Uncategorized
American Jews created historic summer camps. Or did summer camps create American Jews?
(JTA) — Among Sandra Fox’s most memorable finds during her years mining American archives for materials about Jewish summer camps was a series of letters about the hours before lights-out.
The letters were by counselors who were documenting an unusual window in the day when they stopped supervising campers, leaving the teens instead to their own devices, which sometimes included romance and sexual exploration.
“It was each division talking about how they dealt with that free time before bed in ‘age-appropriate ways,’” Fox recalled about the letters written by counselors at Camp Ramah in Wisconsin, the original iteration of the Conservative movement’s network of summer camps.
“I’ve spoken to Christian people who work at Christian camps and have researched Christian camps. There is no free time before bed,” Fox told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “That’s not a thing if you don’t want kids to hook up. So it was just amazing to find these documents of Camp Ramah leaders really having the conversation explicitly. Most of the romance and sexuality stuff is implicit in the archives.”
The letters are quoted extensively in Fox’s new book, “The Jews of Summer: Summer Camp and Jewish Culture in Postwar America.” Fox, who earned a PhD in history from New York University in 2018 and now teaches and directs the Archive of the American Jewish Left there, tells the story of American Judaism’s most immersive laboratory for constructing identity and contesting values.
Next week, Fox is launching the book with an event at Congregation Beth Elohim in Park Slope, Brooklyn. (Tickets for the Feb. 23 event are available here.) Attendees will be able to tour adult versions of some of the most durable elements of Jewish summer camps, from Israeli dance to Yiddish and Hebrew instruction to Color Wars to Tisha B’Av, the mournful holiday that always falls over the summer.
“I never considered doing a normal book party,” Fox said. “It was always really obvious to me that a book about experiential Jewish education and role play should be celebrated and launched out into the world through experiential education and role play.”
Sandra Fox’s 2023 book “The Jews of Summer,” looks at the history of American Jewish summer camps. (Courtesy of Fox)
We spoke to Fox about her party plans, how Jewish summer camps have changed over time and how they’ve stayed the same, and the cultural history of that before-bed free time.
This interview has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity. We’ll be continuing the conversation in a virtual chat through the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research Feb. 27 at 1 p.m.; register here.
Jewish Telegraphic Agency: Given how much Jews like to talk about camp, were you surprised that this book hadn’t already been written?
Sandra Fox: There’s been a lot of fruitful research on the history of various camps, but it’s usually been focused on one camping movement or one camp type. So there are articles about Zionist camps. There are certainly articles out there about the Ramah camps. A lot of camps have produced books — either their alumni associations or a scholar who went to let’s say, Reform movement camps have created essay collections about those camps. And there are also books about Habonim and other Zionist youth movements.
I don’t really know why this is the first stab at this kind of cross-comparison. It might be that people didn’t think there would be so much to compare. I think the overwhelming feeling I get from readers so far, people who preordered and gotten their books early, is that they’re very surprised to hear how similar these camps are. So perhaps it’s that scholars weren’t thinking about Jewish summer camps that came from such diverse standpoints as having something enough in common to write about them all at once.
Also distance from the time period really helps. You can write a book about — and people do write a book about — the ’60s and ’70s and have been for decades, but there’s a certain amount of distance from the period that has allowed me to do this, I think, and maybe it also helps that I’m generationally removed. A lot of the scholars who’ve worked on camps in the postwar period went to camps in the postwar period. It makes a lot of sense that it would be harder to write this sort of sweeping thing perhaps. The fact that I’m a millennial meant that I could write about the postwar period — and also write kind of an epilogue-style chapter that catches us up to the present.
What’s clear is that there’s something amazing about studying summer camp, a completely immersive 24/7 experience that parents send children away for. There’s no better setting for thinking about how adults project their anxieties and desires about the future onto children. There’s also no place better to think about power dynamics and age and generational tension.
I was definitely struck by the “sameyness” of Jewish camps in your accounting. What do you think we can learn from that, either about camps or about us as Jews?
I do want to say that while there’s a lot of sameyness, whenever you do a comparative study, there’s a risk of kind of collapsing all these things and making them seem too similar. What I’m trying to convey is that the camp leaders from a variety of movements took the basic structure of the summer camp as we know it — its daily schedule, its environment, its activities — and it did look similar from camp to camp, at least on that surface level.
If you look at the daily schedules in comparison, they might have a lot of the same features but they’ll be called slightly different things depending on if the camp leans more heavily towards Hebrew, or Yiddish, or English. But the content within those schedules would be rather different. It’s more that the skeletal structure of camp life has a lot of similarities across the board and then the details within each section of the day or the month had a lot of differences.
But I think what it says is that in the postwar period, the anxieties that Jewish leaders had about the future of Judaism are really, really similar and the solution that they found within the summer camp, they were pretty unanimous about. They just then took the model and inserted within it their particular nationalistic, linguistic or religious perspectives. So I think more so than saying anything about American Jewry, it shows kind of how flexible camping is. And that’s not just the Jewish story. Lots of different Americans have embraced summer camping in different ways.
So many people who have gone to camp have a fixed memory of what camp is like, where it’s caught in time, but you argue that camps have actually undergone lots of change. What are the most striking changes you documented, perhaps ones that might have been hard for even insiders to discern as they happened?
First of all, the Israel-centeredness of American Jewish education as we know it today didn’t happen overnight in 1948, for instance. It was a slower process, beyond the Zionist movements where that was already going on, for decades before 1948. Ramah and the Reform camps for instance took their time towards getting to the heavily Zionist-imbued curricula that we know.
There was considerable confusion and ambivalence at first about what to do with Israel: whether to raise an Israeli flag, not because they were anti-Zionist, but because American Jews had been thinking about proving their loyalty to America for many generations. There were some sources that would talk about — what kind of right do American Jews have to raise the Israeli flag when they’re not Israeli? So that kind of Israel-centeredness that is really a feature of camp life today was a slower process than we might think.
It fit camp life really well because broader American camps used Native American symbols, in some ways that are problematic today, to create what we know of as an iconography of camp life. So for Jews, Israel and its iconography, or Palestine and iconography before ’48, provided an alternative set of options that were read as Jewish, but it still took some time to get to where we are now in terms of the Israel focus.
One of the reasons I place emphasis on the Yiddish summer camps is to show that in the early 20th century and the mid-20th century there was more ideological diversity in the Jewish camping sphere, including various forms of Yiddishist groups and socialist groups and communist groups that operated summer camps. Most of them have closed, and their decline is obviously a change that tells a story of how American Jewry changed over the course of the postwar period. Their legacy is important, too: I have made the argument that these camps in a lot of ways modeled the idea of Yiddish as having a future in America.
What about hookup culture? Contemporary discourse about Jewish camps have focused on sex and sexuality there. What did you observe about this in the archives?
I think people think of the hookup culture of Jewish camps today and certainly in my time in the ’90s and 2000s as a permanent feature, and in some ways I found through my research and oral history interviews that that was the case, but it was really interesting to zoom out a little bit and think about how Jewish summer camps changed in terms of sexual romantic culture, in relationship to how America changed with the sexual revolution and the youth culture.
It’s not it’s not useful to think about Jewish hookup culture in a vacuum. It’s happening within America more broadly. And so of course, it’s changed dramatically over time. And one of the things I learned that was so fascinating is that Jewish summer camps were actually their leaders were less concerned in a lot of ways about sexuality at camp in the ’40s and ’50s, than they were in the late ’60s and ’70s. Because earlier premarital sex was pretty rare, at least in the teenage years, so they were not that concerned about what happened after lights out because they kind of assumed whatever was going on was fairly innocent.
In the late 1960s and 1970s, that’s when camps have to actually think about how to balance allowance and control. They want to allow campers to have these relationships, to have their first sexual experiences, and part of that is related to rising rates of intermarriage and wanting to encourage love between Jews, but they also want to control it because there’s a broader societal moment in which the sexuality of teenagers is problematized and their and their sexual culture is more public.
There’s been a real wave of sustained criticism by former campers about the cultures that they experienced, arguing that the camps created an inappropriately sexualized and unsafe space. There’s been a lot of reaction to that and the broader #MeToo moment. I’m curious about what you can speculate about a future where that space is cleaned up, based on your historical research — what is gained and what, potentially, could be lost?
Without being involved in camping today — and I want to really make that disclaimer because I know a lot of change is happening and lot of organizations are involved to talk about this issue better, to train camps and camp leaders and their counselors to not create a pressured environment for camper — I think what the history shows is that this hookup culture did not come about out of nowhere. It was partly related to the broader changes in America and the sexual revolution.
But it was also partly created because camps really needed to have campers’ buy-in, in order to be “successful.” A huge argument of my book is that we think about the power of camps as if camp directors have campers as, like, puppets on strings, and that what they do is what happens in camp life. But actually, campers have changed the everyday texture of life at camp over the course of the decades in so many different ways by resisting various ideas or just not being interested.
So hookup culture is also part of making campers feel like they have freedom at camp and that’s essential. That’s not a side project — that is essential to their ability to get campers to come back. It’s a financial need, and it’s an ideological need. If you make campers feel like they have freedom, then they will feel like they freely took on the ideologies your camp is promoting in a really natural way.
The last part of it is rising rates of intermarriage. As rates of intermarriage rose in the second half of the 20th century, there’s no doubt in my mind from doing the research that the preexisting culture around sexuality at camp and romance at camp got turbo-boosted [to facilitate relationships that could potentially lead to marriage between two Jews]. At that point, the allowance and control that camp leaders were trying to create for many decades leans maybe more heavily towards allowance.
There are positives to camp environments being a place where campers can explore their sexualities. There’s definitely a lot of conversation about the negative effects and those are all very, very real. I know people who went through horrible things at a camp and I also know people who experienced it as a very sex-positive atmosphere. I know people in my age range who were able to discover that they were gay or lesbian at camp in safety in comparison to home, so it’s not black and white at all. I hope that my chapter on romance and sexuality can maybe add some historical nuance to the conversation and give people a sense of how this actually happened. Because it happened for a whole bunch of reasons.
I think there’s a consensus view that camp is one of the most “successful” things the Jews do. But it’s hard to see where lessons from camp or camp culture are being imported to the rest of Jewish life. I’m curious what you see as kind of the lessons that Jewish institutions or Jewish communities have taken from camp — or have they not done that?
Every single public engagement I do about my work has boiled down to the question of, well, does it work? Does camp work? Is it successful? And that’s been a question that a lot of social scientists have been interested in. I don’t want to oversimplify that research, but a lot of the ways that they’ve measured success have been things that are not necessarily a given to all Jews as obviously the right way to be a Jew. So, for instance, in the ’90s and early 2000s, at the very least, a lot of research was about how, you know, “XYZ” camp and youth movement were successfully curbing intermarriage. A lot of them also asked campers and former campers how they feel about Israel, and it’s always if they are supportive of Israel in very normative ways, right, giving money visiting, supporting Israel or lobbying for its behalf — then camps have been successful.
I’m not interested in whether camps were successful by those metrics. I’m interested in how we got to the idea that camp should be successful in those ways in the first place. How did we get to those kinds of normative assumptions of like, this is a good Jew; a good Jew marries a Jew; a good Jew supports Israel, no matter what. So what I wanted to do is zoom out from that question of success and show how camp actually functions.
And then the question of “does it work” is really up to the reader. To people who believe that curbing intermarriage is the most important thing, then camps have been somewhat successful in the sense that people who go to these heavily educational camps are less likely to marry out of the faith.
But I am more interested in what actually happened at camp. And in terms of their legacies, I wanted to show how they changed various aspects of American Jewish life, and religion and politics. So I was really able to find how camping was essential in making kind of an Israel-centered Jewish education the norm. I was also able to draw a line between these Yiddish camps over the ’60s and ’70s that closed in the ’80s and contemporary Yiddish. The question of success is a real tricky and political one in a way that a lot of people have not talked about.
And is camp also fun? Because you’re creating a camp experience for your book launch next week.
Camp is fun — for a lot of people. Camp was not fun for everyone. And so I do want to play with that ambivalence at the party, and acknowledge that and also acknowledge that some people loved camp when they were younger and have mixed feelings about it now.
The party is not really a celebration of Jewish summer camp. People will be drinking and having fun and dancing — but I want them to be thinking while also about what is going on and why. How is Tisha B’Av [the fast day that commemorates the destruction of the ancient Jewish temple in Jerusalem that falls at the height of summer] commemorated at camp, for example?
Or what songs are we singing and what do they mean? I think a lot of people when they’re little kids, they learn songs in these Jewish summer camps that they can’t understand and later they maybe learn Hebrew and go, whoa, we were singing what?! My example from Zionist summer camp is singing “Ein Li Eretz Acheret,” or “I Have No Other Country.” We were in America and we obviously have another country! I don’t think anyone in my youth movement actually believes the words “Ein Li Eretz Acheret” because we live in America and people tend to kind of like living in America and most of them do not move to Israel.
So at the party we’ll be working through the fun of it, and at the same time the confusion of it and the ambivalence of it. I want it to be fun, and I also want it to be something that causes people to think.
—
The post American Jews created historic summer camps. Or did summer camps create American Jews? appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Kristof column alleging Israeli abuse of Palestinian prisoners sparks outrage, scrutiny and debate among Jews
(JTA) — A New York Times column by Nicholas Kristof published Monday detailed graphic allegations of sexual abuse of Palestinian prisoners by Israeli guards, amplifying claims that guards had used dogs to rape Palestinian detainees.
As the allegations in the column, “The Silence That Meets the Rape of Palestinians,” sparked a widening online debate over their credibility, Jewish groups and leaders began weighing in with a mix of condemnation, skepticism and concern over conditions in Israeli prisons.
Israel has rejected all of the allegations in Kristof’s column, which included claims that guards inserted objects into Palestinian detainees’ rectums, beat detainees’ genitals and subjected them to systematic humiliation. The Israeli Foreign Ministry described his writing as “one of the worst blood libels ever to appear in the modern press.”
“In an unfathomable inversion of reality, and through an endless stream of baseless lies, propagandist Nicholas Kristof turns the victim into the accused,” the ministry said in a statement, adding that the country would “fight these lies with the truth – and the truth will prevail.”
Related: From Rutgers speaker to Kristof column, disputed dog rape claim against Israel goes mainstream
Several progressive Jewish groups and Israeli human rights organizations welcomed the scrutiny the column has placed on Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. But many others in the Jewish community have expressed outrage over reporting they consider dubious and agenda-driven.
The American Jewish Committee echoed the foreign ministry’s condemnation, calling the allegation that Israel trains dogs to rape prisoners a “modern-day blood libel,” a reference to historic antisemitic myths accusing Jews of ritual murder.
“Allegations of abuse toward Palestinians deserve serious, rigorous investigation,” the AJC continued. “Yet this piece, while opinion, appeared to be presented as an investigative report and fell alarmingly short of that standard while amplifying inflammatory narratives that have real-world consequences in a time of surging hatred toward Israelis and Jews worldwide.”
One of the most widely circulated allegations from the piece came from an anonymous Palestinian journalist, who said Israeli guards had ordered a dog to mount and penetrate him while he was blindfolded and handcuffed. The column also cited conversations with over a dozen former Palestinian detainees, who described sexual abuse or humiliation by Israeli settlers or security forces.
In the wake of the column’s publication, some pro-Israel voices are renewing their campaign against The New York Times, which they believe is biased against Israel. Pro-Israel groups, including EndJewHatred, Stop Antizionism, Hineni and the Movement Against Antizionism, are planning a protest outside the newspaper’s New York City headquarters on Thursday.
Michelle Ahdoot, EndJewHatred’s director of programming and strategy, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that the column had been “hurtful and angering,” adding that she believed it was “direct cause of true incitement and violence against the Jewish people.”
“We’ve been calling on The New York Times and other media sources to stop the lies and stop the incitement that’s a result of this horrific reporting, and this, frankly, was the straw that broke the camel’s back,” she said.
The column’s critics, who also include a handful of Palestinian voices who have previously condemned Hamas, have pointed to Kristof’s reliance on a report issued by an NGO that Israel has alleged for more than a decade serves as a Hamas propaganda operation.
While Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, a Palestinian writer and advocate in the United States, wrote that he had “no doubt” that “incidents of sexual abuse have occurred in Israeli prisons,” he criticized the sourcing used in Kristof’s piece, writing in a post on X that Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, a Geneva-based NGO, and others have “troubling records on accuracy, conduct, and associations.”
“They are not credible sources, even if the article relied on others as well,” Alkhatib wrote. He said that other Palestinian testimonies were “anonymous due to shame and fear of retaliation for reporting sexual torture, which complicates verification but does not automatically invalidate their claims.”
Simone Rodan-Benzaquen, the senior envoy for Europe at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, similarly criticized Kristof’s use of Euro-Med’s report in a post on X. Euro-Med’s leaders have long drawn accusations from Israel of being Hamas operatives, and the NGO has faced scrutiny for referring to the Israeli hostages taken by Hamas as having been “arrested and moved to the Gaza Strip” and for claiming that Israel steals the organs of deceased Palestinians.
“This is not a human rights organization with a bias,” Rodan-Benzaquen wrote. “It is an organization whose leadership has documented family and organizational ties to Hamas, operating under institutional cover at the heart of our democracies, and is cited by the @nytimes.”
Hen Mazzig, an Israeli activist, also maligned Kristof’s citation of a tweet by Shaiel Ben-Ephraim in a Substack post, pointing out that he left UCLA amid accusations of sexual harassment in 2020. (Ben-Ephraim has acknowledged that he engaged in “inappropriate behavior” at the time.)
Ben-Ephraim’s viral tweet from April, which Kristof linked to in his claim that Israel had trained dogs to rape Palestinian detainees, listed a series of alleged testimonies from Palestinians’ unnamed Israeli guards who claimed they had experienced or seen the practice.
“The accusations against Israeli settlers and security officials deserve serious investigation,” Mazzig wrote, later adding, “But if you are willing to platform a man accused of sexual harassment, and an organization that calls Jewish rape allegations propaganda, to make your case on the same topic, the conversation is over.”
Ehud Olmert, the former Israeli prime minister, told the Free Press that his comments in the column appearing to validate the allegations appeared out of context. Many have also questioned the timing of Kristof’s column, coming just a day before a widely anticipated report from an Israeli civil commission about the extent of sexual violence during Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel.
Neither The New York Times nor Kristof responded to questions from JTA. But a spokesperson for the newspaper, Charlie Stadtlander, defended the column and its author late Tuesday, writing online about a viral claim that it could be retracted, “There is no truth to this at all.”
On Wednesday morning, he also rejected claims that Kristof’s column had been timed in relation to the Oct. 7 sexual violence report, which he said the Times had not known about before its release. The newspaper covered the report late Tuesday.
Kristof, too, has waved off concerns, dismissing criticism that the piece ran in the Times’ opinion section rather than its news pages. He also greeted skepticism about the possibility of training dogs for sexual assault with “exasperation.”
“I appreciate the intense interest in my column,” Kristof wrote in a post on X. “For skeptics, why not agree on Red Cross and lawyer visits for the 9,000 Palestinian ‘security’ prisoners? If you think these abuse allegations are false, such monitoring visits would be protective. So why not?”
Allegations of abuse against Palestinian detainees in Israel surfaced repeatedly before and during the war in Gaza, including in testimonies by detainees and prison guards by Reuters and the Associated Press, albeit not necessarily in as much detail as many of the cases described in Kristof’s piece. In January, reports obtained by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel from the country’s Public Defender’s Office found evidence of widespread, systematic abuse in Israeli prisons against Palestinians.
In March, Israeli military prosecutors canceled indictments against five IDF reserve soldiers who were accused of sexually assaulting a detainee at the Sde Teiman detention facility, a case that was caught on video and sparked international outcry.
And in January, an Israeli human rights group, B’Tselem, released a report alleging sexual abuse in Israeli prisons. The group cited the column in a post on X Tuesday, writing that “the international community continues to stand by and allow Israel to commit crimes against the Palestinian people” even as the column and others report on them.
Kristof’s column is indeed prompting some to give new attention to the conditions in Israeli prisons, its ostensible purpose. Some Jewish critics of the column are emphasizing that they find the broad allegation of abuse in Israeli prisons plausible, troubling and deserving of scrutiny and action. Many point to comments boasting of poor conditions in prisons by Itamar Ben-Gvir, the far-right minister who has overseen the Israel Prison Service since late 2022, to say they believe that abuse may have worsened, and the consequences diminished, in recent years.
Jeremy Ben-Ami, head of the liberal Zionist advocacy and lobby group J Street, wrote on Substack that while “disputed” details in the piece must be “rigorously investigated,” the report’s “serious allegations of systemic abuse cannot simply be waved away because they are painful or politically inconvenient.”
The Nexus Project, a liberal-leaning antisemitism watchdog, took aim at the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s assessment of the column, writing in a post on X that “to weaponize the term ‘blood libel’ to dismiss Kristof’s thorough reporting is dangerous.”
Other progressive Jewish groups have also called for the allegations in the piece to be investigated, including the rabbinic group T’ruah, which demanded “an impartial independent investigation, so the perpetrators can be brought to justice.”
Elissa Wald, a Jewish activist living in Oregon, argued in a Substack essay late Monday that while she believed The New York Times had a “strong anti-Israel bias,” many things could be true at once.
“The wide[s]pread, knee-jerk denial of everything Kristof wrote by many of my fellow Jews is incredibly troubling to me,” she wrote, adding, “Just as we don’t know enough to immediately believe everything written in this piece, especially given the context we’re all familiar with, I also don’t think we know enough to immediately discount and dismiss it all.”
Others worried that Kristof’s approach might set back the effort to get to the bottom of these allegations. Israeli policy analyst and pro-Israel influencer Eli Kowaz argued in a Substack post that Kristof had foregrounded the most sensational allegations in his piece and neglected claims that were more documented, including Ben-Gvir’s rhetoric and a recent report by the Israeli Public Defender’s Office documenting systematic violence from prison guards.
“By Thursday, the conversation will be about Euro-Med’s credibility and whether unverified accounts can be trusted,” Kowaz wrote. “The documented case — the one that required no advocacy org, no anonymous source, no unverifiable claim — will be largely beside the point. That is what this kind of journalism costs, and someone should say so.”
The post Kristof column alleging Israeli abuse of Palestinian prisoners sparks outrage, scrutiny and debate among Jews appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
From Rutgers speaker to Kristof column, disputed dog rape claim against Israel goes mainstream
(JTA) — A week after a university commencement speaker was canceled because of a tweet claiming that Israel trains dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners, the allegation leapt into the pages of The New York Times.
The columnist Nicholas Kristof included the claim in a column alleging widespread sexual abuse against Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons.
Detailing the account of an unnamed Gaza journalist who says guards summoned a dog when he was imprisoned in 2024, Kristof writes, “He tried to dislodge the dog, he said, but it penetrated him.” Linking to a range of pro-Palestinian sources, he notes that other prisoners had recounted similar experiences elsewhere.
Israel has rejected all of the allegations in Kristof’s column, which has elicited condemnation from Jewish groups for what they say is a “a modern-day blood libel” even as some say they believe it is important to take seriously claims of abuse in Israeli prisons. The New York Times has stood behind the column and said Kristof’s column reflects rigorous reporting and standards.
Neither Israeli officials nor The New York Times have commented specifically on the dog-rape claim, and the newspaper and Kristof did not respond to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency’s requests for comment. But a canine training expert said the allegations seem implausible if not completely impossible.
James Crosby, a retired police lieutenant and canine aggression expert affiliated with Harvard University’s Canine Brain Project, told JTA that it was “highly unlikely that anybody is going to be able to train a dog to successfully commit a sexual assault.”
Crosby said dogs can be trained to carry out some behaviors that could be seen as sexual but he was much more skeptical of the central claim that Kristof described.
“You could train the physical behaviors of jumping up and moving the hips back and forth and so forth. That is not necessarily sexual behavior from a dog,” Crosby said. “The actual penetration and so forth, I think that would be a lot more problematic.”
Israeli human rights groups have separately alleged both sexual assault in security prisons and the use of dogs to intimidate and assault Palestinian prisoners.
Kristof is defending the claim that the two phenomena happen in tandem, tweeting on Tuesday, “To those who say that canine rape is impossible, despite the many Palestinians who have described it, I’d note that at least three different medical journal articles discuss rectal injuries in humans from anal penetration by dogs. Sigh.”
A handful of records in medical literature have concluded that injuries to humans came from being penetrated by a dog. A review of the cases included in PubMed, a medical research database, showed that most reflect instances where humans forced dogs to perform sexual acts on them, but one 2019 case report from Uruguay described injuries to a 6 year old girl that a physician attributed to the family’s pet.
Crosby said that he was unsure if it was biologically possible to train a dog to have an erection on command but stopped short of saying that training dogs to rape humans was “impossible.”
“I’m not saying it can’t happen because, I mean, I’m a retired police officer, and I’ve also been dealing with fatal dog attacks and dog stuff for a long time, and there are always people out there that are twisted enough to do what you don’t think they can,” Crosby said. “The depths of human stupidity and nastiness are just always unplumbable.”
Whatever the case, it’s clear that the dog-rape claim has escalated rapidly as a charge against Israel in recent months.
The accusation has circulated for nearly two years but became turbocharged only in the last month, according to Travis Hawley, a Jewish self-described “open source intelligence” analyst who works as a contractor for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and is also affiliated with the Network Contagion Research Institute, a center affiliated with Rutgers University that produces research about how information spreads online. The institute referred him to JTA.
After seeing the discourse about Kristof’s column, Hawley decided to trace the claim’s path on social media. He shared his findings with JTA on Tuesday.
Hawley found that the claim made a brief splash on social media in 2024 before falling dormant until last month. The 2024 cycle stemmed from an interview with the director general of the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry posted by Al Jazeera’s Arabic-language X account in June, according to his research. The official said that Israelis “made these dogs carry out vile actions against these detainees.”
Al Jazeera’s post got relatively little traction on its own. But days later, the account “Suppressed News” shared it in English, increasing the spread and introducing the word “rape” into the online discourse.
The account TrackAIPAC, which opposes the Israel lobby’s influence on U.S. politics, shared that post, Hawley found, as did the journalist Ryan Grim, whose coverage often criticizes Israel, and Briahna Joy Gray, a former press secretary for Bernie Sanders’ 2020 presidential campaign who has frequently shared anti-Israel posts that have drawn allegations of antisemitism.
After the June 2024 cycle, the claim simmered online but was relatively inconspicuous compared to more prominent allegations against Israel, including that it was deliberately starving Palestinians in Gaza, a claim that Israel similarly rejected as a blood libel.
Then in March, Israeli authorities dropped charges against Israeli prison guards who had been accused of sexually assaulting prisoners at the Sde Teiman detention facility, in an incident caught on video that had shocked many Israelis, roiled the country’s security establishment and fueled allegations that Israel was seeking to cover up abuse.
Hawley found that Sde Teiman’s return to the news cycle provided “the contextual hook the dormant June 2024 dog-rape narrative needed to re-ignite.”
Weeks later, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, a Geneva-based NGO that Israel has accused of having affiliations with Hamas, issued a report promoting the allegation. The organization is frequently cited by critics of Israel, and some of its claims have overlapped with those of independent sources. But its reports have also argued that Israel exhumes Palestinians to steal their organs — a claim with no evidence that medical experts say is impossible.
Euro-Med’s founder and chairman, Ramy Abdu, had shared the dog rape allegation during the 2024 wave. Now his organization said it had interviewed former prisoners who had experienced the phenomenon themselves.
Just days later, the claim had its biggest moment online yet, when an Israeli living in the United States, a former UCLA researcher and prominent online anti-Israel influencer named Shaiel Ben-Ephraim posted that an Israeli source had confirmed the dog rape allegation to him. He did not name the source or offer any additional evidence.
Ben-Ephraim had long faced challenges to his credibility from pro-Israel voices, in part connected to his admitted record of misconduct. But Hawley said Ben-Ephraim’s post, which echoed comments the Israeli had made on a pro-Palestinian podcast days earlier, appeared pivotal to the claim’s ascendance. He said Ben-Ephraim had injected a crucial element to the claim structure: that Israelis, and not just Palestinians and their allies, believed the dog rape claim.
Before April, “it wasn’t some acceptable narrative. It was allegations and bots and stuff like that,” said Hawley, who emphasized that he could not say whether the allegation was true. “It took a couple viral moments in the last two months before you could call it, I guess, mainstream.”
Hawley’s findings lined up with those published independently last week by Eli Kowaz, an American-Israeli analyst who formerly worked at the Israel Policy Forum. Kowaz published an essay arguing that the dog rape allegation was not credible, several days before Kristof’s column.
“You can hold two things at once: that Israeli detention conditions have produced credible, documented abuse allegations warranting serious investigation — and that a viral claim about trained rape dogs, built on a collapsed case and an advocacy podcast, does not meet any serious evidentiary bar,” he wrote. “Choosing which claims to believe before examining them tells you what the ‘evidence’ was ever actually for.”
Days after Ben-Ephraim’s tweet, the dog-rape claim had such reach that Ramy Elghandour, a bio-tech entrepreneur who had been invited to give the commencement address at Rutgers University’s engineering school, included it in a tweet condemning Israel.
“They’ve committed genocide,” Elghandour wrote in the tweet, a response to a Democratic lawmaker’s vow not to allow additional military aid to Israel. “They’re running dungeons where they train dogs to sexually assault prisoners … Weapons embargo is the absolute minimum.”
His invitation to speak was rescinded, but the claim was still climbing. Days later, Kristof’s column was published, bringing the claim to a vast audience including many people who would not previously have been exposed to it but who may have followed Kristof’s award-winning, impactful career as a columnist reporting about the Darfur genocide, human trafficking and global poverty. As evidence, Kristof’s column cited the Euro-Med report and linked to Ben-Ephraim’s post.
The prominence of the platform surprised even Hawley, who routinely watches discourse cycles reach unexpected heights. “To go from very obvious anti-Israel-narrative people, and then to the New York Times directly, is like, OK, how do we make that big jump?” he asked.
To some critics of Kristof’s column, the answer is that a well oiled pro-Palestinian propaganda machine had worked exactly as intended.
“His attempt to slip a salacious ‘dog rape’ trope from reportedly Hamas-linked operatives into the paper under the guise of an opinion piece is a failure of basic gatekeeping,” tweeted Albert Aaron, a pro-Israel Jewish New Yorker who posted that he was canceling his subscription, in one representative social media comment.
“Kristof quotes people who celebrated October 7 and want Israel destroyed, and will lie to achieve that goal. We know how the lies in this story made their way into it, where they came from and what purpose they serve,” Haviv Rettig Gur, an Israeli commentator, said in a viral post in which he described feeling a sense of relief to encounter what he believed were obvious lies in Kristof’s column. One of them, he said: “Dogs did not rape anyone.”
Claims of dogs trained to rape have been attached in the past to some of history’s most vicious figures. The journalist Lawrence Wright wrote that Egypts used dogs to rape prisoners under the regime that fell during the Arab Spring in 2011.
Ingrid Olderock, a Chilean-born German, is known as “The Dog Lady” because of allegations that she trained German shepherds to rape female dissidents during the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet in Chile.
And JTA reported in the 1980s about allegations that Klaus Barbie, the Nazi Gestapo leader known as the “Butcher of Lyon” for his brutality, had trained a dog to rape women.
Some who are inclined to believe the dog rape allegation about Israel say the stories about Barbie have difficult implications for those who reject the claim.
“Dogs were used to rape humans during the Holocaust. I did not expect Israeli propaganda to turn into literal Holocaust denial,” tweeted the progressive journalist Ziad Jilani in response to a Jewish physician who had written, “Dogs cannot anatomically rape humans. As a physician, I thought I would just point that out. Why are antisemites such idiots?”
The Pinochet example and others like it that allege canine rape of women is not relevant in the case of the prisoners Kristof spoke to, Rabbi Natan Slifkin argued in a Substack essay on Wednesday. Slifkin runs Israel’s Biblical Museum of Natural History, which reflects his passion for and expertise in zoology.
“Without getting into gruesome detail, suffice it to say that the stories were not comparable. There are physical differences between male and female humans, and physical and behavioral differences between male humans and male dogs, alongside other differences in circumstances and in the descriptions of what happened in each case,” Slifkin wrote.
Noting that allegations have also circulated that the Israeli military has trained sharks and eagles to surveil and attack Palestinians, he continued, “The general view of experts in canine behavior … is that dogs cannot be trained to rape men.”
While Crosby, the dog scientist, said he was familiar with accounts of law enforcement and military personnel using dogs to intimidate individuals, citing the illegal use of dogs at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, he said he had never encountered an example in his research of a dog raping a human being. If misconduct involving dogs is taking place in Israeli prisons, he said, he is skeptical of the specific claims of rape.
“I would be more focused on the idea that they’re doing it as a form of intimidation and harassment,” Crosby said, “rather than literally having the animals sexually abuse somebody.”
The post From Rutgers speaker to Kristof column, disputed dog rape claim against Israel goes mainstream appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Rand Paul’s son apologizes after reportedly making antisemitic attack on Rep. Mike Lawler
(JTA) — After an altercation Tuesday with a congressman during which he made repeated antisemitic comments, Sen. Rand Paul’s son William apologized and said Wednesday he is “seeking help” for his drinking problem.
“Last night, I had too much to drink and said some things that don’t represent who I really am,” William Paul tweeted on Wednesday afternoon. “I’m sorry and today I am seeking help for my drinking problem.”
The incident between Paul and Rep. Mike Lawler, a New York Republican, occurred late Tuesday at the Tune Inn bar and restaurant in Washington, D.C. in front of NOTUS reporter Reese Gorman, who reported first-hand about the incident.
Paul approached Lawler and that said if Kentucky incumbent Rep. Thomas Massie loses his primary on May 19, it will be because of “your people,” NOTUS reported.
Lawler, who is not Jewish, clarified that he is Irish, Italian and Catholic, according to Gorman’s account.
“And he goes, ‘Oh! Oh, I’m sorry to accuse you of that,’” Lawler recalled during a press availability tweeted by a reporter from CourthouseNews. “Which is just a remarkable statement in and of itself. But he then went on a roughly 10-minute diatribe about Israel, about Jews, about Paul Singer and accusing Jews of being responsible for so many things, playing right into the typical antisemitic tropes that so many people rely on.”
A TV spot for Massie that began running this week targeted hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer with a Pride flag-patterned Star of David placed next to Singer’s head. The ad called Singer a “major pro-gay, pro-trans activist who works with far-left, hardcore Democrats.”
Singer, who is Jewish, is a Republican and a major donor to Republican candidates. His son is gay and he is a longtime supporter of gay rights.
William Paul’s father Rand is Kentucky’s junior senator. A Republican who has run for president, Rand Paul announced his endorsement of Massie in October.
“At one point, he said that he hates Jews and hates gays and doesn’t care if they die,” Lawler recalled about his encounter with William Paul in the interview. “And I think that’s f—ing disgusting. So, you know, the conversation shortly thereafter ended, he gave me the middle finger and then tripped on his way out the door.”
Lawler is the representative for New York’s 17th district, a swing district that includes a significant Orthodox Jewish population in Rockland County.
The Kentucky Jewish Council, which advocates against antisemitism in the state, issued a statement denouncing the incident.
“We are deeply disturbed both by the antisemitic conspiracy theories posited by Mr Paul and with his comfort in harassing someone he thought was Jewish in a public place,” the group said. “We regret that Congressman Lawler had to experience the kind of abuse far too many American Jews suffer on a regular basis.”
Tuesday night’s altercation between Paul and Lawler was not the first time in recent months that a public figure who is not Jewish was the target of an antisemitic attack. In March, following the attempted car ramming on a synagogue and Jewish preschool in Michigan, Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard, who is not Jewish, said he had been the target of antisemitic memes and insults.
The post Rand Paul’s son apologizes after reportedly making antisemitic attack on Rep. Mike Lawler appeared first on The Forward.