas.
There have been a ton of articles criticizing Nicholas Kristof’s poorly sourced and dubious NYT column accusing Israel of widespread sexual torture of Palestinian prisoners (yes, with dogs, too)—most of the critiques noting that Kristof’s sources were unnamed, undocumented, and those that were named had histories of being pro-Hamas. You can easily find these critiques on social media, but Hen Mazzig, an Israeli writer and senior fellow at the Tel Aviv Institute, levels a different accusation: not so much at Kristof but at the New York Times itself.
He notes something I overlooked: the paper used to have a “public editor” whose job was to call attention to errors and misreporting in the paper, but the NYT ditched that position nine years ago. Now there is no public editor: their job has been sourced to—get this—social media and readers. The rationale is that social media itself, combined with reader reaction, will correct errors. But that’s completely bogus. Yes, readers and social media may point out errors, as they have in this case, but thety also can reinforce them. As you know, social media is a dumpster fire and there’s no guarantee that a clash of ideas and assertions will surely out the truth.
Beyond that, it is the responsibility of the paper itself to correct errors, apologizing for them and admitting guilt. The NYT won’t do that, for it’s pushed back on the criticism of Kristof’s delusions, defending them by asserting—get this again—that he won two Pulitzer Prizes. With two nods like that, how can he be wrong? Here’s all the NYT has said:
— NYTimes Communications (@NYTimesPR) May 13, 2026
In larger print; you can judge for yourself how extensive the “fact-checking” was, given that there was no public editor to describe it:
The deep-sixing of a public editor is almost an admission that a paper has no interest in correcting itself. You can see from the Times‘s doubling down in this latest case that the NYT is standing behind assertions of systemic sexual torture in the Israeli government, as well as in using trained dogs to rape prisoners. The fact that Kristof’s factual claims were made in an op-ed does not excuse the paper.
Click below to read:
Some quotes:
In 2014, the New York Times had a Public Editor. Her name was Margaret Sullivan. When it emerged that Nicholas Kristof had spent years platforming a fabricator named Somaly Mam, Sullivan wrote that Kristof “owes it to his readers to explain, to the best of his ability and at length, what happened and why.” Kristof did. He wrote a column titled “When Sources May Have Lied.” Editor’s notes were added to old work. The mechanism worked.
In 2017, the Times eliminated the Public Editor role. Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. announced that “readers and social media followers collectively serve as a modern watchdog.” Liz Spayd was the last to hold the job.
This week, Kristof published a column accusing Israel’s security forces of systematic sexual violence, sourced from a man who celebrated October 7, an NGO whose chairman was designated by Israel as a Hamas operative in 2013, and a fourteen-person account that grows more lurid each time it migrates to a larger platform. The Times defended the column with a statement from a spokesperson named Charlie Stadtlander, citing Kristof’s two Pulitzers. There is no Margaret Sullivan inside the building anymore. There is only Charlie.
That is the story I want to tell. Not the column. The column has been dissected by a dozen outlets in 36 hours. The story is what the column reveals about the institution that printed it, and about the decision the institution made nine years ago that produced this moment.
Yesterday I wrote about the sources:
The piece is The New York Times Has a Source Problem. The short version: two of Kristof’s primary sources are a man who left UCLA after a 17-year-old said he sent her unsolicited photos, and an NGO whose chairman publicly mourned a senior Hamas commander as “our great commander” earlier this year. The same NGO has officially called Hamas’s sexual violence on October 7 a “propaganda tool.” Its board chair endorsed 9/11 inside-job conspiracies.
I asked yesterday how the Times missed any of this when two Google searches would have surfaced all of it.
Today I want to ask why nobody inside the paper is allowed to ask that question on the record.
This afternoon a Times spokesman released a statement defending Kristof. The operative line:
“There is no truth to this at all. Nicholas Kristof is a two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who has reported on sexual violence for decades.”
This was what happened when there was a public reporter and Kristof got his tuchas smacked:
Somaly Mam was a Cambodian woman who became globally famous on the strength of a story she told about her own childhood in sex slavery, and on the strength of the brothel rescues she said she conducted. Kristof made her career. He called her a “hero” in column after column. He live-tweeted her brothel raids to over a million followers. He featured her in his documentary Half the Sky.
In 2014, Newsweek published a piece by Simon Marks showing that Mam had auditioned girls to lie on camera. Her own backstory was fabricated. The “rescues” were sometimes police raids that generated headlines more than they helped victims. Mam resigned. The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple called for Kristof to audit his entire Cambodia archive. Kristof wrote that he wished he had never written about her, said he had been “hoodwinked,” and added editor’s notes to old columns.
His response when Margaret Sullivan and Erik Wemple pressed him was telling. He said it was hard to verify facts in Cambodia. He said he was “reluctant to be an arbiter” of Mam’s backstory. He said he didn’t know what to think.
This week, asked whether Palestinians might fabricate accusations to defame Israel, Kristof wrote that “to me that seems far-fetched.” That is the same credulity, twelve years older, applied to a higher-stakes accusation on a larger platform.
The Times has watched this reporter make this mistake before. In 2014 there was an internal voice with the authority to push him to answer for it. There is no such voice now.
There are other examples, but the point is that no such internal mechanism of correction exists. Instead, we get a defense, which Mazzig summarizes:
. . . The defense
This afternoon a Times spokesman released a statement defending Kristof. The operative line:
“There is no truth to this at all. Nicholas Kristof is a two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who has reported on sexual violence for decades.”
The fuller statement credits Kristof for traveling to the region and says his article collects accounts in the victims’ own words, backed by “independent studies.” It does not name the studies.
Read it twice if you need to. Notice what it does not say. It does not address Euro-Med’s Hamas affiliation. It does not address Sami al-Sai’s October 8 Facebook post celebrating the massacre. It does not address Amro’s shifting account between the Washington Post and the Times. It does not address the absence of corroborating evidence in the column’s most explosive cases. It does not say what the “independent studies” are.
It says Kristof has Pulitzers and the Times stands behind him.
In 2014, the same paper produced a Public Editor’s column titled “When Mr. Kristof’s Sources Are Questioned” and an internal reckoning. In 2026, the same paper produces a press release.
Deborah Lipstadt, until recently the United States Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism, asked the Times publicly whether it had any sense of decency. Lipstadt is the world’s leading historian of Holocaust denial. She knows what a blood libel looks like. When she names one out loud, the line has been crossed.
Mazzig hastens to add that he’s not saying Kristof is an antisemite or the NYT decided to hurt Jews. Nor is he claiming that Israel has never mistreated a prisoner, nor attacked one with dogs (I’d ask for evidence for both such claims, though). What he’s saying is this:
I am arguing something more dangerous because it is more boring. The editorial standards of the world’s most important paper have drifted, and the institution dismantled the internal voice that used to flag the drift. The defense statement issued today is what accountability looks like in a building where Margaret Sullivan no longer exists.
And he winds up going after the paper again:
The Times will probably not retract, but the conversation has started. Longtime contacts of media reporter David Shuster told him this afternoon there are discussions up the masthead. We will see.
What moves the needle is the accumulated record. The Somaly Mam parallel. The shifting Amro and al-Sai accounts. The verification asymmetry between American prisons and Israeli ones. The headline change on the Eurovision piece. The Silenced No More report. Lipstadt’s question. Yesterday’s piece and this one. Every citation builds the file.
That file is what real accountability requires. The Times made that file harder to build in 2017, and we are watching what that decision produced.
We know that the Times staff is full of young progressives—people who helped push out Bari Weiss, Donald McNeil, Jr., and James Bennet. They are sensitive to social media and public opinion, and the combination of progressive staff and social media is toxic.
The paper needs to correct Kristof’s column, for it’s clear he will not do so himself.
_(13667616745).jpg){kind=link}