Rape: Legal Definition and How the Term Is Misused Against Israel

The Definition

Definition in international law

The First Geneva Convention (1949) provides a legal duty to protect civilians against rape during conflict. Article 27 of the Geneva Convention states:

“Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault.”

Additionally, Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) defines rape as a “crime against humanity,” stating:

1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack… (g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity …”

Further, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1820, adopted in 2008, recognizes that rape and sexual violence “can constitute a war crime, a crime against humanity, or a constitutive act with respect to genocide.”

Background

In 1993, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) charged former Bosnian-Serb politicians with using rape and sexual violence as a crime against humanity, demonstrating that rape can be utilized as a weapon of war. In 1998, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, following the ICTY decision, used similar reasoning to convict Jean-Paul Akayesu of crimes against humanity and genocide for, among other violence, employing rape and sexual violence as a weapon of war during the Rwandan genocide.

Legally and/or historically grounded examples

Cases that meet the term's legal threshold.

1

Rwanda

During the Rwandan genocide, Hutu extremists and armed forces used sexual violence and rape against Tutsi women. It is estimated that “250,000 to 500,000” Tutsi women and young girls experienced rape and that 10,000 to 20,000 children were born from the systemic rape. JRape and sexual violence were so widespread that there are countless testimonies which contributed to the landmark decision, in Prosecutor v. Akayesu, where the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda foundthat “Sexual violence was an integral part of the process of destruction, specifically targeting Tutsi women and specifically contributing to their destruction and to the destruction of the Tutsi group as a whole." The Akayesu case marked the first case to recognize rape and sexual violence as evidence of genocidal intent.

2

Bosnia

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) provides that throughout the Bosnian war, “Rape ceased to be perceived as the unrestrained sexual behaviour of individuals and was recognised as a powerful tool of war, used to intimidate, persecute and terrorise the enemy.” The tribunal heard hundreds of accounts from both men and women about their experiences of sexual violence and rape. In the case of Duško Tadić, the trial chamber found that thousands of Muslims and Croats were placed in camps by Serb forces and raped. The trial of Zdravko Mucić et al, “set a milestone in international justice by recognizing rape as a form of torture.” This trial centred around four men who played a prominent role in establishing and maintaining “infamous rape camps” in eastern Bosnia, where Muslim women were frequently taken to detention camps by Serb soldiers and raped. Their accounts later supported the prosecution of Serb leaders for “grave breach of the Geneva Conventions and a violation of the laws and customs of war.”

Hijacking

How the term is weaponized

Unsubstantiated claims of rape, without due process, undermine established legal process and diminish the credibility of genuine rape claims.

1

Nicholas Kristof and The New York Times “The Silence That Meets the Rape of Palestinians.”

Aimed at Israel

On May 11, 2026, The New York Times published an article by Nicholas Kristof, “The Silence That Meets the Rape of Palestinians.” The article immediately garnered international attention, yet relied on libellous statements and absurd claims that Israelis use “police dogs being coached to rape prisoners.” The op-ed was published a day before the report, "Silenced No More: The Civil Commission’s Report on October 7th Sexual Violence,�� came out, appearing to attempt to overshadow the documented sexual violence and rape perpetrated by Hamas against Israelis on and after October 7, 2023. Kristof’s article claims that Israel uses “rape” and other “sexual violence” as “standard operating procedures” in Israeli prisons. However, the statements made by Nicholas Kristof are:

Biologically Implausible: In his article, Kritoff claims that “Palestinian prisoners and human rights monitors have also cited reports of police dogs being coached to rape prisoners.” The allegation that dogs can be trained to rape people is ludicrous and biologically impossible. In response to the New York Times article, Salo Aizenberg wrote, “Several prominent canine experts have made it clear that training dogs to reach arousal and penetrate on command (and anally as alleged) is not possible. It's notable that the article did not cite an expert to back the claim and still has not. Such a sensational claim should have included experts for fact-checking. No dog expert has yet emerged to back the assertions in the article. It's a fatal gap in the story.” Reuven Weinstein, an animal behavioural psychologist and dog trainer, explains, “the claim mentioned in the op-ed that dogs were trained to rape prisoners ‘goes against science and nature.’ ‘Canine sexual behavior…can’t be trained on command’.”
Not Based on Evidence: Despite publishing statements that claim Israel has “used a security apparatus where sexual violence” and rape become a mechanism to hurt Palestinians, the New York Times article also notes that, “There is no evidence that Israeli leaders order rapes.” This statement directly contradicts the claim that there is “a pattern of widespread Israeli sexual violence.”
Cites Individuals Linked to Hamas: Kristof relies on organizations with ties to Hamas to support his argument that Israelis rapes Palestinian detainees. Shortly after Kristof's article was published, NGO Monitor disseminated NYT Op-Ed Cites Group Led by Hamas Advocates to Spread Incendiary Anti-Israel Libels, arguing that “Kristof relies heavily on reports, quotations, and citations from highly politicized NGOs that, at best, have well-established, documented anti-Israel agendas, and at worst, have direct links to Hamas and other terror groups.” For example, Kristof cites a report from “Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor,” a group with demonstrated ties to Hamas. For example, NGO Monitor notes that “Abdu and Mazen Kahel, EMHRM’s former chairman, appear on a 2013 list, published by Israel, of Hamas’ “main operatives and institutions” in Europe.”
Fueling Blood Libels: NGO Monitor reports that Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor (EMHRM perpetuates ongoing antisemitic libels. For example, EMHRM’s chairman, Ramy Abdu, posted on X, “Israel has an Insatiable appetite for drinking the blood of Palestinian children. Is it a religious doctrine or a psychological obsession?” NGO Monitor argues that “The group and its leadership have promoted demonizing propaganda for many years, including the medieval antisemitic blood libel of Jews drinking non-Jewish blood (see screenshot below) and conspiracy theories about Israel (“organ theft suspicions”, training police dogs to “rape prisoners and detainees.” Using such sources and promoting them as reliable organizations raise serious concerns about the article's legitimacy and factual rigour.
Pending Suit: In May 2026, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated on X, “Today I instructed my legal advisers to consider the harshest legal action against The New York Times and Nicholas Kristof. 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. Under my leadership, Israel will not be silent. We will fight these lies in the court of public opinion and in the court of law. Truth will prevail.”
Distorting Reality: Kristoff presents a one-sided portrayal of rape in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, omitting evidence of Hamas and other Palestinian terrorists’ use of rape as a weapon of war. CEO of the International Legal Forum Michal Cotler-Wunsh explains on October 7th, “Women were raped so badly that their legs could not be straightened for burial.”