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.
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.
I think it is hugely underappreciated that in most of "the west" we can have public media content that is critical of army/politicians/administration and just makes the nation look bad abroad.
I'm talking less about "free speech" as a concept and more about how the majority still thinks its worthwhile to have and allow such things even if they hurt.
This is not something to take for granted, and I often find people oblivious to this privilege. There were lots of voices arguing along similar lines during the Snowden leaks ("should be punished/swept under the rug because it makes America look bad"), but I think this is truly a cornerstone of a free society, and the concerning thing here to me is not even how the Israeli lawyer or Army acted, but how Israeli public perception is seemingly changing on this.
> ..and the concerning thing here to me is not even how the Israeli lawyer or Army acted, but how Israeli public perception is seemingly changing on this.
>Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu echoed his defence minister's words on Sunday, saying that the incident at Sde Teiman was "perhaps the most severe public relations attack that the State of Israel has experienced since its establishment".
>Defense Minister Israel Katz welcomed Tomer-Yerushalmi's resignation, stating that anyone who spreads "blood libels against IDF troops is unfit to wear the army's uniform".
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.
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.
People are calling it unfair because these are the very people who raped women in Israel and paraded them, dead and naked, through the streets of Gaza city.
Because this is completely 100% one sided reporting as usual. These Palestinian "victims" were massacring, raping, and committed genocide before anything happened to them. That is not a detail that can be left out. Because emptying clips of automatic weapons into kindergarten classes because those toddlers were Jewish, what these Palestinian "victims" did, IS genocide without any question. That is just fine with you and after that they got some mean hits to the face and got stomped in the belly, THAT is the moral problem here ...
What should be done to Punish the many uncaught Palestinians who helped commit genocide those 3 days by the way, since we're talking so much about consequences and people getting away without punishment? Could you explain your position on that?
Even assuming that the points you present are all factual, your (more than) eye-for-eye position does not align with Western and democratic values. He is a murderer, so kill him for his crimes, and kill his familiy and friends, too, because they are all guilty, without trial, by association! That's what happened in Gaza and you seem to like that.
First: none of the events this is about happened in Gaza. These terrorists raped women, massacred children and attacked innocent communities in Israel. Not in Gaza. They also got beaten up outside of Gaza. These people broke through the border, committed war crimes and genocide across the border and were imprisoned across the border, and beaten up in prison afterwards.
Second: Seriously? The ad-hominem "defense"? Here's what I wonder: doesn't the same apply to you?
I mean considering you are ignoring the crimes of war criminals and protecting them from punishment for their crimes. Do you want children to get massacred in kindergartens? Do you think attacking and mass-rapes are just OK and the perpetrators need to be protected? Do you think parading the dead bodies of raped women is ... well, to use your words:
"You seem to like that"
Third: you neglected to answer the question. The palestinians (BOTH hamas and the PA) are refusing to punish these people for mass-murder, rape and genocide. So what should be done about that? Because if your answer is to ignore this, then yes my answer is to totally ignore beating up prisoners.
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?
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.
> suspects in a violent assault on a Palestinian from Gaza, including anal rape. The victim was hospitalised with injuries including broken ribs, a punctured lung and rectal damage, according to the indictment
... then...
> “The [investigation] in Sde Teiman caused immense damage to the image of the state of Israel and the IDF [Israel Defense Forces],” the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said in a statement on Sunday. “This is perhaps the most severe public relations attack that the state of Israel has experienced since its establishment.”
... then unsurprisingly...
> a far-right mob gathered outside Sde Teiman calling for the investigation to be dropped.
... and so...
> said in a resignation letter last week that she had authorised publication of the video to defuse attacks on military investigators and prosecutors working on the case.
>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.
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.
As usual everything is 100% one-sided. These were the the specific terrorists that massacred, raped, and worse their way across Southern Israel on Oct 7. They emptied two machine guns in a kindergarten class. They raped women to death, then paraded them through the streets.
These were not prisoners from before or after that massacre, these were caught right then and there.
After that, some of them got beaten. They are hamas, so let's be frank here: extremely likely after bragging and laughing about what they did. And, yes, beating up prisoners is of course not okay, but frankly these people deserve a LOT worse than what happened to them. A LOT worse.
I'm trying to be as charitable as I possibly can be, but it looks like you're arguing that brutal prisoner torture is deserved if the victim is (portrayed as) heinous enough. Is this correct or was your argument something else?
I can understand the impulse, but not the conscious arguing for it.
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.
>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.
Either the soldiers weren’t doing anything wrong and the video didn’t need to be secret or they were then why are you more worried about the exposure of the wrongdoing than the wrongdoing?
Imagine thinking it’s narcissistic to put your career and life at risk to protect your fellow military prosecutors. You need an education on what narcissism is.
Seems like a moment of moral clarity for someone who had an opportunity to do the right thing. I suppose the organization in question here needs to screen more aggressively for individuals with zero moral compass.
I think thats slightly unfair; people just tend to flag polarizing political topics because it often leads to inflamed repetitive arguments without the HN effect (which would be the Israeli lawyer chiming in, here).
If you classify this as "critical of Israel (?)" then I can guarantee you pretty confidently that an article critical of the PA (or Hamas or whatever) would get flagged at a pretty similar rate here.
I see barely any Israel discussions on this site, so if it is not symmetrical the main reason for that has to be that the submissions favoring one side or the other are very uneven, which is nobody's fault and not a problem. Especially since even being very generous, those discussions are not a good fit for this site. It's not like you don't have enough places to go if you really want to have one, it really does not have to be a heavily tech-focused site.
> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
And regarding comments about whether it's on- or off-topic:
> Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.
This article is about the political culture in a country that supplies a lot of technology and software to other countries, including the one where I live, that they have developed through occupation, apartheid and genocide.
If I lived in the US I'd care whether the people designing cop drones are ruled by genocidal rape maniacs or puppy loving nerds.
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 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.
One of the rapists is now paraded as a hero on Israeli TV. Sick, sick society.
[flagged]
[flagged]
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.
I think it is hugely underappreciated that in most of "the west" we can have public media content that is critical of army/politicians/administration and just makes the nation look bad abroad.
I'm talking less about "free speech" as a concept and more about how the majority still thinks its worthwhile to have and allow such things even if they hurt.
This is not something to take for granted, and I often find people oblivious to this privilege. There were lots of voices arguing along similar lines during the Snowden leaks ("should be punished/swept under the rug because it makes America look bad"), but I think this is truly a cornerstone of a free society, and the concerning thing here to me is not even how the Israeli lawyer or Army acted, but how Israeli public perception is seemingly changing on this.
> ..and the concerning thing here to me is not even how the Israeli lawyer or Army acted, but how Israeli public perception is seemingly changing on this.
Nothing changed, they have always been this way..
>Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu echoed his defence minister's words on Sunday, saying that the incident at Sde Teiman was "perhaps the most severe public relations attack that the State of Israel has experienced since its establishment".
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy0kpd97qqko
This is all very inconvenient that people know the truth I guess ...
>Defense Minister Israel Katz welcomed Tomer-Yerushalmi's resignation, stating that anyone who spreads "blood libels against IDF troops is unfit to wear the army's uniform".
the truth is antisemitic.
Don't forget: It was the raping that caused the damage to the IDF and the global standing of Israel, not the leaking.
But nowadays it seems to be en vogue again to shoot the messenger.
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.
Interesting, that when it comes to Israel, it's a scandal and not an exposure. With every other country, an apple would be an apple and not a banana.
I think the term you are looking for is “blood libel”, which I haven’t heard until recently.
From context, it means “to speak the truth and present irrefutable evidence to back it up”.
I guess that’s a crime?
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.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel
People are calling it unfair because these are the very people who raped women in Israel and paraded them, dead and naked, through the streets of Gaza city.
Because this is completely 100% one sided reporting as usual. These Palestinian "victims" were massacring, raping, and committed genocide before anything happened to them. That is not a detail that can be left out. Because emptying clips of automatic weapons into kindergarten classes because those toddlers were Jewish, what these Palestinian "victims" did, IS genocide without any question. That is just fine with you and after that they got some mean hits to the face and got stomped in the belly, THAT is the moral problem here ...
What should be done to Punish the many uncaught Palestinians who helped commit genocide those 3 days by the way, since we're talking so much about consequences and people getting away without punishment? Could you explain your position on that?
Even assuming that the points you present are all factual, your (more than) eye-for-eye position does not align with Western and democratic values. He is a murderer, so kill him for his crimes, and kill his familiy and friends, too, because they are all guilty, without trial, by association! That's what happened in Gaza and you seem to like that.
First: none of the events this is about happened in Gaza. These terrorists raped women, massacred children and attacked innocent communities in Israel. Not in Gaza. They also got beaten up outside of Gaza. These people broke through the border, committed war crimes and genocide across the border and were imprisoned across the border, and beaten up in prison afterwards.
Second: Seriously? The ad-hominem "defense"? Here's what I wonder: doesn't the same apply to you?
I mean considering you are ignoring the crimes of war criminals and protecting them from punishment for their crimes. Do you want children to get massacred in kindergartens? Do you think attacking and mass-rapes are just OK and the perpetrators need to be protected? Do you think parading the dead bodies of raped women is ... well, to use your words:
"You seem to like that"
Third: you neglected to answer the question. The palestinians (BOTH hamas and the PA) are refusing to punish these people for mass-murder, rape and genocide. So what should be done about that? Because if your answer is to ignore this, then yes my answer is to totally ignore beating up prisoners.
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?
It's a reference to the video of israeli crimes being referred to as "blood libel"
[flagged]
I appreciate how quickly you jump from "oh we need incontrovertible proof of guilt" to "oh that proof isn't real it's a hoax"
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.
> suspects in a violent assault on a Palestinian from Gaza, including anal rape. The victim was hospitalised with injuries including broken ribs, a punctured lung and rectal damage, according to the indictment
... then...
> “The [investigation] in Sde Teiman caused immense damage to the image of the state of Israel and the IDF [Israel Defense Forces],” the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said in a statement on Sunday. “This is perhaps the most severe public relations attack that the state of Israel has experienced since its establishment.”
... then unsurprisingly...
> a far-right mob gathered outside Sde Teiman calling for the investigation to be dropped.
... and so...
> said in a resignation letter last week that she had authorised publication of the video to defuse attacks on military investigators and prosecutors working on the case.
>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.
That's average person for ya.
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.
As usual everything is 100% one-sided. These were the the specific terrorists that massacred, raped, and worse their way across Southern Israel on Oct 7. They emptied two machine guns in a kindergarten class. They raped women to death, then paraded them through the streets.
These were not prisoners from before or after that massacre, these were caught right then and there.
After that, some of them got beaten. They are hamas, so let's be frank here: extremely likely after bragging and laughing about what they did. And, yes, beating up prisoners is of course not okay, but frankly these people deserve a LOT worse than what happened to them. A LOT worse.
I'm trying to be as charitable as I possibly can be, but it looks like you're arguing that brutal prisoner torture is deserved if the victim is (portrayed as) heinous enough. Is this correct or was your argument something else?
I can understand the impulse, but not the conscious arguing for it.
I am railing more against the totally one-sided reporting then against that this is not ok.
I can find no evidence for the claim that this prisoner was one of the people involved in October 7th.
Also, to call shoving a metal tube up a prisoners ass to the point it causes an intestinal rupture “beat up” is incredibly disingenuous.
This is an allegation. There's been no trial and the footage, which was doctored, does not clearly show this. Innocent until proven guilty.
Reuters—OHCHR: weaponisation of food as potential war crime (June 24, 2025).
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.
[flagged]
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.
[flagged]
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.
[flagged]
You're the first person to bring up jews. The rest of us are talking about israelis, try to keep up.
And you won't get far trying to cast critics of Israel's actions as Jew-hating. It's a tired move.
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.
I actually haven't said word one about whether there should be a trial. Conversely, you said this:
>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.
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.
[flagged]
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.
The US side doesn't quite have this, but man we sure have a parade of officials shown the door or who resign. No major leaks like this, but:
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.
>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.
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.
Exactly.
[dead]
[flagged]
Sooo, what do you think about Edward Snowden?
Either the soldiers weren’t doing anything wrong and the video didn’t need to be secret or they were then why are you more worried about the exposure of the wrongdoing than the wrongdoing?
Imagine thinking it’s narcissistic to put your career and life at risk to protect your fellow military prosecutors. You need an education on what narcissism is.
Seems like a moment of moral clarity for someone who had an opportunity to do the right thing. I suppose the organization in question here needs to screen more aggressively for individuals with zero moral compass.
[flagged]
[flagged]
I think thats slightly unfair; people just tend to flag polarizing political topics because it often leads to inflamed repetitive arguments without the HN effect (which would be the Israeli lawyer chiming in, here).
The flagging is not symmetrical.
What would be the symmetry axis?
If you classify this as "critical of Israel (?)" then I can guarantee you pretty confidently that an article critical of the PA (or Hamas or whatever) would get flagged at a pretty similar rate here.
I see barely any Israel discussions on this site, so if it is not symmetrical the main reason for that has to be that the submissions favoring one side or the other are very uneven, which is nobody's fault and not a problem. Especially since even being very generous, those discussions are not a good fit for this site. It's not like you don't have enough places to go if you really want to have one, it really does not have to be a heavily tech-focused site.
Did you try to search? There are many, but they typically don't stay on the front page
[flagged]
[flagged]
> Hey, not super familiar with HN norms.
You can learn more about the intended norms through the Guidelines and FAQ, at the bottom of almost every page but here are the links:
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
Regarding relevance to the community:
> What to Submit
> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
And regarding comments about whether it's on- or off-topic:
> Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.
"All information should be free"
"Mistrust authority—promote decentralization"
("A hackers ethic" in Levy, Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution, 1984)
I think it fits.
Indeed. Discussion of this abounds. Here's one in which I participated: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45676472
This article is about the political culture in a country that supplies a lot of technology and software to other countries, including the one where I live, that they have developed through occupation, apartheid and genocide.
If I lived in the US I'd care whether the people designing cop drones are ruled by genocidal rape maniacs or puppy loving nerds.
> who spoke on the condition of anonymity
> 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.