Uncategorized
Outrage over Nicholas Kristof’s op-ed on sexual assault of Palestinians is missing the point
Sexual violence is wrong, and carefully researched reports of sexual violence should be taken seriously, regardless of the nationality of the reported perpetrators.
There should be no reason for me to write that obvious sentence. This week has given me two: the backlash against a Nicholas Kristof New York Times essay alleging widespread sexual abuse against Palestinian prisoners in Israeli detention, and the release of a new report on sexual crimes committed by Hamas as part of the Oct. 7, 2023 attack.
The response to both was painfully predictable. Kristof’s reporting was denounced by many pro-Israel commentators. Some Jewish and Zionist groups organized a protest outside the Times building for Thursday. Israel is now planning to sue the Times, calling Kristof’s piece a collection of “hideous and distorted lies.”
On social media, some pro-Palestinian voices were quick to dismiss the Oct. 7 report, insisting it was unverified.
What both of these discourses are missing: We are not talking about a team sport. A report about sexual violence is not — or should not be — treated as a football flag or card, inspiring outrage at the referees if it goes against the side you root for. To see sexual violence in terms of sides at all is grotesque.
Sexual violence is a desecration and a violation. To say you take it seriously but rush to dismiss the idea that a country or people you support could have carried it out is to not take it seriously at all. The idea that it’s necessary or desirable to show support for a cause by refusing to believe that someone associated with that cause could have carried out sexual violence is its own kind of violation.
Kristof’s piece is long and upsetting. It is difficult to read. “In wrenching interviews, Palestinians have recounted to me a pattern of widespread Israeli sexual violence against men, women and even children — by soldiers, settlers, interrogators in the Shin Bet internal security agency and, above all, prison guards,” Kristof wrote. Among the allegations he includes: charges of canine rape, which some observers have called into question and which some have claimed discredit the entire piece.
(Kristof is far from the first to report that sexual violence is widespread within the Israeli justice system; a report earlier this year from the progressive Israeli group B’Tselem, for example, included similar findings. And Kristof is clear that he is not alleging that Israeli leaders order rape, but rather that sexual violence within the Israeli detention system is routine.)
Also difficult to read were the immediate denunciations of the story issued by people like Deborah Lipstadt — once former President Joe Biden’s antisemitism envoy — who have fervently decried the lack of international sympathy for victims and survivors of reported sexual violence carried out by Hamas on Oct. 7.
Kristof anticipated those reactions, noting in the piece that, whatever one’s views on the Middle East, we should be able to condemn rape. “Supporters of Israel made that point after the brutal sexual assaults against Israeli women during the Hamas-led attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023,” he wrote.
Where is that moral clarity now?
Some critics said that the piece only ran to overshadow the release of a new report on Hamas’s sexual violence by the Civil Commission on Oct. 7th Crimes By Hamas Against Women and Children. To claim as much is to look at coverage of sexual violence through a cynical lens, one in which the question is not “who was hurt and how can these grievous wrongs be righted?” but rather “who benefits?” (The Times in fact covered the Civil Commission report in an in-depth article.)
Others, like the Israeli foreign ministry, responded by accusing the Times of engaging in a new blood libel — the antisemitic allegation that Jews use non-Jewish blood for rituals. That charge has largely responded to the canine rape allegation, but been employed to attempt to broadly discredit the range of Kristof’s reporting. To attempt to discount all the allegations the piece uncovers with this term is, effectively, to refuse to take seriously any charges of sexual violence so long as the reported perpetrator is Jewish.
That is not to say we should automatically assume that all reports of sexual violence are accurate; only that neither should we assume they are inaccurate based on the identity of the alleged wrongdoers.
A similar kind of out-of-hand dismissal from certain pro-Palestinian camps greeted the release of the Civil Commission’s report, which found that sexual violence by Hamas was “systematic,” “widespread” and “integral to” the assault on Oct. 7. The report’s lead author, Cochav Elkayam-Levy, said the goal was to make sure that what happened could not be “denied, erased, or forgotten.”
But a quick social media search shows that some who are more sympathetic to Palestinians than Israelis are doing exactly that. I saw many voices instinctively insisting that the report was not verified, in much the same way that pro-Israel posters automatically questioned Kristof’s writing.
It is one thing to draw a distinction between the two reports — to say, for example, that one describes a horrific past event while the other reports on an ongoing practice — but another to insist that sexual violence did not happen.
(To those who insist that the Civil Commission cannot be trusted because it is Israeli, consider that when, in 2024, International Criminal Court Prosecutor Karim Khan applied for arrest warrants against the leadership of Hamas, he said that he had reason to believe that they had responsibility for rape and other acts of sexual violence. And the United Nations Special Representative similarly found “reasonable grounds to believe that sexual violence occurred during the attacks of 7 October 2023 in multiple locations, including rape and gang rape.”)
What are we doing — not only to victims and survivors, but also to ourselves — when we automatically believe that yes, this side carries out sexual violence, but no, that side doesn’t?
I would argue that — besides the obvious and tangible risk of denying heinous crimes — when you say that your side could not have carried out these horrific acts, you are not just denying the reported victims their humanity. You risk robbing yourself of your own humanity, too.
I know that there are some who feel that to take allegations against those they support seriously is to abandon their nation, their family and their identity. But this kind of reflexive denial actually weakens identity, rather than strengthens it. It suggests that the thing we’re clinging to is not robust enough to survive accountability.
To love Jews does not mean you have to pretend that Jews are incapable of behaving in ways that are wrong or violent. We know that that’s not true. I have no doubt that, in response to this column, I may be accused, as I sometimes am, of hating Jews. But what kind of love demands that you refuse the possibility of wrongdoing?
When we say we’re against sexual violence, we should mean it across the board — no matter the identity of the reported victims and alleged perpetrators. We should mean it regardless of whatever loyalty we may feel to groups we cherish being a part of. We aren’t lessening our commitment to our identities by doing so. We are just insisting that our identities incorporate our full humanity.
The post Outrage over Nicholas Kristof’s op-ed on sexual assault of Palestinians is missing the point appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
UK threatens sanctions after Israel opens bids for E1 settler homes
(JTA) — JERUSALEM – The United Kingdom threatened to sanction Israelis involved in West Bank settlement expansion after the Jewish state’s Lands Authority opened bids for 1,234 homes in the largely underdeveloped E1 section of the West Bank settlement of Ma’aleh Adumim.
Construction in E1 “would cut across the heart of Palestine and risks separating the West Bank from East Jerusalem, which would endanger the viability of a two-state solution,” the British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband said in a special statement he posted on X on Thursday.
Targeted sanctions, Miliband wrote, would be part of a series of measures his government would take. His office also summoned Israel’s charge d’Affaires Thursday to demand a closure of the bidding process, which first opened on Tuesday, and a withdrawal of the construction project altogether.
“Britain will not stand back and accept the destruction of the two-state solution,” he wrote. Miliband has held his position for a month and is part of the new leadership Labour Prime Minister Andy Burnham appointed when he took office in July.
Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar attacked Miliband on X, stating that Britain’s “decision to damage the relationship between our countries is deeply unfortunate.”
He said that the U.K. government’s “systematic policy of blaming only Israel while ignoring Palestinian extremism has already contributed to a massive wave of antisemitic hatred and attacks against the British Jewish community.”
The Jewish people have the same right to “live throughout the Land of Israel” just as the British people have a right to live anywhere in the U.K., Sa’ar wrote.
Plans to expand the built-up area of Ma’aleh Adumim settlement by constructing some 3,400 housing units on a largely underdeveloped hilltop within the city’s boundaries have been in place since 1994 when Yitzhak Rabin was prime minister.
Israel mostly froze those plans under pressure from the international community, including the U.S., with many countries warning that building homes in E1 would harm their diplomatic ties with Israel.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began to advance the project in earnest in 2012 to protest the United Nations General Assembly decision to grant the Palestinians the status of a non-member state and has since pushed the project forward in spurts, particularly during election seasons.
The publication of the bidding process for the homes was first announced on Tuesday and is set to close on Oct. 19, one week shy of the Israeli elections on Oct. 27. Opening the bids is a move that plays well with Netanyahu’s right-wing voter base, which opposes Palestinian statehood and believes that settlements like Ma’aleh Adumim and the E1 area should be annexed into sovereign Israel.
But the move reverberated globally, with the U.K. signing onto a joint condemnation by France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, in which they warned that settlement building in E1 distanced peace and undermined the country’s international standing.
They also reminded businesses who might bid for E1 construction that they could face legal or reputational consequences, given that such companies could be in breach of international law.
Palestinian Authority Vice President Hussein Al-Sheikh said he welcomed the condemnation, explaining on X that such a position “reflects the importance of the international role in confronting settlement activity and safeguarding the two-state solution.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post UK threatens sanctions after Israel opens bids for E1 settler homes appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Argentina removes federal judge over antisemitic remarks in historic first
(JTA) — An Argentine federal judge was removed from office Tuesday for a series of antisemitic posts on his social media accounts that constituted misconduct incompatible with his role, an impeachment panel ruled.
Alfredo Eugenio López, who headed Federal Court No. 4 in the coastal city of Mar del Plata, was removed by Argentina’s Jury of Impeachment, a special panel composed of judges, lawmakers and lawyers.
It is the first time in Argentina’s history that a judge has been removed over antisemitic remarks.
In López’s social media posts, the judge referred to the Jewish people as “a brood of vipers,” Israel as a “fictitious state” and Argentinian Jews as “foreigners.” He has also used such terms as “Zionist” and “gay” as insults.
According to the panel, the judge committed acts of “discrimination and the denial of equal rights against the Argentine Jewish community. For the purposes of these proceedings, it is particularly significant that, by acting in this manner, he shattered public confidence in his continued fitness to administer justice impartially.”The case reached the panel through Argentina’s Council of the Magistracy, based in Buenos Aires, the constitutional body responsible for the selection and discipline of federal judges.
The first complaint against López was filed in February 2025 by the Delegación de Asociaciones Israelitas Argentinas, which is the umbrella organization representing Argentina’s Jewish community. One month later, the Argentine Forum Against Antisemitism also filed a complaint. In July 2025, attorney Yamil Santoro from Apolo Foundation added another one.
In his defense, López argued that his messages were “ subjective and decontextualized interpretations of exchanges on social media, which in no way affect the administration of justice or his impartiality” as a judge. He added that his remarks were unrelated to any pending case and that he had never been recused or removed from any judicial case.
Neither Lopez nor his attorney were immediately available for further comment.
“He was removed because he simply would not stop engaging in hate speech,” jury member Alberto Maques said during a live interview Tuesday on the A24 news channel. “It is absolutely disgraceful for a federal judge to engage in this kind of conduct.”
Maques said there were 15 social media posts that he acknowledged, but more than 50 posts in which he said “outrageous things that are not worth repeating because they truly constituted hate speech.”
“This is not merely an issue of hate speech against the Jewish community. This is someone who lacks common sense,” he added, interviewed by A24 news channel.
Prosecutors in the impeachment proceedings argued that the messages were not isolated political comments but reflected a pattern of hostility toward Jews, Zionism, and the State of Israel.
“No position of authority can shield hatred. This is not a matter of punishing an opinion. It is about sanctioning repeated conduct involving antisemitism, hostility and dehumanization, conduct incompatible with the impartiality, dignity and public trust required of the judiciary,” DAIA said Tuesday in a statement.
“This case sets a precedent: for the first time in more than a century, DAIA initiated proceedings of this nature against a judge. No office is above democracy.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Argentina removes federal judge over antisemitic remarks in historic first appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
California progressive Wahab defeats AIPAC-backed Hernandez in close race
(JTA) — California progressive Aisha Wahab defeated AIPAC-backed moderate Melissa Hernandez in a congressional runoff this week, capping off a contest that had become unexpectedly tight after the pro-Israel lobby entered the fray.
The Associated Press called the race between the Democrats — who were vying to replace a disgraced former Rep. Eric Swalwell — a full two days after polls closed, when Wahab secured 53.1% of votes to Hernandez’s 46.9%, with 95% of ballots tallied. The gap between them grew by four percentage points from Tuesday evening, when Wahab had held a narrow 51% lead to Hernandez’s 49%.
“We stayed focused on the people, and I will fight for this district that raised me,” Wahab said in a Thursday statement, noting her journey “from foster care to Congress” in her East Bay community.
Although Wahab ended up victorious, the narrow initial margin on Tuesday shocked California’s 14th District, given that she had secured a double-digit lead in preliminary races two months ago.
But in the past few weeks, an unforeseen variable appeared to influence the trajectories of the two campaigns: a massive spending push from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee aimed at turning the tides for Hernandez.
Since the beginning of August alone, AIPAC’s super PAC, the United Democracy Project, and other affiliated groups spent more than $2.5 million on both boosting Hernandez and denigrating Wahab with negative ads and mailers, according to Federal Election Commission filings.
“This was not a landslide for Wahab by any means,” local Democratic strategist Noah Finneburgh, who is not affiliated with either candidate, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
“They narrowed the gap for sure,” Finneburgh added, referring to AIPAC. “They spent millions of dollars attacking Wahab very aggressively.”
These attacks, he explained, did not involve Israel and instead focused on divisive issues for the Bay Area, such as public safety and protecting kids.
“Negative advertising with a persuasive message can be very effective,” Finneburgh said.
In her Thursday night statement, Wahab declared that her “district cannot be bought,” describing the race as “one of the ugliest, most expensive elections we’ve ever seen.”
Prior to this influx of cash and related ads, neither AIPAC nor Israel had played a significant role in this short-lived race — which began in April following Swalwell’s resignation over allegations of sexual assault.
When the district held a special primary to seek Swalwell’s replacement on June 16, Wahab and Hernandez finished as the top-two candidates and moved on to this week’s special general runoff election.
California primaries are “nonpartisan” or “top-two” races, in which the two highest ranking candidates move on to the general election, irrespective of their parties. The top-two in this case were both Democrats, like Swalwell, in a district that the Cook Political Report deems solidly blue.
Even though Wahab will now finish the remainder of Swalwell’s term, she will have to compete with Hernandez again in the November general election for a full term that begins on January 3, 2027.
In a June 16 special primary that preceded this week’s runoff, there was still a massive gap between the two candidates, with Wahab accruing 42.8% of the votes, compared to Hernandez’s 16.8%. A separate primary for the November race, which occurred two weeks earlier, placed Wahab at 38.3% and Hernandez at 17.2%.
Wahab, who will be the first Afghan American in Congress, has focused on affordability, civil rights, education and climate change. Her campaign calls for an end to wars and “prolonged occupations” but only specifically calls out U.S. military activity in “Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, and elsewhere.”
Though Wahab has been critical of Israel and its operations in Gaza, she has not been as vocal about the issue as many other progressive colleagues nationwide. She responded “yes” when asked if Israel was committing genocide in a primary debate, but she didn’t include Israel or Gaza in her campaign priorities.
During a recent appearance on far-right influencer Hasan Piker’s livestream, Wahab acknowledged that “it’s not a zero-sum game in the Middle East,” adding that “we can care for all people.” She also referenced a resolution she introduced last year in the California legislature, pushing for a ceasefire in Gaza but also condemning Hamas and demanding the release of the hostages.
“We talk about both Palestinians and the Israeli victims there,” Wahab told Piker. “We talk about holding the perpetrators accountable from both sides.”
Asked if she was in favor of “ending all U.S. aid to Israel,” she responded “yes,” while stressing that “humanitarian aid is important to me, too.”
Wahab has earned the backing of multiple labor unions, the California Democratic Party and Our Revolution, the group formed by Sen. Bernie Sanders to advance the progressive movement. The liberal pro-Israel group J Street also recently invested $108,000 in her campaign, according to the FEC. American Priorities, a pro-Palestinian PAC, also spent at least $200,000 on supporting her.
Hernandez has received endorsements from several police and fire unions, as well as Democratic Jewish Reps. Lois Frankel of Florida and Brad Schneider of Illinois.
Come November, Hernandez will gain one additional asset. Due to statewide redistricting, the 14th District will gain about 26,000 new voters from Dublin, where Hernandez previously served as mayor, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
But Finneburgh said he believes that Hernandez has only a minimal chance of winning that race, especially because Wahab will be heading into that election as an incumbent.
He also suggested that if “she plays her card right,” Wahab could even take some endorsements away from Hernandez.
“There’s going to be people who are going to probably move over from the Hernandez camp and back her,” Finneburgh added. “It’s going to be hard to unseat her.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post California progressive Wahab defeats AIPAC-backed Hernandez in close race appeared first on The Forward.
