The whole situation is so extreme it almost reads like sick parody. Last year there were riots in Israel when some IDF soldiers were arrested for raping prisoners. The riots were in defense of the rapists, and were attended not only by extremist Israeli civilians but also Israeli lawmakers, who stormed the military base where the rapists were being held.
The leaker releases a video of some of the abuse and is then accused of "blood libel" against the IDF by the Minister of Defense, Israel Katz. That phrase, "blood libel", is specifically intended to invoke the old medieval stories of Jewish people sacrificing and eating gentile children for their religious holidays. For leaking a video proving that the abuse is real.
None is spoken of course about parading naked murdered women on the streets of Gaza on Oct. 7th - that's perfectly fine.
The fact that those prisoners in question are part of the Nuhba brigade of Hamas , who perpetrated those attrocities is of course, not worth mentioning at all.
I'm not justifying the actions of those guards (if took place at all, since it is still under investigation, but it looks like people in HN already indicted them), but i wonder how much thought was put into this comment, blaming a whole society for an act of such a few.
It's a common accusation of pro-Israel side that the whole world is so blindly and forcefully pro-Hamas that Israel can and must to do whatever it takes, even bending or breaking rules it would otherwise respect.
IME this is just not true. Sure, antisemitism is real, especially among certain strata of the society.
BUT in the main, my observation is that no one supports Hamas or their approach. Even people who are very critical of Israel in the West (but not beyond the line of fringe, rabid antisemitism) state that 7/10 attacks were horrific and Hamas is a terrible terrorist org.
I can't help but feel that the "whole world hates us" view is a hyperbola, at some level deliberate, to justify doing whatever Israel wants to civilian Palestinians.
> The real reason there is such a huge backlash against her is because anyone with room temperature iq would predict that that would be how Israels opponents would take it,
What matters more, prosecuting rapists or protecting Israel's reputation? That's not really a question, I already have your answer.
I strongly condemn the October terrorist attack but I don’t see how someone can defend the morality of the IDF after the Gaza campaign.
We are talking of an army arbitrarily establishing no go zone in the middle of streets, not publishing them and then having snipers shoot down civilians crossing these imaginary lines including the ones coming to get back the corpses of their murdered family members. An army so blood thirsty they shot their own defenceless hostage who came in front of them with hands raised.
It’s pretty clear at that point that the IDF has absolutely no moral. This doesn’t in any way mean I support Hamas.
Israeli soldiers sexually abuse a Palestinian prisoner, while the leaker gets hounded. From settler violence to cases like this, there is little or no accountability anymore in Israel.
anymore? Based on the many books I've read about Israel, there was never any accountability. It's just more prominent and unavoidable now because of social media.
The OP said the IDF raped the Nuqba terrorist, as though it is fact. I pointed out that this is an allegation, not a fact, and the IDF soldiers have not yet been tried. I also pointed out that the video doesn't clearly support the allegation, and the video has been doctored.
You don't want to deal with common law standards, so you're moving on to other hoaxes.
Do you really expect all of us to defer our judgement and trust in the integrity of the Israeli courts? The knife didn't shove itself into that prisoner's ass. Those soldiers are rapists.
Actually, in this case I expect you to reject common law standards you would otherwise embrace: the right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, the writ of habeas corpus, standards of evidence, etc., and instead to rely on your instincts and feelings. It feels nicer for many to think like a medieval peasant than an enlightened liberal when it comes to Israel and the Jews.
Nor am I surprised by your antipathy to Israeli courts, despite the fact that Israel’s courts rank highly on independence and rule-of-law lists, are broadly regarded as independent and capable of delivering fair process. Bodies that effectively vouch for this include Freedom House, global rule-of-law datasets (e.g., the World Bank WGI), and the practical trust reflected in extradition arrangements with other western countries.
Translation: "Yeah bro, we really should avoid due process, common law standards, court hearings, and all the progress that's been made in the past 400 years of western jurisprudence and instead we should all just trust me bro."
Your argument reflects medieval peasant thinking and you use sarcasm to paper over a lack of substance, because if you say what you think in a non-sarcastic way it would sound ridiculous ("yeah, no trial. let's just declare him guilty and treat it as fact.").
Right, because over the course of the past 400 years, those institutions have always worked everywhere and no one's ever been at the margins of the justice system, been arrested arbitrarily or ignored by the police, had to languish in jail without a charge, been denied access to competent attorneys, a fair and speedy trial, or been subject to institutional biases and unwarranted imprisonment. Certainly that would never happens in a territory where it has happened routinely for 70+ years.
You phrase your argument in a sarcastic way, because if you clearly stated what you mean your argument would appear ridiculous.
Take the sarcasm out of your position and this is essentially what you're saying:
"Yes, I reject the past 400 years of progress in jurisprudence because it's not always perfect, and I would prefer for us to return to medieval times."
No, that's what has been identified within the past 400 years as a straw man. You aren't even acknowledging the possibility of miscarriages of justice, let alone the possibility that it can be an institutional pattern. You should probably reflect on that and the impact it has on your argument, particularly in light of how it's been observed in the Israeli justice system.
I'm not trying to get the commenter to tone it down. Nor am I certain that they're jew-haters. I'm trying to get people to realize that however they feel about Jews their standards of evidence are absurdly different when it comes to Israel.
The video in question is troubling and should be investigated, but it does not clearly show rape, so I think that for someone to say "this shows rape" and "no matter what evidence comes out in trial I can dismiss that because it's a trial in Israel" is medieval peasant thinking.
> I'm trying to get people to realize that however they feel about Jews their standards of evidence are absurdly different when it comes to Israel.
That the video doesn't show rape and/or was doctored are also contested allegations, so your pearl clutching about double standards rings extremely hollow.
The whole point of the judicial system is to navigate through contested allegations. A trial is what I'm advocating for. You're the one suggesting we should prejudge this, no trial needed.
There is no assertion in these sentences that treats the video being doctored and not showing a rape as contested allegations that need to be established as fact over the course of a trial. Maybe you've changed your mind in the past couple of hours, though.
I made an argument that there should be a trial and argued explicitly against those who think thee shouldn't be a trial. Here's how you responded to my defense of common law and due process:
"Right, because over the course of the past 400 years, those institutions have always worked everywhere and no one's ever been at the margins of the justice system, been arrested arbitrarily or ignored by the police, had to languish in jail without a charge, been denied access to competent attorneys, a fair and speedy trial, or been subject to institutional biases and unwarranted imprisonment. Certainly that would never happens in a territory where it has happened routinely for 70+ years."
To me that sounds like you're saying that the standards of jurisprudence developed since the enlightenment are unnecessary because they sometimes fail, and that therefore a trial would be superfluous; it's fine to prejudge rape in this instance. This is at least my reading of your comment; I admit your comment is dripping with sarcasm so it's hard to tell what you actually meant.
I've also been consistent that the accused should be presumed innocent and has a right to due process. If you disavow your prior comment and agree with these common law principles then congratulations you've found a point of agreement with a zionist, and you disagree with the others in the thread who argue that a rape definitely occurred and the accused can be presumed guilty.
My comment clearly advocates for common law standards: the right to a trial, the presumption of innocence, and so on. Am I understanding correctly that you think this advocacy--a staple of western thought--is bad faith? You prefer mob rule, no courts, medieval justice, and so on, and consider that good faith? What a topsy-turvy world we live in.
Why does the reportimg say she "abandoned" her car at the beach? She was at the beach when she was located. People usually do not take their cars with them once they arrive at their destination. To get out and walk is not abandoning the car.
This is the first time I've ever seen someone suggest there was truth to the blood libel. It seems pretty obviously absurd to me that there would exist a Jewish ritual requiring Christian blood. Can you provide this "irrefutable evidence," please?
No, it's a very specific thing and not at all applicable here. Blood libel was something along the lines of "the Jewish people are murdering children to use their blood for secret ceremonies"[0]. The "libel" part should give it away - it doesn't apply to someone revealing true facts.
The people calling it blood libel because the facts are inconvenient and make Israel look bad are being disingenuous.
In one sentence, you managed to make up two things I never said, put them both in quotes, and then falsely allege I jumped from one statement I never said to the other I also never said. This shows an impressive amount of bad faith.
>The indictment said the soldiers assaulted the Palestinian prisoner and sodomized him with a knife, causing multiple injuries... When military police came to Sde Teiman in July to detain the soldiers suspected of abuse, they scuffled with protesters opposed to the arrests.
How the fuck do people go out there protesting in support of the violent rape of prisoners? Sickening stuff.
>Leaks happen all the time, the fact is
she was tasked with finding the leaker
and lied to the supreme court about
the investigation. Just yesterday she wrote a suicide
note, made half the country look for
her and dumped her phone into the
sea, only after that was she arrested.
come on, couldn't opt for gender neutral pronouns? Just had the help identify the person huh. Of those who were involved with treatment, i imagine an already small number, leaking gender and details of what was shared and the scope of their specific involment may cut it down to a very small number of plausible people, if not the exact person.
The leaker releases a video of some of the abuse and is then accused of "blood libel" against the IDF by the Minister of Defense, Israel Katz. That phrase, "blood libel", is specifically intended to invoke the old medieval stories of Jewish people sacrificing and eating gentile children for their religious holidays. For leaking a video proving that the abuse is real.
The fact that those prisoners in question are part of the Nuhba brigade of Hamas , who perpetrated those attrocities is of course, not worth mentioning at all.
I'm not justifying the actions of those guards (if took place at all, since it is still under investigation, but it looks like people in HN already indicted them), but i wonder how much thought was put into this comment, blaming a whole society for an act of such a few.
IME this is just not true. Sure, antisemitism is real, especially among certain strata of the society.
BUT in the main, my observation is that no one supports Hamas or their approach. Even people who are very critical of Israel in the West (but not beyond the line of fringe, rabid antisemitism) state that 7/10 attacks were horrific and Hamas is a terrible terrorist org.
I can't help but feel that the "whole world hates us" view is a hyperbola, at some level deliberate, to justify doing whatever Israel wants to civilian Palestinians.
What matters more, prosecuting rapists or protecting Israel's reputation? That's not really a question, I already have your answer.
We are talking of an army arbitrarily establishing no go zone in the middle of streets, not publishing them and then having snipers shoot down civilians crossing these imaginary lines including the ones coming to get back the corpses of their murdered family members. An army so blood thirsty they shot their own defenceless hostage who came in front of them with hands raised.
It’s pretty clear at that point that the IDF has absolutely no moral. This doesn’t in any way mean I support Hamas.
Reuters—UN adds IDF to list of grave violators against children (June 7, 2024).
Reuters—breakdown of verified Gaza deaths (women/children) from UN rights office (Nov 8, 2024).
Just allegations.
You don't want to deal with common law standards, so you're moving on to other hoaxes.
Nor am I surprised by your antipathy to Israeli courts, despite the fact that Israel’s courts rank highly on independence and rule-of-law lists, are broadly regarded as independent and capable of delivering fair process. Bodies that effectively vouch for this include Freedom House, global rule-of-law datasets (e.g., the World Bank WGI), and the practical trust reflected in extradition arrangements with other western countries.
Ah yes, we should all strive for the high standard of Israel. Where everyone gets a fair shot and is definitely not murdered for no reason.
Your argument reflects medieval peasant thinking and you use sarcasm to paper over a lack of substance, because if you say what you think in a non-sarcastic way it would sound ridiculous ("yeah, no trial. let's just declare him guilty and treat it as fact.").
Take the sarcasm out of your position and this is essentially what you're saying: "Yes, I reject the past 400 years of progress in jurisprudence because it's not always perfect, and I would prefer for us to return to medieval times."
The video in question is troubling and should be investigated, but it does not clearly show rape, so I think that for someone to say "this shows rape" and "no matter what evidence comes out in trial I can dismiss that because it's a trial in Israel" is medieval peasant thinking.
That the video doesn't show rape and/or was doctored are also contested allegations, so your pearl clutching about double standards rings extremely hollow.
>There's been no trial and the footage, which was doctored, does not clearly show this (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45806468)
>I also pointed out that the video doesn't clearly support the allegation, and the video has been doctored. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45806559)
There is no assertion in these sentences that treats the video being doctored and not showing a rape as contested allegations that need to be established as fact over the course of a trial. Maybe you've changed your mind in the past couple of hours, though.
"Right, because over the course of the past 400 years, those institutions have always worked everywhere and no one's ever been at the margins of the justice system, been arrested arbitrarily or ignored by the police, had to languish in jail without a charge, been denied access to competent attorneys, a fair and speedy trial, or been subject to institutional biases and unwarranted imprisonment. Certainly that would never happens in a territory where it has happened routinely for 70+ years."
To me that sounds like you're saying that the standards of jurisprudence developed since the enlightenment are unnecessary because they sometimes fail, and that therefore a trial would be superfluous; it's fine to prejudge rape in this instance. This is at least my reading of your comment; I admit your comment is dripping with sarcasm so it's hard to tell what you actually meant.
I've also been consistent that the accused should be presumed innocent and has a right to due process. If you disavow your prior comment and agree with these common law principles then congratulations you've found a point of agreement with a zionist, and you disagree with the others in the thread who argue that a rape definitely occurred and the accused can be presumed guilty.
From context, it means “to speak the truth and present irrefutable evidence to back it up”.
I guess that’s a crime?
The people calling it blood libel because the facts are inconvenient and make Israel look bad are being disingenuous.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel
How the fuck do people go out there protesting in support of the violent rape of prisoners? Sickening stuff.
A. Notable how in the US all the JAGs were dismissed almost immediately, https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/02/24/people-are-ve...
B. And now CIA Deputy Director Michael Ellis has let go of Counsel there & appointed himself Acting General Counsel, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/06/us/politics/michael-ellis...
C. And top southern command admiral just retired after having bombing boats in the carribean. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/16/us/politics/southern-comm...
Sure seems like the US is trying to purge faster than any weak links can form.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45805847
I want to just add that the alleged terrorist who was allegedly beaten was recently released back into gaza as part of the hostage deal.
> he
come on, couldn't opt for gender neutral pronouns? Just had the help identify the person huh. Of those who were involved with treatment, i imagine an already small number, leaking gender and details of what was shared and the scope of their specific involment may cut it down to a very small number of plausible people, if not the exact person.