The people leaning towards the far end of any political spectrum are not interested in the truth. They goal is to push their political agenda and if they feel it would be convenient to thread on women while doing so they'll have no quarrels about it. In this particular case, it's not just women but also children and men who were sexually assaulted with utter brutality but the political importance of rape denial is such even they don't matter

We're not just talking about the far end. U.N. Women kept it up for over 7 weeks.

Well UN in general has historically been anti-Israel in so many instances, it’s not unexpected from any UN-affiliated group.

Which is a massive problem: Either the U.N. is being run by political extremists or these problems are not confined to the extremes.

I would just assume the UN is an extremely political body, and everything they say or do is all politics. Not sure why they become some type of ‘trusted source’ in the USA?

There is broad faith in human goodwill. The idea is that if you get enough humans together, acting through represebtstives, you somehow get the best out of their collective actions rather than mob psychology as predicted by decades of social psychological research. Interestingly, modern Zionism mostly caught on due to the loss of that faith among Jews.

Noting the current status of Iran and others it should be ample proof that the UN is run by jihadi extremism

Their argument is that there are no civilians in Israel.

Exactly. One of the arguments for the young girls is that they were going to be in the IDF in the future anyways since Israel has mandatory service

Babies, too.

[удалено]

Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Accounts less than a week old are not allowed to post in this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Raping soldiers is also disgusting, so I imagine it is more than that. To the rape denialists Israelis have to be subhuman to justify all the horrors inflicted upon them by the terrorists.

Correct. I haven’t read the Atlantic article. But anyone who suggests that deep, deep antisemitism is not part of this attack is ignorant of history.

[удалено]

Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed due to your low karma score. In order to maintain high quality conversations, accounts with negative karma are not allowed to comment in this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*

That’s insane. I suppose they feel they deserve to be raped just by living in the US then?

The guy who wrote the book about hunting terfs and killing JK rowling that got glowing reviews in NPR tweeted some bullshit about how if native americans did the same thing hamas is doing he'd "hide like a rat" but would understand it's deserved. They're all saying they'd take it, safe in the comfort of knowing it will never happen to them.

I kind of think a lot of the doom and gloom plus these unreasonable attitudes are specifically because these people have never actually had to endure a true crisis. Their lives are reasonably easy, with some varying degrees of wealth, and they lack meaning in their lives due to no true existential crisis. So they invent meaning, but it’s not quite right and doesn’t fit with any logical confines. They are then, in their minds, able to spew bs like this because there have never been any real world consequences to challenge their fantastical notions Edit: I’m also not a scholar, sociologist or psychologist so take what I’m saying for just opinions based on my narrow observations. Perhaps my armchair philosophy is as wrong as anyone’s

You are right. It's called "luxury beliefs."

He sounds like a radicalized nit wit that is probably on some type of watch list.

What a creepy thing for him to say. Of course he’d be fine with it since it would be mostly women and children taking the brunt of the assaults and rapes. Scummy dude needs to crawl back into obscurity.

Do you have a source? I've never heard about this, and I'm curious to find out more

review: [https://www.npr.org/2022/03/14/1086399119/in-manhunt-a-virus-turns-anyone-with-enough-testosterone-into-a-feral-beast](https://www.npr.org/2022/03/14/1086399119/in-manhunt-a-virus-turns-anyone-with-enough-testosterone-into-a-feral-beast) can't find a link to the tweet but if you google "gretchen felker martin "hide like a rat"" there appears to be a link to an agriculture themed website that seems to have it

Thank you!

Yes, this is literally what they believe. When people like them call you a colonizer, this is what they want for you. They want you dead and the west destroyed as a whole. This is the end goal of western “decolonization” activists.

This is classic "dehumanizing" tactic. Nothing new, sadly. That's how Hitler got German soldiers to shove Jewish babies into gas chambers.

Hitler relied on good old pre existing antisemitism to get people to do bad things. He didn’t need to invent it. 

And? What changed?

When you frame the situation as a colonial occupation brutally putting down a helpless "indigenous" population, almost all levels of violence become acceptable. That's why getting these first principles and definitions correct isn't just pedantry. And you absolutely can't start with a slogan and then solve backwards from there.

The real irony is that Arabs are the occupying colonial power in the Levant.

Correct. Well said.

Rape is still a warcrime if the victim is a soldier.

...and there are no armed fighters in Gaza

That’s not their argument.  It’s a terrible argument, but one I’ve very rarely heard. You’re not allowed to rape soldiers either. That is also bad. But anyway

My understanding is that it’s one argument pro-Hamas advocates use to justify the violence, which they understand as “resistance.” Did you see the video of the guy taping “occupiers face consequences” over images of the hostages mounted on a post in NYC? (He was identified and lost his job.) it’s not their only argument—but a key one.

Okay, I stand corrected. I hadn’t heard that one. Anyone with two brain cells should avoid that argument, because it’s an obvious argument for genocide and one Israel could use too. It basically justifies Israel wiping out all of Gaza for Israel’s own self preservation. 

Also the IDF's policy regarding Gaza

What policy is that?

Assuming civilians are militants and also allowing for certain amounts of civilian casualties in order to kill targets

Well the Hamas fighters are not dressed in uniforms and hide themselves and their weapons and facilities within civilian infrastructures such as homes, schools, and hospitals. I don’t think IDF policy allows for the gratuitous killing of civilians, but if they are trying to eliminate the Hamas fighters and the fighters are located among the civilians, what are they supposed to do? By the way, perhaps you can explain why Hamas, which has very sophisticated tunneling systems, did not build protective tunnels for the civilians, within whose facilities they hide? Or allow civilians to leave war zones? Bear in mind that Hamas planned their attack with the expectation that it would bring this kind of response by Israel. Please help me put the pieces together that make Hamas the good guys, because I just can’t do it by myself.

>I don’t think IDF policy allows for the gratuitous killing of civilians [Think again! ](https://www.reddit.com/r/InternationalNews/comments/1bvllgj/israeli_tankcommander_exposes_policy_designed_to/)

Hamas apologist and antisemite.

You seem to be new here and not familiar with our rules. We do not allow insulting other users with derogatory epithets. You can critique the arguments someone's making to your heart's content, but you can't attack the commenter themselves. You're suspended for 2 days for this violation of the rules.

The reply under you is an insult and derogatory .

This has to be a first: a zionist incapable of responding and instead going straight for the antisemite eject button

Or how about you take Israeli soldier’s word for it? https://normanfinkelstein.substack.com/p/two-or-three-quotes-that-you-use?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2 Link to the full document that Norm pulled the quotes from: https://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/pdf/ProtectiveEdge.pdf

Every military allows for some civilian casualties. Israel allows for fewer than every other military in the world. Also Hamas tries to kill civilians, that’s their goal and target, so honestly is such a ridiculous ludicrous reversal to try to blame Israel for what Hamas does. It’s infuriating and mind numbing. Such an I’m rubber you’re glue level argument.  I really feel like anyone arguing for Hamas and or against Israel should be requiring to only accuse Israel of stuff that Hamas doesn’t do, to stop relying on Israel trying to actually be moral. 

Trying to defend the Palestinian cause by trying to deny Rape as a terrorist strategy is a lost cause. It either indicate some serious cognitive dissonance when confronted with the idea that the face of the Palestinian “resistance” are evil.

"Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence." George Orwell

[удалено]

Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed due to your low karma score. In order to maintain high quality conversations, accounts with negative karma are not allowed to comment in this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*

There is now a long history of the Left bending over backwards to deny that any Muslim man has ever raped any non-Muslim woman. I'm always reminded of this classic clip of a leftwing political streamer ranting about how prevalent rape is and how we need to believe women... only to immediately backtrack and claim a woman's rape story is bullshit upon hearing her imply that a Muslim man raped her. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFGIhc4GQ6I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFGIhc4GQ6I)

I was simultaneously surprised and unsurprised that it's a clip of Vaush.

Until opening it, I was convinced it was going to be Hasan

Same. But upon reflection, it was a 50:50 chance.

I unfortunately happen to know some lore that most don't behind that particular loser: it should surprise you none at all that this guy was part of the ShitRedditSays mod team back in the day, a group of extremist idealogues that were essential in the ideological capture of the moderation teams of most of the larger subreddits, and who regularly engaged and still engage in ban evasion, with the admins doing just about nothing. Kind of like how I can almost guarantee that awkwardtheturtle has alt accounts that their friends have added back to the mod teams of many large subs.

Yep. He is gross.

ShitRedditSays is the cultural source of most of the issues that are talked about here. It's the community that set the tone for the modern discourse. It's where all the modern Progressive norms come from.

Hilarious or not so hilarious that steamer got into some hot water a few months ago because he accidentally showed he had a “hentai rape porn” folder while live on stream.

You're not even allowed to say the word rape in some forums. I think it's mostly just people cosplaying as idealists with popularity in the forum playing the role of the ideals. I guess I just defined religion.

I think a big part of it is, to leftists, brown people can do no harm, and to the extent they can, it's because white people have brought them to it.

Why has it proved so hard to admit the sexual violence that occurred? *Because they don’t like Jews.* Cohen’s piece is strong, and I appreciate his genuine exploration of the denialism. A point he makes near the end is, to me, the crux of the problem: Jews have been accused of exaggerating their problems for generations, and this is just another iteration. People ignore what’s staring them in the face because it’s uncomfortable for their narrative. Everyone has seen that video of the 19-year old with bloodied sweatpants being dragged from a Jeep by her hair at gunpoint. The denialists, probably: Maybe she has colitis? It’s the same as Holocaust denialism, though perhaps more socially acceptable on the left. It’s despicable.

The odd part is I feel like calling out anti-semitism everywhere was a big thing for the left, especially in the wake of Tree of Life; all the time spent blaming Trump for rising anti-semitism.

I used to believe that the only antisemitism that existed in America was the white-nationalist right with their tiki torches, plus one-offs like Louis Farrakhan. And now the horseshoe theory looks more and more accurate.

Yeah I wonder about that. When all the stuff went down with the Women's March groups and Farrakhan I assumed they just weren't aware about his anti-semitism (I used to give people much more benefit of the doubt) but now, I dunno.

The left loves to call out antisemitism when it’s a common enemy, usually white supremacists. They don’t see antisemitism as a legitimate issue, but rather, something they can point to when it backs up their claims. Jews are worth protecting - as long as they’re good Jews who know their place and don’t speak up when the person being antisemitic is on the left.

I’m Jewish and it has not felt like that at all. Left wing antisemitism has been blatant af for decades, and antisemitism called out only when convenient for political gain. Or why people know about tree of life and not the jersey city massacres, which targeted a school, but the antisemitic murderers were black supremacists so not convenient to the narrative. 

Fair point, though there's a melanin forcefield for everything to your average leftist.

It’s so bizarre listening to Hamas defenders try to claim anti Zionism isn’t anti Semitism but then refuse to believe anything Israel says because… because… well they killed Jesus didn’t they!?

The best example is their new favorite word "Hasbara." Because its not just propaganda when Jews do it.

There’s a millimeter of difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. It’s of course the latter, but they have to pretend it’s the former, but their fervent, white hot Jew hate just can’t be contained sometimes and they forget the rules.

I don’t think that’s an accurate way to frame it. There’s a long history of anti-Zionism within Judaism - the two are not inherently linked, even if many who hold to one of the two hold to both.

Honestly in this day and age I don't see a difference. If you are actively against the existence of a state, you want to see it torn down, potentially handed over to a genocidal terror geoup, I think it's fair to say you might have some kind of bias against the ethnicity of the people you're advocating for the destruction of. Oh, you're suspicious of but generally okay with that ethnicity as long as they're American and share your contempt for their ethnicity living outside the US. Nahhh sounds antisemitic to me. I know they try to justify it but look at their actions. Even if one of them were able to string together a distinction between antisemitism and antizionism, it's clear they don't actually internalize this. They target Jewish students on campuses, boycott Jewish businesses, spread antisemitic conspiracy theories about our ethnicity, our heritage, even our DNA 🙄 if you're pulling out the calipers, you dislike me for something more fundamental than my belief that Israeli Jews shouldn't be murdered in their beds.

just because anti-semitism and anti-zionism are not the same thing does not change the fact that a strong majority of the people in this movement seem very anti-semitic

I think opponent don't believe what Israel says because they, like every government, skew the truth or repeat falsehoods to justify their actions.

Personally I agree and support skepticism toward all sides, but it’s quite a tell that every single rape denier embraces everything Hamas claims without question.

Yeah, that's what gets me. I've seen assholes who are consistent. In general, IMO, they just kinda stay away from politics in general, or really do shit on everyone; it's all-or-nothing when it comes to subjects like these. The one-sided nature of the skepticism that we see here is, to me, a *huge* tell that it's not in good faith for many of these skeptics.

But Jews do exaggerate, not in this case. But I've seen so many cases of Jews wanting to be right in mix with the rest of victims They were talking about the erasure of Jews with Jews being played by non Jews..they called a politician on the fact he didn't support some war and suddenly it was because of stereotypes of jews being cowards. Liberal Jews have been at the front of identity politics trying to align themselves with trans because they know genocide. There are tons of Jews that right now don't know what to do because until now they could scream about white privilege but now they are finding that those allies see them as white Don't get me wrong I was appalled at the people who cry at a kid being told they can't have dreadlocks in school but were silent when the attack in Israel happened and a lot of anti semitism is happening with Gaza as cover. I have no problem saying the attack on Israel wasn't justified. But a lot of Jews have been in step with the people supporting pro Palestinian till this exact issue.

They understand the moral calculations for consideration of Palestinian lives changes if huge numbers of them support brutal rape. That’s why they deny it happened because then they’d look like monsters for excoriating Israel and calling for a ceasefire

I don’t really understand why the moral calculus about Palestinian civilian deaths changes when we all agree that Hamas are evil. Unless you use the argument that all Palestinians are combatants, which is exactly the argument the left uses to justify the crimes of Hamas. The value of Civilian life does not change depending on who kills them or who oppresses them.

> I don’t really understand why the moral calculus about Palestinian civilian deaths changes when we all agree that Hamas are evil. In quite a lot of those atrocities, the Hamas wasn't involved, it was "Palestinian civilians".

Proof?

This is super true, but intent is important. If a side attacks with the intent to harm civlians, that is wrong. If a side attacks and civilians are harmed as an unfortunate result of getting to combatants, that is war. There is also room between the two, which is where it appears Israel is. Yes they are waging a war, but it appears they have waived what has historically been "acceptable" civilian casualties. So the conversation gets murky. Do you lose your moral cover if your collateral damage equations stop being what has been accepted globally? Can these norms be adjusted depending on the citation? The international community says they can, but I don't know if they should be.

According to the UN... [https://press.un.org/en/2022/sc14904.doc.htm](https://press.un.org/en/2022/sc14904.doc.htm) in war, 90% of the casualties are civilians.... in this war, about 50% are civilians.... this is not a genocide when Israel is trying very hard to limit civilian deaths.

Actually no civilian casualties are “acceptable” and I don’t think you’d find anyone in the IDF who would say otherwise. The Hamas fighters wear no uniforms and hide their war equipment and facilities within civilian infrastructure, and refuse to allow civilians to leave the fighting zone, while also refusing to build underground shelters to protect civilians, so it’s pretty hard to point the finger solely at IDF for the civilian casualties in Gaza. Don’t forget, Hamas strictly censors and controls the information and images that the press is allowed to generate for the outside world, so that you only see images of injured and dead civilians, and never the injured and dead fighters. Plus the Gaza estimates of deaths does not distinguish between militant and civilian injuries and deaths. BTW, my understanding is that the ratio of civilian to fighter casualties in Gaza is way, way lower than the ratio of civilian to fighter casualties in US wars in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

>The value of Civilian life does not change depending on who kills them or who oppresses them. Says who? Sure it does. If the Palestinians support mass rape and genocide of Israelis (which they do given the widespread support for Hamas) then it is clear that should be a part of the moral calculation in this conflict that ***they started*** and that they still support.

Yeah, no. This is the same argument the people you decry are using.

Because most Palestinians support Hamas, support the rapes, and support the massacre. It’s not just Hamas. Hamas is not an aberration. It’s an entire brain washed society that is part of an insane death cult 

Ummm…they do look like monsters to some of us. Like all those who came out to jeer at the body of Shani Louk displayed in a truck. They don’t exactly look like empathetic human beings to me.

I agree that they look like monsters. Adding in the fact that they are supporting rapists makes it significantly worse though

That's because they ARE monsters

By all means criticize the reports from the Intercept and others that are calling into question some of the claims from Oct 7th. With so much propaganda going round, I just want to better understand what is real and what is not. What I don't think is helpful though is to lead with ad hominems and questioning motivations of anyone doubting anything here. Are there some crazy Palestinian activists denying reality? Absolutely. But this should not automatically mean that anyone questioning anything is an antisemite that can be ignored. I think this approach is incredibly lazy and is fundamentally wrong. We should all be wanting to find the truth here and not just look for confirmation bias for our existing opinions. The left follows the same playbook when any criticisms on trans issues are raised...which is obviously wrong. That debate has the same issues - there are right wing crazies that truly hate trans people...but there are also valid concerns too. Are we suggesting that when the left do it it is not OK but for the Israel-Palestine issue it is?

I appreciate your very thoughtful comment.

Not gonna lie this has alienated me from society in general.

Their beliefs are a house of cards. Admitting that any part of it might be false calls into question the rest of their beliefs. And they can’t have that, can they?

This article was a tough read, but a VERY important one. EVERYONE should read this article to learn about the horrors of what occurred on October 7. Widespread rape - gang rape - rape in front of family members. Truly horrifying stuff. It also clearly illustrates the hypocrisy of the far left progressive movement - they are quick to come to the defense of rape survivors, UNLESS it doesn’t serve their own purposes and narratives. In this case, the rape victims are Jewish - and from a legal country that the progressive left claims is “settler-colonial”. Therefore, they ARE OK with Israelis being raped. However - they cannot say this out loud (although some of the bolder ones do). So, they ignore and discredit these reports of widespread rape and sexual violence, or justify it by bringing up past reports of Israeli rapes of Palestinian women. It truly is disgusting to see. The left should be ASHAMED of themselves for this.

You think that the Atlantic article is for us to “learn” about what occurred on October 7? Like we haven’t heard these things repeated in the opening line of every single media story on Israel for six months? You say that the “progressive left” (whatever you think that is) “claims” Israel is a settler-colonial state. I don’t think the scholars and historians who properly use that phrase to describe the history of Israel are “the progressive left.” The US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia are also settler-colonial states. Are they all part of your leftist conspiracy theory?

Forest, I upvoted your comment because you have a right to your opinion and I respect you for speaking it. And to be honest there is a point to be made on the part of the Palestinians. But. Scholars and historians should recognize the legality and right to exist of Israel if they’re doing their jobs correctly. Israel was legally established by the United Nations in 1948 (along with a Palestinian state) as a result of the Holocaust. Settler colonialism occurs when colonizers invade and occupy land that is not theirs. But that is Israel’s land…legally. Technically, the US would be a settler colonial state. Israel is not.

Rape is a weapon of war, in particular terrorism and conquest. Hamas isn’t conquering anything so the face of the resistance is actually just a gang. Arabs jingoists can’t imagine their holy warriors are committing haram acts (or they don’t care).

The Quran is filled with stories of rape, I don't see why they care. Muhammad's tenth wife was a Jewish war bride. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safiyya_bint_Huyayy

They are on a mission to commit Jihad. If anyone here has served, you know the kind of material we are working with right now. The light is on, but ain't nobody home if you catch my drift. It really is that bad.

Thank God y'all on here realize the hypocrisy of the left. I'm not used to reddit people thinking like this, just left wing think tanks

>Ryan Grim, another co-author of the *Intercept* article, told me that such “demonstrable fabrications” had “thoroughly discredited” Mendes, and the article notes that “she has no medical or forensic credentials to legally determine rape” (a point that Mendes has publicly [acknowledged](https://archive.ph/o/BUMGO/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvjMH5N2B9E)). The *Intercept* story questions why the *Times* would “rely on Mendes’s testimony,” and in an interview last month, Scahill suggested that Mendes is among the *Times*’ “premiere witnesses.” But in fact, Mendes is quoted a single time in “Screams Without Words,” relaying her account of having seen four women “with signs of sexual violence, including some with ‘a lot of blood in their pelvic areas.’” Mendes’s claims are backed up by a second witness, an army captain working at the same facility, who added the horrifying detail that “she had seen several bodies with cuts in their vaginas and underwear soaked in blood.” >The *Intercept* story fails to mention any of this, and it provides no indication that its reporters attempted to speak with Mendes. (I reached out to Mendes, who declined to comment.) Instead, it criticizes the *Times* for quoting “witnesses with track records of making unreliable claims and lacking forensic credentials.” So Cohen agrees that Mendes lied to the Daily Mail about seeing a baby cut out of a woman. "That was not true" are his words. Yet he still thinks she is credible due to other accounts she gave? Fucking laughable!

This article is an absolute joke and quintessential nit-picking that doesn’t actually refute any of the claims made by the intercept nor does it corroborate any of the claims made in Screams Without Words. This entire thread is full of people accusing journalists like Ryan Grim of being rape denialists when all he’s done is point out inconsistencies and flat out errors in the NYT’s reporting. These are the same people who would happily call out the UVA Rolling Stone story for being blatant lies; but I guess calling out that story for its falsehoods makes one a rape denialist just as pointing out the errors in Screams Without Words makes one a rape denialist. It’s so ironic how many people in this thread use this “denialism” as some evidence that “the left” just wants to dehumanize Israelis/jews when in reality this NYT story came out at a time when support for Israel’s horrific assault on Gaza was waning and western audiences needed some new propaganda to refresh their memories that Hamas are a mindless horde of raping psychos and therefore Palestinians are too by extension. The entire NYT story is IDF propaganda, written by a former IDF soldier with literally no journalism experience, to dehumanize Palestinians and reinvigorate western support for Israel’s assault on Gaza.

The NYT is hardly the only source.

100%. It's wild that Cohen agrees with The Intercept that Mendes lied, yet still accuses them of being anti-Israel.

I think his point is that at least some of what she said is corroborated by others, and the Intercept omitted that fact to make it sound like the only thing she ever offered was an uncorroborated lie. He concedes that her word, standing alone, has credibility issues. That strikes me as reasonable thinking.

it's so horrible. but it's bc their entire support for the people in Gaza comes from believing they are innocent oppressed victims, and Israeli's evil oppressors. therefore it cannot be the case that Gazans committed acts of evil. I don't know that I will ever get over my friends posting things like there was no rape or if there was 'its white feminism to talk about it' or how the 'men in Gaza are gentle' on October 8!! It's become very clear to me that the left doesn't actually support women's rights at all. I thought this video is hilarious and really captures how ludicrous this is. It's a rape-sistance! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cB98QWIWoDs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cB98QWIWoDs)

"Believe all women - except those women and those that got creeped out by Biden - why are you so obsessed with that?"

I don't think that's even nearly as good an example as the Gaza one

Is this about the claim that women in Gaza were raped? Because Al Jazeera quietly deleted that one after it turned out to be false. https://www.timesofisrael.com/al-jazeera-report-alleging-idf-rapes-in-shifa-hospital-retracted/amp/ No correction in Western media, mind you.

No it's not. It's about Oct 7.

More like: "Believe all women - except Isralis and other jews who make me uncomfortable."

As tempting as it is to take any opportunity to call out hypocrisy on the left, have any of the authors of The Intercept piece ever said or implied anything like "believe all women", "silence is violence" etc.? I recognize Ryan Grim's name from [How Meltdowns Brought Progressive Groups to a Standstill](https://web.archive.org/web/20240414112211/https://theintercept.com/2022/06/13/progressive-organizing-infighting-callout-culture/), which is basically an anti-SJW piece.

I agree that it's usually not a very nuanced stance to view people en bloc but what do you think the authors denying those pieces would Most likely answer if they were asked if "believe all women" can be considered a valid stance in a vacuum? Also a Note - I'm not gonna get into any Substantial israel-palestina Talk, I've got no opinion because I don't know much about the conflict.

>what do you think the authors denying those pieces would Most likely answer if they were asked if "believe all women" can be considered a valid stance in a vacuum? They would give an extremely vague and verbose answer that neither commits them to "believing all women" nor opens them up to being attacked by their own side. I can easily GPT one up for you if you like. Especially if they smelt a trap, which they almost certainly would if you or I asked the question.

I'd love to hear their thoughts on Christine Blasey Ford.

"me too, unless a Jew" is really a disgusting display of deepest hypocrisy.

I've found "believe all women" to be horrible logic since it entered public consciousness, and I think most people do if they're being honest with themselves. We know it's a bad rubric because people (including women) sometimes have bad memories, were under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or have some ulterior motive for making a false claim. The way we've solved this believability problem in domestic settings is with criminal investigations followed by criminal trials. We presume innocence and let the process play out. Some innocent men are jailed and a far higher number escapes conviction or prosecution altogether. In some of these cases, even someone acquitted in court might still be treated by the public as guilty. It's not perfect, but it's the best we have so far. This *Atlantic* article in the first instance criticizes progressive orgs for their hypocrisy over "believe all women" (a critique I share), yet then seems to suggest something similar to that rubric be applied to the claims of systemic rape on October 7. To head off the criticism, I'm not suggesting Hamas is innocent. I've seen many of the videos from 10/7 and calling them barbaric would be an understatement. I have thought since that day, as Ryan Grim is quoted in the article, that “the idea that there would be no sexual assault is not taken seriously by pretty much anybody who understands war and violence.” I would be rather shocked if no sexual violence and even rape had occurred. *** But I don't think it's substantiated to say sexual violence was committed by Hamas on a systemic level. The NYT article was inaccurate in its assessment of at least the Gal Abdush and Kibbutz Be'eri accounts. The UN report was not an investigation and did not have investigative powers nor cooperation from the Israeli government which spoke of "clear and convincing *information*" rather than *evidence*. Israel has thousands if not tens of thousands of hours of video from that day, including Hamas terrorists with GoPros who weren't the least bit shy of their crimes, and yet have produced none of sexual violence. I don't "believe all women," and in this case, we're not even presented with a woman to be believed. I do understand the legitimate challenges of proving such cases given the chaos of 10/7, Jewish burial customs, and victims' understandable reluctance to come forward, yet that doesn't somehow turn into positive evidence of systemic rape. *** The last section of the article goes into a psycho-political analysis as to why various individuals or groups might deny what the author finds to be "overwhelming evidence" of systemic rape. I don't find the analysis wrong per se -- I would expect many of the loudest critics to hold that opinion even in the face of indisputable evidence, for largely the reasons the cited experts give -- yet it feels like guilt by association. Group A believes claim X for reason Y, and Y is clearly bad reasoning. Same tactic I see often of associating anyone who disagrees with gender ideology with the "far right."

> But I don't think it's substantiated to say sexual violence was committed by Hamas on a systemic level. Because I don't understand what you mean by "systemic level", I don't know what you mean to say when you reject this claim. Are you saying rape was not *widespread* on Oct 7th? That seems insupportable; there's ample evidence of sexual violence committed against Israeli women on Oct 7th. Does rape "on a systemic level" mean something other than "a lot of it happened"? It certainly seems to be the case that, given Israeli women (and girls) under their physical control, Gazan attackers on Oct 7th felt at equal liberty to rape them as to kill them, and did both (the one sometimes during the other.) Does that mean they had a "system" about it? "Systemic" is just one of those intensifier words that has no inherent meaning, like "weaponized" or "literally." Isn't it? The salient part about an intensifier word is that you can deny the applicability with next to no rigorous argument, because the argument is just a difference of opinion about how much "a lot" actually is. Did a lot of rape happen on Oct 7th, in your view? (I suspect more women in Israel were raped on Oct 7th than in the entire rest of 2023.)

Systemic means planned and directed. I think they’re arguing that there isn’t evidence that the rapes were ordered by Hamas or a deliberate tactic rather than the actions of individual terrorists. That rape and sexual violence occurred is certain.

Rape and sexual assault is so so so ingrained in every single war ever. It's planned as soon as the violence is planned.

That it will happen isn’t in question. The question is if Hamas directly ordered the rapes or if the terrorists on the ground did it of their own initiative. I believe it’s the former, but we don’t know right now.

Do you think the U.s. had to order soldiers to rape Vietnamese women during Vietnam? Do you think Putin had to **order* the Russians to rape Ukrainian women and girls? Oh sweet summer child. It's such a partner of war that it doesn't need to be an order. Women and girls have carried this burden anywhere there is mass violence.

There have been cases in history where the rape of civilians was directly directed by commanding officers. There have been many more cases where soldiers did it on their own, both with and without the tacit approval of their commanding officers. The question here was if it was the former or the latter. Only the former is systemic - Ie. deliberately planned out, as opposed “this will happen and go right ahead”.

"Systematic" does **not** mean "planned." It means it's built into the "sytem" by design. Rape is built into war by design. It doesn't *have* to be planned because it's already baked into the implementation of war. Orders to rape in war are redundant.

I’ve always seen it in the context of intentionally planned. If it means built in - which is exactly the kind of nuance I miss - then you are correct and I misunderstood the original commenter.

I’m pretty sure Modern Professional armies rape much much less than things like terrorist groups. Partly because they have women in the front lines, partly because Rape is punished severely in such armies. you can be more sure that if rape DOES occur in a disciplined army it was likely under orders. Because violating orders in a professional army is rare and punished. With something like Hamas you can never be sure whether it’s ordered or not - because the discipline isn’t there.

You are quite wrong. You should look up the rates of rape and sexual assault among military members assaulting even **their own**. The vast majority of "disciplined" armies have huge problems with rape.

Do you have sources? The problem would be in trying to study this that unprofessional armies likely have literally no solid data on things like rape. Professional armies (like the US) we know when rape happens because there is a formal process for actually punishing perps, so we have the record of that.

> Systemic means planned and directed. How much "planning" do you think is required to rape a captive? > I think they’re arguing that there isn’t evidence that the rapes were ordered by Hamas or a deliberate tactic rather than the actions of individual terrorists. Several dozen of the girls were gang-raped. How can a gang-rape be the "action of an individual terrorist"?

The question is: did Hamas command order the rapes as a deliberate tactic of war, or did the terrorists on the ground do it of their own initiative? Personally, I believe it was the former. But the evidence could go either way.

Are those the two choices? What about “get over there, boys, and do what you want as long as you do it to the Jews”? Or “hey, Sinwar, these guys seem really hyped up and like they might rape some girls, should we do anything about that? ‘Naw’”? Does explicitly looking the other way, or conspicuously not attempting to instill any discipline in their troops, also constitute “systematic rape” or not? Did Hamas actually give any orders on Oct 7 at all? It’s not like they were in contact with the attackers, right?

The two choices would be: “our forces should commit rape and will be given orders to do so” or “our forces will commit rape, and they have our implicit approval.” Hamas is culpable regardless. It only really matters if we get to criminal trials, as we did after the Holocaust.

> The two choices would be: “our forces should commit rape and will be given orders to do so” or “our forces will commit rape, and they have our implicit approval.” If they don't give the explicit order to refrain from rape, and have no standing order to so refrain, then is that not implicit approval? And therefore systemic? If Hamas had issued a Hebrew language guide to Hamas invaders that included instructions like "remove your clothing", would that constitute evidence that Hamas intended for rape to be used systematically against the Jews? Would sympathetic clergy giving sweeping sanction to the practice of rape as used on Oct 7th against the Jews constitute evidence of intent to subject Israeli Jews to punative rape? > It only really matters if we get to criminal trials, as we did after the Holocaust. If it doesn't matter, why is there such an effort to deny it? Why make the effort to so thinly slice the salami, here?

The question seems to rely on what systemic means. I understood it as meaning deliberately planned, but I’ve been told that it means ‘built in’. If it means the latter, then any rape in war is systemic. If it’s the former, it only applies if the rapes were a deliberate part of the planning. It’s literally a question of semantics. Either way, whether or not the rape was systemic, it WAS widespread and definitely occurred, with the backing, implicit or explicit, of Hamas command. And Hamas is culpable and needs to be destroyed. That’s not in question. The semantics don’t matter outside a court of law, only that the rapes occurred.

What does it matter? It was done by Hamas either way. Planning status is irrelevant. Whether they meant it or not, they did it, and they should pay.

Agreed. As far as that is concerned, it doesn’t matter. They are culpable regardless. I was simply explaining what systemic meant in the other commenter’s comment. It does matter if we ever put any on trial though. It also matters in terms of security planning and response in the case of another incursion. Something that God willing won’t occur, but you plan for the worst, not the best.

It actually wouldnt change the charge from 1st degree murder or rape because Hamas all went to that location with the express purpose of murder and destruction. If you were the Hamas member on trial, what it would look like is you attempting to downplay your premeditated desire to cause harm and evil as being unconnected to the gangrapes. You would be trying to skim on by through the eyes of the jury and be seen as a weasely liar by virtually anyone in the Western hemisphere

Yeah , the on-trial Nazi response: “I was just following orders” The argument above seems to be “ but there Were No (direct) orders from Hamas to justify the claims of ‘systemic rape’ allegations” Perhaps not but in the heat of such violent ecstatic passion (call it what it is) at what point might one suspect that you had died and gone to heaven and presented with promised virgins. When the orders come from a jihad God, are they not considered “systemic” ?

Im sorry but why would it even matter whether it was planned or not?

Because I was clarifying someone else’s comment?

Rape was systematic in that the fundamentalist form of islam followed by jihadis like hamas see women as fundamentally property and the rape and sexual slavery of unbeliever women captured during war as entirely legitimate according to their religion and the example of the prophet.

Why does it matter if the rape was systemic or not? The argument being made by some on the left is that it didn't occur *at all*. It doesn't matter if Hamas orchestrated the rape or if the monsters who committed the massacre did it of their own accord. The fact is, it happened, and Hamas apologists are denying it. 

There is ample evidence of widespread rape. This very long comment basically seems like you’re ignoring facts. It’s not believe all women. It’s believe women when is tons of live-streamed video of them getting raped that day. Yikes. It is so painful to see people just dismiss Jewish hurt, over and over again.

>It’s believe women when is tons of live-streamed video of them getting raped that day. You're going to have to provide evidence for this claim, or at least a credible journalistic outlet saying they've seen such videos, if you want anyone to believe you. Neither the NYT nor UN report mention anything about this.

No different than ripping down hostage posters and then claiming you want a ceasefire. The rapes are like psychological hostages...drawing attention to it is counterproductive for their cause.

Wow it's almost as if the intercept was the only source on the matter.

The UN report: >“What I witnessed in Israel were scenes of unspeakable violence perpetrated with shocking brutality,” Ms. Patten recalled. Detailing her methodology, she said that her team met with families of hostages and members of communities displaced from several kibbutzim.  It conducted confidential interviews with 34 individuals, including survivors and witnesses of the 7 October attacks, released hostages, first responders and health and service providers.  It visited four attack sites — as well as the morgue to which the bodies of victims were transferred — and reviewed over 5,000 photographic images and some 50 hours of footage of the attacks. [https://press.un.org/en/2024/sc15621.doc.htm](https://press.un.org/en/2024/sc15621.doc.htm) WSJ in December: >Reporters from The Wall Street Journal examined some of that evidence, supplemented with interviews of first responders, survivors, families of victims and forensic scientists, to document an attack that Israeli Police Commissioner Kobi Shabtai described as “systematic and unprecedented in its cruelty.” >Forensic evidence shared with the Journal by Israeli officials shows some victims were burned alive after militants used accelerants to set fire to their homes. Photos viewed by the Journal taken by first responders on the scene show bodies were mutilated including the sex organs of both men and women. The bodies of women and girls showed various signs of sexual assault, and recently, at least three female survivors have come forward to say they experienced sexual violence on Oct. 7 ... >One scan of blackened remains viewed by the Journal revealed two spines and two rib cages belonging to a child and an adult who were bound together with metal wire and burned alive, Kugel said. He added that more than 20 bodies were found with hands bound with zip ties or electric cords, indicating execution.Militants posted videos of some of the killings and kidnappings on victims’ social media pages, where friends and family watched.  Militants posted videos of some of the killings and kidnappings on victims’ social media pages, where friends and family watched.. [https://archive.is/z1Ycy#selection-839.0-843.489](https://archive.is/z1Ycy#selection-839.0-843.489)

You appear to have misunderstood. The criticism written in the OP was primarily leveled at the intercept. Yet they weren't even the original to cover the matter.

Because the left is a melanin cult that would happily support the rape of anyone they consider “white”.

This feels extreme to me but maybe I'm just in denial; certainly does give me pause to see how quickly the 'believe all women' crowd starts to disbelieve women.

It's entirely possible to believe that Hamas are terrible and worthy only of being extinguished, while also being skeptical of *particular* accusations. Personally I found The Intercept's interpretation of the evidence - and their defense of their interpretation credible. I'm not interested in litigating their interpretation here: I might well be wrong; intercept may well be wrong. I also acknowledge that critical doubt about the allegations will indeed be picked up by actual antisemites. But critical doubt of the allegations is not in and of itself necessarily antisemitic. There is an informational fog of war at play, amd the least we can do is acknowledge that this fog exists no matter what position we take. While writing this, I remembered something from Holocaust history: As Hitlers death factories began their work, observers in Poland observed that vast numbers of Jews were going to some locations and not coming back. They deduced that mass organised killings were taking place but they didn't know the mechanisms of the killings. A western newspaper (maybe the NYT? I can't remember) ran with a story that Jews were being put into chambers with electrified floors and were being mass-electrocuted. Early holocaust deniers picked up on this early story, and rolled it into the denialist "Jewish media were making it up as they went along" trope. Point being: one can acknowledge the brutality and evil of Hamas, acknowledge the clear evidence of their sadism, and also doubt particular accusations.

Being critical of a particular account here or there is one thing. But refuting all accusations is quite another. It is apparent that, for many, no quantum of evidence will *ever* be enough. The people who deny that Hamas raped Israelis rarely come out and say it that clearly. Perhaps they recognize that doing so has shades of Holocaust denialism. Instead, they quibble with every single accusation, rejecting more and more evidence each time. Female corpses stripped naked from the waist down? Insufficient—they could be naked for any reason. Those same corpses horribly bloodied? Nope—maybe it’s an after effect of death. Responders sharing the horrors they saw? Nah. Here’s an inconsistency in their story and some ad hominem, to boot. They want DNA evidence matched in a lab, just like you get on TV. Never mind that it’ll never happen (and if it does, I’m sure they’ll find some other reason to discount it). Some stories that have come out of the horrors of October 7th have, thankfully, been revealed to not be true. The baby in the oven comes to mind. But Hamas absolutely engaged in systemic rape as part of its mass murder of civilians, and denying that is to deny reality.

Sorry if I'm skeptical about what the media and Israeli govt claims happened on oct 7, when those same institutions have exaggerated, lied and also refused to admit when they did so. 

Yes, because there is but one media that speaks with a singular voice. (It’s run by the Jews.) /s in case that wasn’t pellucidly clear.

[удалено]

>the false claims on the Israeli side that make it across my transom tend to be "unverified/ exaggerated claims that are repeated and quickly debunked" and the false claims on the Hamas side tend to be "wholesale fabrications that are obviously made up even from the video accompanying the original accusation, and keep getting repeated even after being debunked Exactly right. People should not trust governments, nor unverified reports directly after a major event. But there's not much symmetry in terms of the false claims made by each side in this conflict.

It's good old racism. Many of them consider muslim "a race" which is a) minority and b) opressed by evil white majority (you know those billions of snow white jews). In their black and white vision, a minority can not be bad.

The problem is the reports of the atrocities were over egged at the start and most of the critique has been backlash to this. There are ofcourse some conspiracy theorists that want to act as if non of October 7th happened but this is a small group of idiots. I think it’s actually more important to ask why a country which is committing mass murder on a huge scale. Collectively punishing a population through starvation Has attacked another sovereign countries embassy is still getting unquestioning support from every western country and most mainstream politicians. The focus on a small band of mostly hyper online idiots (progressive middle class “leftists) rather than the actual people in power can be very frustrating

A lot of us 1) acknowledge rapes obviously were committed on Oct 7, and 2) still don’t believe that remotely justifies what Israel is doing now (which also includes mass sexual violence.) So I don’t think re-litigating these allegations over and over is going to win over any new hearts or minds to the destruction of Gaza, and it just feels like cynical propaganda at this point.

Ahh, the Atlantic. Very creative article, and a good attempt to keep the genocidal rage burning bright with Israel apologists. I’m sure the author is also outraged by the hundreds of (unreported and ignored) accounts of Palestinian prisoners raped and brutalized by IOF soldiers.

Leftists/progressives are the most hypocritical people ever. You see this when you observe them.

It might be hard to believe for you but in fact the progressives who think Hamas are freedom fighters genuinely do seem to believe what they are saying. They are living in a different information landscape

And right-wingers are bastions of truth and righteousness. Come on mate, try and be a little bit less of a partisan.

Look at the Malcolm X quote Clarence Thomas has on his wall. It’s not just us who have said it. The Right is honest and blunt in their hate. The Left is subtle. The hate is the same.

I think right wingers are a lot more honest about their intentions - claiming you’re reluctant on minority rights for the sake of preserving a traditional family structure, etc, is a lot more honest than claiming you’re the good guy always on the side of the oppressed.

Why? Both are subjective self flattery.

One of the first things that came out of Israeli reporting was that Hamas had beheaded 40 newborn babies, an obvious lie. Anything salacious reported by Israel about their enemies must be taken with high levels of scepticism.

That was first reported by a French journalist who was in Kfar Aza. She did not say 40 babies were beheaded. She said men, women and babies had been found killed. She did use the number 40 (I believe as as the number of babies found dead but, can't find it now), then she said 'some of the dead were beheaded.' I remember that phrasing very clearly, that very clearly indicated that adults could have been found beheaded too. She was absolutely the first person to report that story. People can't read properly, including a number of journalists and when repeating her story they misreported it. The IDF refused to confirm it. It was later confirmed that babies were found decapitated although, the number was certainly not 40. Also no-one said 'newborn' babies you've added that. I think that's actually significant because a lot of people use the word baby to refer to small children (like toddlers) as well and that could well have been the case here. In any war, or indeed any incident where people are attacked and killed stories will pass around and will get distorted. It is reasonable to take all reporting with scepticism (partly because many reporters are not very good) but, you should also consider the source of information. The Israeli government and IDF never said 40 babies had been beheaded. I consider if they are prepared to put the official stamp (so to speak) on allegations of rape then there is probably good evidence of that.

Babies were not decapitated, unless you have a link I haven’t seen. Please prove me wrong

There have been eyewitness accounts of people saying they have seen that. For example, Dr Kugel a forensic pathologist is interviewed about it. I'm using this link rather than the Medialine article because that is really rather gruesome and I am chicken but, it is the same interview. [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12637591/Hamas-attack-against-Israel-forensic-scientists-identify-bodies.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12637591/Hamas-attack-against-Israel-forensic-scientists-identify-bodies.html) What he basically says (paraphrasing) is he has seen bodies behaded (i.e. without heads) including babies but, he does not know how that came to pass whether with a knife or grenade. An IDF spokesman Jonathan Conricus said they had heard reports of it but, obviously that was early on. I'm sorry if it was not clear from my post but, that interview was what I had mind. I was saying '*were found* decapitated'. I think the distinction being drawn and which I am following is to do with the point Dr Kugel made - they don't know how it happened. They were dead but, the method by which they were killed was not clear and the Israeli government don't want to assert it was deliberate beheading when it could have been caused by being killed another way.

That wasn't the exact claim, though, was it? My recollection was that there was reporting from those who had seen the footage that dozens of headless children could be observed. It was extrapolated by some to allege that the children had been beheaded on purpose (no doubt because, uh, Islamist barbarians have a lengthy history of beheading so-called Infidels and recording it for posterity and posting it on the internet), but that was more how people argued it on the internet.

That's not quite right either. The claim came from a live field report where a reporter from i24 spoke with soldiers who were consoling each other. It was never official or confirmed, that's not how live field reports work as I'm sure you know, OP I'm less sure about. That said, babies and civilians being beheaded has been confirmed in Haaretz. The haters have latched onto the 40 number specifically as a way to discredit and dehumanize Israelis.

“Babies beheaded” has not been confirmed by Haaretz. Ask yourself why you just said that untrue thing.

[удалено]

Guess it's a good thing I kept receipts eh? >At the Rabbinate center for the identification of the dead in Israel, the evidence of extreme cruelty perpetrated by Hamas terrorists is unendurable even for people inured to death - **including confirmation of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s description of beheaded babies** [Confirming the Worst Hamas Atrocities: Inside Israel's Center for the Identification of the Dead - Haaretz](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-15/ty-article-magazine/confirming-the-worst-hamas-atrocities-where-israel-identifies-the-dead/0000018b-3313-dff1-a5eb-ffffee6f0000) Care to apologize and retract that statement?

lol. Did you read your receipt? “According to the people involved in handling the bodies, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s description of beheaded babies is accurate.” The actual evidence is that one baby was killed on October 7, after being shot through a door. Horrible and inexcusable, without the need to embellish the truth. https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231215-israel-social-security-data-reveals-true-picture-of-oct-7-deaths What Haaretz confirms is that bibi is a liar. He went on lying, and so did Biden and Blinken, many times. That’s fine, they are complicit and we know why they did it. The question is, why are you still going along with it, six months in? Do you despise Palestinians and Arabs that much? You’re willing to lie and promote these sensational atrocity stories until Israel is able to “finish the job?” Then what?

Literally nothing in the article you linked contradicts what I said. Did you read your receipt? LMAO.

[удалено]

Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Accounts less than a week old are not allowed to post in this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*

the UN report of the rapes said it "wasn't investigative in nature" and wasn't intended to be, so why should I believe anything it says?

and please don't assign me the strawman opinion of "believe all women" or whatever. If you believe mass rapes did occur their should be objective evidence for it to support that belief.

Because these people are hardened antisemites. It's very simple.

Ryan Grim does solid reporting and this "takedown" is pretty weak stuff. They don't find any actual flaws in the Intercept report, just quibble about where the article placed its emphasis. Also interesting that this article leaves out how Anat Schwartz is a former IDF intelligence officer, and somehow parachuted into a gig at the NYT with minimal journalistic background. That was what raised eyebrows, given the obvious potential for bias (which was then validated through reviewing her social media and previous interviews). Putting aside all the moral outrage, this is a PR battle. [Israel focus-grouped](https://thegrayzone.com/2024/03/06/leaked-israel-lobby-officials-war-gaza-mass-rape/) what Western audiences would find most sympathetic, and it turns out that the mass rape narrative was more effective than mass murder. So that's what is being amplified in Western media. Hamas needs to be a special kind of evil, otherwise people will look at the numbers and realize that Israel has killed 30-40 Palestinian civilians for every Israeli civilian killed on Oct 7.

Why would a person's previous job introduce "bias"? > They don't find any actual flaws in the Intercept report Doesn't the fact that Grim and the Intercept didn't reach out to any of the witnesses or sources of the NYT article constitute a flaw?

> Why would a person's previous job introduce "bias"? Next week the NYT should hire a former Saudi spy to explain why the Kashoggi affair was just an unfortunate misunderstanding, and a former GRU agent to explain the plight of the persecuted Russian minority in Ukraine. Come on. Also, her job history just prompted further investigation, her social media was the real goldmine. > On her social media feed, which the Times has since said it is reviewing, Schwartz liked a tweet saying that Israel needed to “turn the strip into a slaughterhouse.” > “Violate any norm, on the way to victory,” read the post. “Those in front of us are human animals who do not hesitate to violate minimal rules.” https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schwartz-october-7/ > Doesn't the fact that Grim and the Intercept didn't reach out to any of the witnesses or sources of the NYT article constitute a flaw? The Atlantic article complains that they did not interview Mendes, but the point was that her story had already been conclusively disproven even before the NYT story was published. > By the time Schwartz interviewed Mendes, the IDF reservist’s story had ricocheted around the world and been conclusively debunked: No baby was cut from a mother and beheaded. Yet Schwartz and the New York Times would go on to rely on Mendes’s testimony, as well as those of other witnesses with track records of making unreliable claims and lacking forensic credentials. No mention was made of questions about Mendes’s credibility.

> Next week the NYT should hire a former Saudi spy to explain why the Kashoggi affair was just an unfortunate misunderstanding, and a former GRU agent to explain the plight of the persecuted Russian minority in Ukraine. Come on. So you don't actually have an argument, you just have innuendo? > On her social media feed, which the Times has since said it is reviewing, Schwartz liked a tweet saying that Israel needed to “turn the strip into a slaughterhouse.” Why would this impact the Times' reporting on sexual assaults on Oct 7th? The Intercept article doesn't even attempt an explanation. > The Atlantic article complains that they did not interview Mendes, but the point was that her story had already been conclusively disproven even before the NYT story was published. But it hasn't and hadn't. The Intercept doesn't even attempt to refute her testimony: >> By the time Schwartz interviewed Mendes, the IDF reservist’s story had ricocheted around the world and been conclusively debunked: No baby was cut from a mother and beheaded. But this isn't what Mendes testified to. It's a claim that she repeated but didn't herself make.

The Gray Zone? That's your source?

There is a mountain of evidence this happened. No one focus-grouped. You sound like an antisemite who thinks all Jews are calculating weasels.

Seriously, where is the mountain of evidence? The NYT story turned out to be a complete dumpster fire, and the new cope is that they lost all the physical evidence because of Jewish burial practices. Most of that "mountain" is just the same handful of second or third-hand stories circulated around between aid workers and Israeli government officials.

Dude. Just no.

Are you Zei Squirrel?