Courts would say this is insufficiently targeting Netanyahu personally
In the long and contested space where power meets the press, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced plans to sue The New York Times over an opinion column detailing allegations of sexual abuse against Palestinian prisoners — a column the Times says was rigorously verified, and that legal scholars say is almost certainly protected under foundational American free speech law. The threat arrives not as a likely legal victory, but as a political declaration: a government's forceful insistence that certain stories, however documented, cross a line it refuses to accept. It is a confrontation as old as journalism itself — between those who hold power and those who report on how it is used.
- Netanyahu's government declared Nicholas Kristof's column detailing fourteen abuse allegations against Palestinian prisoners 'one of the most hideous lies' ever published about Israel, vowing the harshest possible legal response.
- The New York Times refused to yield, defending its reporting as extensively fact-checked, cross-referenced with human rights research, witness accounts, and United Nations testimony.
- Legal scholars are nearly unanimous: a government cannot sue for defamation in U.S. courts, and any individual official attempting to do so would face the towering 1964 precedent of New York Times v. Sullivan, which demands proof of deliberate or reckless falsehood.
- The suit's basic architecture remains unresolved — no clear plaintiff, no confirmed jurisdiction — raising questions about whether it will ever actually be filed or exists primarily as political theater.
- Beneath the legal maneuvering lie the original allegations themselves: accounts of sexual assault and abuse of Palestinian prisoners that, verified or not, have already entered the public record.
Benjamin Netanyahu's government announced plans to sue The New York Times over an opinion column by Nicholas Kristof documenting allegations of sexual abuse against Palestinian prisoners. The column drew on interviews with fourteen individuals who described being assaulted by Israeli settlers or security forces. Kristof acknowledged he could not independently verify every account, but said he had corroborated the interviews with witnesses, family members, lawyers, and in at least one case, United Nations testimony.
Israeli officials responded with unusual force. Netanyahu's office called the piece 'one of the most hideous and distorted lies' ever published against Israel, and both Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar instructed the government to pursue defamation proceedings. The Times stood firm, saying the reporting had been extensively fact-checked and reviewed by independent experts.
Legal scholars, however, see little path forward. Under U.S. law, a government cannot sue for defamation at all. If Netanyahu or another official sued individually, they would face the landmark 1964 Supreme Court ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan, which requires public officials to prove a publisher acted with actual malice — knowing a statement was false or showing reckless disregard for the truth. Former ACLU president Nadine Strossen emphasized that opinion, analysis, and perspective are not enough; the claim must be objectively falsifiable. Yale law professor Jed Rubenfeld put the odds of success at 'probably zero.'
The case echoes a 1983 suit by then-Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon against Time Magazine, in which a jury found the reporting false but concluded no actual malice existed — and the case failed. Who would serve as plaintiff, and in which country the suit would be filed, remains unresolved. For now, the lawsuit exists more as a statement of political rejection than a credible legal threat — though the underlying allegations it seeks to silence have already reached a global audience.
Benjamin Netanyahu's government announced plans this week to sue The New York Times over an opinion column by journalist Nicholas Kristof that detailed allegations of sexual abuse against Palestinian prisoners. The column, published in the Times, drew on interviews with fourteen men and women who described being sexually assaulted by Israeli settlers or members of Israel's security forces. Kristof acknowledged in his reporting that he could not independently verify every account, but said he had corroborated the interviews with other witnesses, family members, and lawyers whenever possible.
Israeli officials responded swiftly and harshly. Netanyahu's office issued a statement calling the piece "one of the most hideous and distorted lies ever published against the State of Israel." Netanyahu himself posted on social media that his legal advisers would "consider the harshest legal action" against both the newspaper and Kristof personally. Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar joined Netanyahu in instructing the government to initiate defamation proceedings. The Times, for its part, stood by the reporting. A spokesperson for the newspaper said the accounts had been extensively fact-checked, cross-referenced with news reports, human rights research, surveys, and in at least one case with United Nations testimony. Independent experts had been consulted throughout the reporting and verification process.
What remains unclear is where such a lawsuit would be filed—in the United States or Israel—and who would actually serve as the plaintiff. That ambiguity matters legally. A government cannot sue for defamation in American courts, according to Rodney Smolla, a First Amendment scholar and former president of Vermont Law School. If Netanyahu or another government official brought the suit individually, Smolla said they would face steep obstacles. Courts would likely conclude that the article was not sufficiently targeted at Netanyahu personally to allow him to proceed, since doing so would essentially amount to allowing the government itself to sue—something U.S. law prohibits.
The legal landscape for such a case is shaped by a landmark Supreme Court decision from 1964. In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Court established that public officials suing for defamation must prove the publisher acted with actual malice—meaning the defendant knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. This is a high bar. Nadine Strossen, former president of the American Civil Liberties Union, explained that a plaintiff would need to demonstrate "intentional or reckless falsity," not merely that the reporting was unfair or one-sided. "It can't be a matter of opinion or of analysis or of perspective," Strossen said. "It has to be objectively falsifiable."
Jed Rubenfeld, a law professor at Yale, was blunt about the suit's prospects. "I think there is probably zero chance of the suit succeeding," he said. He noted that criticism of government conduct, when written without naming specific individuals responsible for alleged misconduct, falls squarely within First Amendment protections. The precedent of Sharon v. Time Magazine, a 1983 case involving Israel's then-Defense Minister Ariel Sharon suing over coverage of a Lebanese massacre, illustrates the point. A jury found the magazine's reporting false but concluded it had not acted with actual malice—and the case failed. Smolla noted that Sharon had standing in that case because the reporting was specifically about him. He suggested that members of a small, identifiable group—such as police dog trainers, if such individuals were implicated in Kristof's column—might theoretically have viable claims. But Strossen countered that even unnamed individuals in such a group would struggle under the Sullivan standard.
The threat of defamation litigation has become a tool in recent American politics. Former President Trump has filed multiple suits over news coverage he deemed unfair, using the litigation to extract settlements from media companies before trial. In one case, Trump and CBS News' parent company, Paramount, reached a settlement for sixteen million dollars in 2025 following a lawsuit over a "60 Minutes" interview. Whether Netanyahu's government will follow a similar path, or whether the suit will ever actually be filed, remains to be seen. For now, the case exists as a threat and a statement—a government's forceful rejection of reporting it views as damaging, even as legal experts suggest the courts would likely find little merit in the claim.
Notable Quotes
One of the most hideous and distorted lies ever published against the State of Israel— Netanyahu's office, describing Kristof's column
I think there is probably zero chance of the suit succeeding— Jed Rubenfeld, Yale Law professor
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why would Netanyahu's government announce a lawsuit it seems unlikely to win?
Because the announcement itself is the point. It signals to domestic audiences that the government is fighting back against what it sees as hostile coverage. It also puts pressure on the Times and Kristof without requiring the government to actually prove its case in court.
But doesn't the Sullivan precedent make this a non-starter?
Completely. Any competent lawyer would tell Netanyahu that. But governments and public figures often sue anyway—not to win, but to intimidate, to drain resources, to shape the narrative. Trump has done it repeatedly.
So the real question is whether this gets filed at all?
Exactly. The announcement is the action. Filing would require Netanyahu to either name himself as plaintiff—which courts would likely reject—or find someone else to sue on his behalf. That's legally messy and politically awkward.
What about the underlying allegations? Are those being litigated separately?
No. This is purely about whether Kristof's column is defamatory. The substance of the abuse allegations—whether they happened, how widespread they are—that's a separate question entirely, and it's not what this lawsuit addresses.
Does the Times have insurance for this kind of thing?
Almost certainly. Major news organizations carry libel insurance. That's another reason these suits don't always go away quietly—the insurance company has a stake in the outcome.
What would change the calculus? What would make this suit actually viable?
If Netanyahu named specific individuals—say, particular military commanders—and made false claims about them personally, that might work. But a broad attack on the government's conduct, even if harsh, is protected speech.