For centuries, Diaspora Jews knew that a single malicious and dark rumor was enough to ignite a wave of hatred. Once, it was the libel of "ritual murder," according to which Jews abducted Christian children and used their blood for religious purposes. At other times, stories were spread about poisoning wells, desecrating the host, or committing sexual atrocities born of a diseased antisemitic imagination. The common denominator of these libels was clear: portraying the Jew as a barbaric, deviant and cruel creature whose actions fall outside the bounds of humanity and who is therefore undeserving of protection.
That is why it is difficult not to recognize the chilling historical echo in the "story" recently published by The New York Times, according to which terrorists were allegedly raped with dogs in Israeli prisons. This is a classic antisemitic blood libel, outwardly wrapped in journalistic language with the help of bogus "testimonies" and a fake "investigation," but its emotional and cynical mechanism remains strikingly similar to the old blood libels: creating a monstrous image of Jews carrying out unprecedented sexual atrocities.
This is not merely a question of journalistic accuracy. It is a deeper pattern of demonization. Throughout history, antisemitism was not satisfied with accusing Jews of political or economic power. It sought to depict them as devoid of any human image. Blood libels always contained an extreme theatrical element, one meant to provoke immediate shock and block any critical thinking. Just as Europeans in the Middle Ages did not demand real evidence for stories of ritual murder for the purpose of baking matzah, today, too, one horrifying headline is enough for millions to accept it as self-evident truth, especially when Israel is the accused.
Classic blood libels were not intended only to blacken the image of Jews, but also to justify exceptional treatment of them. When Jews were portrayed as child murderers or spreaders of plagues, it became easy to incite mobs against them, strip them of rights and even carry out pogroms against them.
Today as well, stories that depict Israel as a state committing systematic acts of sexual sadism do not remain confined to the realm of journalistic imagination. They serve as fuel for movements seeking to isolate Israel, deny it the right to self-defense and present its very existence as a moral stain on humanity. Just as the old blood libels sought to cast Jews beyond the boundaries of human society, so the modern libels seek to turn the Jewish state into an entity that has no place in the family of nations.
There is another, especially disturbing similarity: the moral asymmetry. When it comes to Israel, the standard of proof tends to disappear. Baseless, anonymous and entirely fabricated stories receive enormous international amplification, while denials, refutations or demands for elementary scrutiny are immediately presented as "propaganda." This is precisely the same atmosphere that allowed blood libels to spread in the past: a culture in which the very suspicion against Jews is seen as more plausible than the possibility that they are innocent.
Technology has changed since the Middle Ages. Instead of broadsides in the town square, there are newspaper headlines and social networks that spread them within seconds. The pattern remains familiar and painful: turning the Jew, and this time the Jewish state, into a monster with no limit to its wickedness. The blood libel produced by The New York Times is not a journalistic mishap. It is a contemporary incarnation of the old blood libel.
