Israel to sue New York Times over article on rape of Palestinian detainees, Netanyahu says
Posted by PartySr@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 217 comments
buried_lede@reddit
Even if he had standing to sue it would be thrown out. There’s nothing in it that isn’t well within protected speech in the US, It would just be a sleazy SLAPP suit—look that one up.
But it’s really good at riling people up. The rhetoric coming from the protesters against the NYT is menacing as heck
MechaCoqui@reddit
So does Bibi forget that idf soldiers were put on trial over the rape of Palestinian detainees and a video came out of the action, and despite that, the charges were dropped..Guy knows his soldiers are raping detainees but like every other zio like him, they don’t see the Palestinians as human beings.
BabylonianWeeb@reddit
They train dogs to rape Palestinians, fucking dogs and all they are mad about it is article exposing them.
Eexoduis@reddit
What are you talking about?
BabylonianWeeb@reddit
The new York times articles mention that the IDF trans dogs to rape Palestinians.
Redditthedog@reddit
Well now the NYT can prove it in a court of law
imokayjustfine@reddit
I can’t believe people believe that lmao
Like there’s no doubt in my mind sexual violence occurs in Israeli prisons as it very much does in most prison systems but “training dogs to rape people” is insane and impossible?
It’s like the Mossad dolphins lmao. Has anyone here even cared long enough to remember the Mossad dolphins? Or the Jewish Space Laser or the weather machine
Treadwheel@reddit
I have no idea where you got the idea that it's impossible to train a dog to do that to a person, but there's literally any number of distasteful videos on the internet disproving that particular bit of naivette.
It's actually really bizarre that you would assume that you couldn't train a species that famously needs to be trained against using legs and furniture for the purpose to target a human instead. Motivated reasoning at it's best.
Seriously, though, your post is so infused with rage that it starts at "obvious false" and descends into incoherent rage. If you don't want mainstream, famously pro-Israeli newspapers to pick up stories about training dogs to rape prisoners, I suggest you pressure for the practice to be banned in Israeli prisons.
imokayjustfine@reddit
That doesn’t strike you as at all outlandish, huh? Dogs are just raping people all over the place? Forgive me if I’m not into whatever deranged shit you are.
I don’t think my rage is very incoherent at all.
Treadwheel@reddit
No, it doesn't strike me as remotely outlandish that a government that has repeatedly been caught engaging in all manner of human rights abuses, human shield taking, sexual violence, and genocide would weaponize animals to humiliate prisoners. Sexual violence is extremely common as a method of torture, with sexual violation by animals considered particularly humiliating. The depravity is the goal.
Just a few minutes ago you apparently believe it was impossible to train a dog to do that, so you aren't in any position to speak to how plausible it is that someone has.
While I do not doubt the genocide loving crowd call NYT biased for voicing the mild criticism it does, this is not a matter of debate. We know for a fact that there are specific instructions to reporters to use language favored by Israel and have published blatant atrocity propaganda so obvious that they have their own Wikipedia articles, penned by an author whose social media history involved gems like "turn the strip into a slaughterhouse" and "violate any norm, on the way to victory". One of her sources described her by saying “They called me again and again and explained how important it is to Israeli hasbara.”
That was not a minor story, nor a minor oversight. There is no corresponding examples of bias against Israel.
Redditthedog@reddit
If a dog tried to rape a human it would rip the penis of the dog off. Their penises aren’t like human ones and they don’t get hard or erect they just kinda slide out of the shaft in a wormy way
Treadwheel@reddit
Oh, sorry to double comment, I just found some more testimony you should get to debunking as fraudulent. This time it was provided to the USC Shoah Foundation by holocaust survivor Rachel Hanan. No wonder we've all been fooled, all these witnesses have passed every other test of credibility and consistency, but I guess they couldn't get past you.
Redditthedog@reddit
she is describing a dog ripping apart a girl’s… how do I say this pelvic area with its teeth. She didn’t say the dog raped her with its penis
Treadwheel@reddit
Did you even bother to watch it, or were you too lazy to and asked ChatGPT for a good excuse instead. She explicitly says the dogs "had sex with girls", and within seconds of the timestamp I linked you to. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Redditthedog@reddit
I watched the video and she described how the dogs killed the girl in the assault
Treadwheel@reddit
Are you trying to claim rape would have made her immortal to being bitten or mauled afterwards, or even during the event?
Treadwheel@reddit
Once again, feel free to Google for video examples and return with notes as necessary. Then be sure to contact the relevant investigatory bodies and media outlets with the relevant information, since through some bizarre confluence of events none of the thousands of veterinarians, tens of thousands of dog breeders, or millions of dog owners who've road this story have noticed that it was a physical impossibility.
I mean, this has apparently escaped notice of investigators for a solid 50 years now and I'm sure the survivors of her sexual torture would love you to explain how that didn't happen to them and it was mere collective delusion. Truly.
Next you can go notify the descendents of the Jewish victims of the same and let them know that you've finally been able to prove their great grandparents were liars. They'll be so relieved.
I'm sure the descendents of Klaus Barbie will write you a thank you note. After all, you'll have debunked testimony used to convict him of crimes against humanity during the Holocaust:
You should check to see if Blardone is still alive, to make sure he can be brought up on charges of perjury.
That's the problem with denying reality: Reality doesn't just exist where it's convenient.
Redditthedog@reddit
first off one of your sources described a women being tortured by the Nazi by being stripped blindfolded and a dog humped her she described this as done to humiliate her she doesn’t say she was actually raped as in penetration by a dogs penis. The other witnesses says he tried to not that the dog actually did it. Again the NYT claimed the dogs raped people with their penis. Not that dogs were used to physically assault or humiliate them in a sexual manner.
Note mount doesn’t mean penetration by the dogs penis “The other was trained to mount naked women who had first been ordered on their hands and knees, a humiliation that could cut deeper than the whip” mounting is humping not penetrating. Dogs mount on peoples legs while humping. You haven’t shown an example of penetration by a dog’s genitals which the piece claims. These are quite different none of the Holocaust survivors and witnesses claim penetration by a dogs penis.
Treadwheel@reddit
She literally describes the dogs as having sex with her. You're trying to rationalize away actual witness accounts because you'd rather deny the victims of atrocity, including holocaust survivors, than admit that in your scramble to grab any talking point to minimize the rape of Palestinian prisoners, you grabbed a particularly stupid one.
imokayjustfine@reddit
Sexual violence is extremely common. Sexual violation by animals is not. Israel has obviously done some fucked up things, but I do not believe Israel is uniquely depraved. That is not a belief that I hold because I do not have tunnel vision.
How does that make not in position to speak? It’s good and cool to admit when you’re wrong about something because you actually care about factual accuracy imo. It doesn’t automatically invalidate everything you say.
Oh, so they have published “atrocity propaganda” before? Interesting. I’m sure there are corresponding examples but I’m gonna be honest; I have absolutely no desire to look into this rn. Keep believing whatever you believe. But don’t expect me to.
NotActuallyIraqi@reddit
The Syrian government had dogs rape detainees according to reports during the Arab Spring.
The Euro-med human rights monitor documented in 2024 that the Israeli army systematically used dogs to attack Palestinian civilians and even rape them, with interviews by detainees recounting their rape in detail in 2024. This is not something new. Israeli soldiers threatening to rape Palestinians is well documented on videos going back over a decade.
Remember, Israel called it antisemitism to have any skepticism of Oct 7 rape allegations, does that mean I can call you an anti-Arab racist for denying this atrocity?
imokayjustfine@reddit
I am not at all denying that rape or sexual violence has occurred at all. I am specifically questioning the entirely unverified validity of dogs being trained to rape people, in particular.
People were also absolutely raped on October 7th. There is video footage of Shani Louk half naked and unconscious being literally paraded down a street in Gaza to a crowd of cheering men. There are images of girls being hauled off in bloody pajamas. Even the UN concluded sexual violence occurred.
I would never deny that Palestinians have been raped at all and that’s not what I was saying. If I ever did exactly what you’re doing this way, then sure, that would probably be anti-Arab.
I am questioning the part where dogs are literally being trained to rape people. I find that part hard to believe. I’m looking into it and it seems like dogs were definitely involved in torturing and threatening people in Syria. But not exactly literally raping them. From what I can tell. And that is still fucked up and shocks me but shouldn’t. Those claims have been verified though. These ones haven’t been.
Anyway I’m gonna block your ass now lmao because ummmmm hello??? 💀 I literally do not have the emotional energy to properly chew out your profound hypocrisy. The elephant would like a word
AnswersWithSarcasm@reddit
Oof, you really aren’t okay if you’re struggling to justify or deny rape claims just because Israel did it.
Rape is a sin against Judaism, even worse when committed by people wearing stars of David on their uniforms. Muslims condemn ISIS for doing atrocities, why can’t you bring yourself to unequivocally condemn what Israel did?
imokayjustfine@reddit
I’m not justifying or denying rape claims. I don’t do that. I would never deny that people have been raped at all. Denying rape sure seems to be popular amongst this crowd though. I’m questioning the very specific and exceptionally outlandish idea that dogs are being trained to rape people. While not impossible, does strike me as unlikely along the lines of doplhin spies.
I absolutely condemn rape of Palestinian prisoners in Israel and have zero problem acknowledging that or doing so, lol. Nice strawman?
Treadwheel@reddit
You were just writing angry rants denying it was even physically possibly and outright accusing anyone who acknowledged the really of its existence of engaging in blood libelous delusion. You voluntarily ceded any claim to a rational, well considered, or unbiased position before you even replied to me. Your tunnel vision doesn't just exist, it's recent fact.
If you weren't aware of one of the biggest reporting scandals in recent years, especially one topical to the subject, that's an admission of being in a bubble. What's worse is instead of remedying that massive gap in your knowledge of the paper's track record, you've decided to make a show of cultivating that ignorance.
You're not objective. You just refuse to engage with uncomfortable truths about the regime you invest so much time defending.
imokayjustfine@reddit
That is not what tunnel vision means. The fact that dogs being used this way has literally happened in one single verifiable instance does not make it any less rational for you to automatically believe that’s what’s happening now. It is not something that regularly happens. It is indeed especially depraved.
I was aware of it actually. You can read my response to someone who is capable of having a discussion.
Nope. Have a day.
Treadwheel@reddit
So we've gone from slandering people who acknowledge the reality that it happened to pretending we're an authority on the subject now? For someone who was so assured that the only explanation was delusion just a few minutes ago, you sure have a lot of confidence. What you mean to say is that the government which refuses any independent investigation, in a country where pro-rape mobs storm prisons at the suggestion of investigating rapes, there's been one instance where they couldn't quash compelling evidence. Evidence that just happens to closely match reports that have been ongoing for years.
You were aware of it? Then why were you just making a show of not knowing about it and not intending to learn? You sure have a funny relationship with knowledge.
Me saying it doesn't make it true, correct. It's you doing it that does.
imokayjustfine@reddit
I do know quite a lot about this subject! I didn’t realize that dog rape was the main subject at hand.
The issue there was not investigating rape. It was criminally charging the guard. Which really doesn’t make it any better. But again, some of us care about what is true.
Do you deny that women were raped on 10/7? I’m gonna go ahead and guess yes!
I was not denying that anyone was raped, if you’d care to revisit what I said. I was questioning the accuracy of the specific allegations that dogs are being trained to help people. Which I corrected myself on…literally verifiably happening once ever. That very much does not actually invalidate my larger point. I know logic is hard though. :(
I didn’t make a big show of anything. I tried to politely decline putting any effort into interacting with you further because you showed me and are continuing to show me that would not be worth my time and energy.
What am I saying I’m correct about that I’m not? When I’m incorrect in some way about a factual detail, I admit that. I’d imagine you don’t.
Treadwheel@reddit
You literally posted an unhinged rant specifically calling it impossible and accusing anyone who disagreed of blood libel. It's still right there, anyone can read it. You don't even need to scroll. I really don't know who you think you're convincing here, maybe yourself.
Oh, sorry, pro rape mobs who storm prisons for beginning the process of determining the guilt of a rapist. Not to mention destroying the lives of whistle-blowers for thinking rape should be punished, and lauding rapists as heroes in the media. Any claim that starts with it just being too implausible that some of those rape celebrants would think weaponizing animals in their heinous acts starts at wishful and devolves to enabling and perpetuating rape as a tool of torture. Full stop.
The NYT has a history of bias. You tried to claim otherwise, then made a show of refusing to acknowledge an extensively verified case of fabricating rape claims for publication in the paper. Again, it's all right there, nobody needs you to give a thumbs up and verify it, we all had to scroll by it happening.
You haven't been polite. You opened with slander and have doubled down on insults at every turn.
But hey, I did check and you did manage to scrape up a student magazine story, written by a Times of Israel blogger with no relevant experience as a physician and who didn't review any evidence, that spent most of its time making unreferenced and unsupported claims about terminal ballistics or the specific autopsy findings of the children (which he does not even claim to have reviewed). That is, shockingly, an incredible improvement in quality and respect for expertise. Keep it up!
imokayjustfine@reddit
Never used the word “blood libel” once actually; I know that’s a trigger for you though. You’re missing the actual point of the rant entirely, presumably on purpose. I basically corrected the word “impossible” to “highly improbable.” The point stands. I’m not trying to convince anyone. When I feel strongly enough that something needs to be said though, I will say it mostly for my own sanity because this comment section is absolutely jaw-dropping.
Oh boy, I don’t even know which fallacy to address first there. No. Rape is always wrong. You are very disgusting.
Once again, if you would like to read my thoughts, read my thread with the other person who didn’t essentially have a meltdown about being aggressively challenged.
It wasn’t slander at all; it was directly observational and based on a lot of experience as well.
Ah yes, I know, no one is reliable unless they’re saying what you want them to say.
eeeking@reddit
i suspect "sexual violence" and "rape" are being conflated here. You can train a dog to attack vulnerable areas (genitals, etc), this can be construed as training them to commit sexual violence.
Treadwheel@reddit
No, you can very much train a dog to engage in sexual acts with a human being. Again, you don't need to take anyone on faith, just prep some bleach and type it in. There's no shortage of examples.
eeeking@reddit
I'm sure you're right (unfortunately). But I very highly doubt any military or police force does this.
monocasa@reddit
There are many recorded instances of this.
For a lot of rape, the point is less the sexual gratification of the rapist, and more the sense of power over the victim. Forced bestiality is a new level of degradation and therefore a new level of power over the victim.
NotActuallyIraqi@reddit
Soldiers gang-rape women and men in every war we have documented and sodomize them with objects while filming it, you think having a dog commit the rape is somehow beneath them?
CoffeeWorldly9915@reddit
Male dogs are already enthusiastic enough about humping legs. Pavloving them to mount someone kept down in all fours doesn't sound that much harder.
PersnickityPenguin@reddit
There are entire websites on the Internet devoted to zoophilia. People voluntarily engage in that behavior ffs.
imokayjustfine@reddit
Zoophilia existing at all in any manner (\ne ) dogs being trained to rape people. Some of you guys really struggle with logic. And while there are apparently about five-ish contexts where dogs have in fact been utilized in sexual torture this way (close enough), upon really looking into it, in the context of I/P where propaganda from either side is actually rampantly whether you’re aware of that not, something this outlandish specifically is definitely going to be the kind of thing I’m going to need some further verification for before I just believe it. This literally reminds me of the Mossad spy dolphins. And I’m sure you have no idea what I’m even referencing when I say that, but yeah.
monocasa@reddit
Not only is the NYT, if anything, biased heavily towards pro-Zionist talking points, but the use of trained dogs in sexual violence against detainees isn't even a new thing among far right governments. It's one of the things Pinochet's government would do to suspected leftists for one example.
tubawhatever@reddit
Fun fact, Israel was buddy buddy with the Pinochet regime after the human rights abuses were so well known that the US had an arms embargo against them. Israel supplied arms, military training, training of the intelligence services that repressed the Chilean people, and even supplied riot control vehicles and arms to quell dissent. Israel also supported Pinochet in the UN.
Just one in a long list of dictatorships that Israel supported or supports
imokayjustfine@reddit
I’d never heard of Pinochet doing that but I looked it up and yeah, that’s pretty wild. Dogs were definitely involved in sexual abuse. I still have a really hard time believing this though honestly; it’s pretty out there. And I’m glad you mentioned the NYT being “biased heavily towards pro-Zionist talking points” (and I have literally heard this claim made from both sides before lol which is interesting), but you guys have literally been auto-dismissive of what NYT says many many many times before and now that it’s saying something like this, now we trust it 🤔
rattleandhum@reddit
Why?
Remember when, at the start of the conflict, a Palestinian hospital was bombed and Israel claimed it was a Hamas rocket that misfired?
How many stand today?
Remember how at the beginning people were talking about the theft of organs from Palestinian corpses? And then Israeli doctors confirmed that skin grafts were taken and added to their 'skin bank'?
There are obviously a ton of wild accusations out there which border on the most insane conspiracy theories, but some of the most horrendous things done against palestinians, from shooting children, targeting medical workers, journalists and children is now proven beyond a doubt, yet somehow using dogs to maim and rape prisoners is somehow beyond your capacity to imagine the Israelis doing?
There are accounts of IDF snipers using childrens limbs as target practice, the reason why they have the highest child amputee level in the world.
monocasa@reddit
I mean, yeah, when they have a clear bias, and even they go against that bias, that says something all on its own.
imokayjustfine@reddit
Do they have a clear bias? I’m not sure. I can’t say I’m an avid NYT reader myself tbf, so I can’t really make that judgment for myself fairly. But I have often seen people from both sides of it presenting NYT as biased against the other side lol. I trust none of you.
monocasa@reddit
Yes, memos have leaked giving journalists at the NYT explicit instructions to avoid phrases like "occupied territories" that are the internationally recognized terms.
https://theintercept.com/2024/04/15/nyt-israel-gaza-genocide-palestine-coverage/
These memos caused a mass resignation.
imokayjustfine@reddit
That’s definitely a compelling point. And I do remember hearing about that actually.
Iirc for example, also in 2024, on the other side, I remember there was a lot of speculation from other medical professionals about the veracity of these images suggesting close-range. And there was a lot of buzz about that. NYT then published something standing by them. And there was of course a lot of buzz about that.
I was trying to keep up with Twitter in 2024 (last year I did actually lmao) and I remember seeing so many tweets from so many opposite-ends people about NYT’s bias in either direction, specifically; I was seeing all of it. That’s what I remember about New York Times on this subject the most. 😭 Maybe I’ll revisit it more when I feel like I can really stomach everything properly though.
It just feels like in either way, there’s often this impulse to embellish already-horrific things to somehow make them even worse. And like. Why? Supposing maybe close-range isn’t demonstrated in those images, those kids were still shot. That’s already horrible. The truth is usually horrible enough. Another example I’m sure you’re familiar with: 40 babies weren’t beheaded on 10/7 lol. But in reality, at least 29 children were killed, and 30 more were abducted, with both categories including a few babies. That’s already awful.
It’s like the point just becomes dehumanizing and really demonizing the other, and I fail to see how that is actually constructive towards any kind of actual resolution in the long-term, which would realistically have to be predicated on mutual acceptance and understanding to some degree.
IlluminatedPickle@reddit
Dude, multiple countries have successfully trained dolphins for military use...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_marine_mammal
imokayjustfine@reddit
There is zero evidence of Israeli spy dolphins. Can you give me a neutral-as-possible, credible source on the Mossad dolphins please?
Military-trained dolphins have indeed existed in the U.S. and Russia. For underwater detection and recovery. Not fucking espionage lmao
IlluminatedPickle@reddit
The Hamas claim was they were being used to attack their commando divers. Something both the US and Russia trained their dolphins to do.
Wanna try again?
imokayjustfine@reddit
Nope, no need. Not gonna bother doing your homework for you, but I invite you to revisit that. It is incorrect. Hamas also literally claimed there were Hamas dolphin spies. If you wanna try revisionism again, please don’t. With me anyway. Plenty of other people will happily join in. I’m just not the one.
kitti-kin@reddit
Nazi Gestapo chief Klaus Barbie was accused at trial of using dogs to rape women:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Barbie#Second_World_War
imokayjustfine@reddit
You’re right; he used dogs in sexual torture. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. That seems to be a thing more than I have realized. (I’ve been looking into it more tonight, this particular phenomenon or at least like stuff along the lines of it, and I have verifiably found: Nazi Germany like you said, Syria during the civil war, Chile and Argentina dictatorships, and the Balkan war of 1990s. So that’s five-sh past instances where like, yeah, close enough. And that is mindblowingly awful. But definitely still not a standard for this kind of abuse at all. This is not the kind of thing I’m going to automatically believe in the context of this conflict (although I absolutely do stand corrected on describing it as impossible) where there is (ime, imo) continuous disinformation all around. And yes, a lot of actual atrocities for yes. But also a lot of propagandistic hyperbole. Just raping prisoners at all is obviously horrific already though. And I don’t doubt that is happening regardless.
Maybe_this_time_fr@reddit
Damn, they trained you, dog?
redelastic@reddit
Israel uses dogs to rape Palestinians.
Some Nazis did the same.
IsNotPolitburo@reddit
The increasingly well documented and reported on crimes of the Israeli apartheid regime.
Tsofuable@reddit
Well, it is still defamation even if it's true.
OrderOfMagnitude@reddit
Wait, really? Is that how that legally works?
Laringar@reddit
In the UK, I believe so. In the US, explicitly not. Here, truth is an absolute defense against defamation, plus public figures have to be able to prove "actual malice"—meaning that the statements were primarily made with an intent to harm—in the defamatory statements.
IMO, this wouldn't even survive the first motion to dismiss.
Paradoxjjw@reddit
The UK has truth enshrined as a defence as part of the defamation. In South Korea you can sue someone for defamation even if the published statements are factually true.
OrderOfMagnitude@reddit
Fascinating. I can definitely see arguments for both sides.
Maybe_this_time_fr@reddit
What's the argument buddy?
SMF67@reddit
Really? What could the argument possibly be in favor of true statements being considered defamatory?
OrderOfMagnitude@reddit
I think people are owed a degree of privacy, and tabloid-like groups can get really nasty, digging up sick family members and sexual history. Headlines can also make horrible clickbait by twisting true events that aren't even bad.
The stuff I've seen in American political attack ads can get pretty crazy.
I'm not necessarily saying those arguments are correct or true or factual, but I can picture people making those arguments.
Jwanito@reddit
Politicians and wealthy powerful people stop being people to continue their careers
They shouldn't have any privacy, thats where corruption happens
OrderOfMagnitude@reddit
I think it's a bit reductive to say that all politicians and all wealthy people automatically lose all privacy rights. I agree there should be 100% transparency when it comes to government and corporations, but there are still some basic human dignities that require privacy.
It would be interesting to see a society where every politician has to have 100% of their life opened to the public for mass examination, as a way of morally scrutinizing our leaders. Cameras in every room, always live streaming, possibly from a young age. No way to hide corruption. A little dystopian but definitely interesting.
Paradoxjjw@reddit
I don't see why you'd allow someone to sue for defamation when nothing said about them is false. That just ensures the rich and powerful can sue anyone who dares expose their crimes into the ground way way easier than they already can.
OrderOfMagnitude@reddit
Imagine a "good politician" is actually making headway, and then their superpac funded opponents dig up private stories about their sexual history and publish them in full. Or they have a sick sister and every day their politically owned newspapers post updates about how sick she is, and why doesn't her politician sibling drop out?
These things are technically true, but they are private. And even though they shouldn't, they absolutely will sway the election and keep the incumbents in power. These things have nothing to do with the election.
For the record, I agree with the American interpretation. I'm just explaining how I could see an argument for the other side. Ultimately the rich have the most power, and they can sue anyone who exposes them, and beat them with money and lawyers before court.
You have to admit though, American tabloid culture and political attack ads are next level disgusting.
Paradoxjjw@reddit
And what if a bad politician is making headway, you publish an expose on their crimes and they sue you into the ground to make sure the story can't spread? Imagine Trump being able to sue every single person who ever said a bad thing about him and winning all those lawsuits because defamation just needs the statement to be damaging to someone's reputation.
I don't have to imagine, I can look at reality and see that such attacks didn't scupper Mamdani's campaign and only found root with people who would rather lose the right to vote than vote for him.
OrderOfMagnitude@reddit
Yes, I understand that side too. I actually agree with that side. I'm just saying that I understand why certain cultures and countries might feel the other way, even if I don't agree with them.
There's no point arguing to me against something I don't even agree with.
frostysauce@reddit
Yeah. This is not a bOtH SiDeS! issue.
mrgoobster@reddit
The definition is not universal.
In the US, UK, and Canada, defamation is making a statement that causes unjust harm. It is the truth of the statement that determines whether it is unjust.
In Germany (and many other places), if you insult somebody's honor/reputation, or violate their privacy, then you can be held liable even if what you said is true.
Postwar Germany is a weird case, because its legal code tries to emphasize human dignity. This weirdly puts it on the same page, in the case of defamation, as cultures that are very concerned with personal honor, reputation, or face.
tacotueaday55@reddit
No. In other countries maybe but not in America. But laws don't seem to matter in America anymore.
Rehberkintosh@reddit
They were asking and no it doesn't. The best legal defense is being able to show what you said is true.
bearkin1@reddit
The word "defame" by definition means hurting someone's reputation (or "fame") with untruths. If someone it is true, then it by definition cannot be defamation. It could be vilification, denigration, or besmirching, but never defamation.
Pristine-Ant-464@reddit
Truth is a defense to defamation under American law.
Paradoxjjw@reddit
In countries like Korea and Japan maybe, but defamation in most of the western world requires falsehood
Pristine-Ant-464@reddit
This is funny because:
- Israel is drawing more attention to the story
- Truth is a defense to defamation
- Discovery won't go well for Israel
Israel's ability to find new ways of being awful is sincerely remarkable.
DensePoser@reddit
Exactly! They want this story to circulate. They talk about it on TV there. NYT is owned by Zionists.
The point left unsaid is that most if not all of the prisoners/hostages undergoing this treatment are innocents, who may at worst have tweeted critically about Israel, and the intention is to "create terrorists" out of them. Similarly to project MKULTRA and the CIA-run torture at Abu Ghraib. This fits in with Israeli patterns of terrorism in Gaza and West Bank, designed to incite retaliation and justify its expansionist security state.
Redditthedog@reddit
Discovery alone will unmask every single source. If Israel wins and debunks it or it stalls out it gets what it wants
Treadwheel@reddit
While it's obvious that you're salivating at the prospect of having the whistleblowers and victims' identities handed over the the government of Israel so they can retaliate, or in the case of Palestinians just murder them, you'll be relieved to know that there's extensive case law showing that the threat of exactly that kind of hazard establishes a very high bar for compelling sources to be named. On the other hand, when the government inevitably refuses to allow their own witnesses to be deposed, or to hand over the relevant video, they will find that such refusals are considered prejudicial and result in a lovely legal mechanism called "adverse inference", where the refusal is an admission that it would damage their case. In the case of video evidence, that would take the form of assuming the video does contain evidence that an animal was used as alleged.
Anyway, that's why they didn't act last time they tried that game as well, and why Israel has historically been very unsuccessful in its attempts at lawfare. Damn lack of race based laws make it all so much harder than domestic lawfare.
Redditthedog@reddit
NYT claimed and then doubled down on the dog rape claiming as fact these dogs raped people in specific places and in individual cases. Israel had a legal path to challenge this
Treadwheel@reddit
Of course they do. That's the whole point of SLAAP suits. They won't, just like they haven't in their other threats of lawfare, for the reasons outlined above. Discovery doesn't work like you really wish it does.
DensePoser@reddit
Yeah, they already know who the sources are. They are the sources. If there is something they don't know on this planet, then the Mossad, Palantir (Zionist management), and the CIA (director on AIPAC payroll) compete to find out for them.
thegodfather0504@reddit
Also funny because NYT is israel's mouthpiece.
Wholesomebob@reddit
Also the NYT is one of the fiercest defenders Israel
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
Yes, but Israelis and Zionists love to call it antisemitic even while it defends them. I remember 30 years ago, even as it whitewashed Israeli atrocities and went to absurd lengths to give Israel the benefit of the doubt, Israelis and Zionists would pour scorn and abuse on its Jewish editors for daring to report news of Israeli atrocities.
Wholesomebob@reddit
Yes, it's weaponized victimhood. Good thing it's starting the backfire with the advent of independent reporting.
Redditthedog@reddit
Every single source and claim will be revealed in discovery. Anyone who was a source or claimed to be a victim will have to be doxxed (otherwise how do you prove they were raped)
upbeatchief@reddit
And why this particular story?
There are thousands of stories of systemic israeli rape of Palestinans. So why sue this one publication for this one story.
Pristine-Ant-464@reddit
Likely because it was published in the NYT.
They don't care if Haaretz publishes articles about the IDF raping Palestinians because most Americans don't follow Israeli media.
redelastic@reddit
Maybe they're worried their pro-genocide outlet the NYT is getting too close to reporting the actual truth.
overpriced-taco@reddit
This is why I dont think the suit will make it that far. Israel knows it's all true, they're just trying to pull a Trump and strong arm NYT into a settlement to "prove" they were right.
ozExpatFIRE@reddit
Streisand effect will kick in. I hope they go ahead with their lawsuit.
gaeee983@reddit
They are like people who are in denial who think the stronger they object the more honest and moral they seem, I hope they go forward with it discovery is gonna be wild.
Status_Winter@reddit
Israel seems to be under the delusion that nothing they do is wrong and the law favours them no matter what, so this is going to be quite a wake up call if the charges actually end up in front of a judge
PartySr@reddit (OP)
If there were lies in the article, Shitrael could just proved that the accusations were false, but no.. They are just trying to intimidate, and delete the article because they know that every word in that article is true.
Depraved country.
Icantjudge@reddit
They really like throwing "blood libel" around.
Treadwheel@reddit
At one point Netanyahu accused an Israeli newspaper of blood libel after they reported that the IDF soldiers they interviewed confirmed being ordered to fire on civilians at GHF sites. It's like they're actively trying to rob it of any meaning.
BigBeerBellyMan@reddit
They also like to throw literal blood libel around when it comes to Palestinians, i.e. "40 beheaded babies" and "children in ovens"
kitti-kin@reddit
"why don't other countries want them" is the one that most outrages me
redelastic@reddit
It's a blood libel to criticise Israel for using blood libel.
mayorofdumb@reddit
I was actually confused why he used it here, he's getting old and sloppy
zkrooky@reddit
Godless country. They've been chosen by Satan as it seems.
BigDictionEnergy@reddit
Have you read the Old Testament? Very on brand for their god.
seiryuu-abi@reddit
Bruh billions of people follow that god.
BigDictionEnergy@reddit
Yes, and Judaism is the oldest, original Abrahamic religion, and the OT is the more barbaric. What's your point?
seiryuu-abi@reddit
You said it’s on brand for their god. That would make sense if not for Christianity and Islam. If OT was so barbaric for everyone else then Christians would’ve taken that out of their holy bibles and stopped quoting OT entirely. Muslims would’ve denied it and also Eid al-Adha and have just kept El al-Fitr.
BigDictionEnergy@reddit
Point is Judaism is based soley on the OT (and a few other texts), whereas Christianity tries to blend both into some coherent narrative and philosophy. I did not think this was complicated enough to merit all this explanation, but here we are.
pack0newports@reddit
have you ever stopped to consider you don't understand "the old testament"? Its meant to be studied every word means something. its not like other books.
BigDictionEnergy@reddit
Okay. Which translation is the "right" one?
pack0newports@reddit
translations are inherently commentaries. whoever is doing the translating it is their interpretation of what is being written. you should always read the original.
seiryuu-abi@reddit
It’s not really coherent and even the churches struggled for years before split after split after split happened.
BigDictionEnergy@reddit
No argument here. Different translations can also be a huge difference. I didn't say it succeeded, just making the point that one religion is based off one testament, and the other is based off of both.
Again I was not expecting this concept to require so much elucidation for a literate person.
stillafuckingfish@reddit
Israel doesn’t even need to make up antisemitism, this guy’s got it covered.
zkrooky@reddit
Yeah, they're stuck in the Old Testament while God moved on to better things.
pack0newports@reddit
Its kind of funny to me that you think God can change his mind or move on. God created the universe and is not bound by time. soi logically he knows what is going to happen even if we don't so your premise is a little absurd to me.
zkrooky@reddit
This premise creates a paradox. If everything that will happen is already going to happen, the there is no free will. Yet God gave humans free will.
God also tested humans several times. If He already knew the outcome, those tests were pointless.
Yes, God created the universe. He also not only created Abraham's children, but everyone else too. He physically came among us in the form of Jesus to teach us kindness, only to be betrayed and not recognized by Abraham's children. How much patience should He have with the one people who don't recognize His physical existence, yet continue to act as if they're "the chosen people"?
Of course, this all assumes that God is an actual sentient entity and not just the energy of the universe itself (in which case all religious debates are silly)
pack0newports@reddit
numbers 23:19 "God is not a man that He should lie, nor is He a mortal that He should relent. Would He say and not do, speak and not fulfill?" says explicitly God is not a man it also says God does not change his mind. Furthermore the second commandment says "do not put other gods on my face." this is meaning God has no partners. do worship other beings beside me. So the idea that God could become a man is kind of absurd to me. I agree the free will problem is harder. We are bound by time so it might be impossible for us to perceive anything without it.
zkrooky@reddit
God does whatever God wants and doesn't owe anyone an explanation. God can lie if God so wishes. Saying that God should be doing something is borderline blasphemous. I'm just grateful to God that we're allowed to exist.
Sloppykrab@reddit
The New Testament isn't any better.
mrgoobster@reddit
They both hinge morality on fear of punishment, blind faith, total obedience, divine hierarchy. To a modern person with secular humanist values, it's not categorically better.
But I think it's also fair to say that it's incrementally better within the category.
travistravis@reddit
I mean not particularly better things. At least I hope most people would think that sacrificing your only child is "better". It's just more of the same evil, with slightly better PR.
seiryuu-abi@reddit
If you know the history of the other two offshoots it’s not hard to see that god likely didn’t move on to “better” things.
BigDictionEnergy@reddit
If you think that Christians, Muslims, and Jews all think they represent different versions or iterations of the same gods, I don't even know how to argue with you. Abrahamic is an umbrella term used by scholars who study religion, not adherents to those faiths. They in no way see their gods as related, let alone the same. I'm just gonna assume you're trying to say that your religion is better becuase it's the "most updated" or whatever.
seiryuu-abi@reddit
They worship the same god. Idk which religion is better or worse. That’s the energy zkrooky is giving about being better. You can take it up with them.
agitatedprisoner@reddit
The three Abrahamic religions don't believe in the same god. Christians believe God = Jesus+Holy Spirit+Creator God/God the Father. Jews believe God = Creator/God the Father. Muslims believe God = God the Father and that Muhammad is his prophet and the last revelation. They all believe in a creator God in some sense but it's not the same creator God. Christians and Muslims regard the OT as the original revelation but cherry pick which parts are considered divinely inspired and which parts they think were either retconned or made up/altered by fallible humans.
BigDictionEnergy@reddit
Then why the islam glazing?
seiryuu-abi@reddit
I’m not glazing Islam. If I was I would’ve never said, “If you know the history of the other two offshoot it’s not hard to see that god likely didn’t move on to ‘better’ things.” Just stating that Muslims and Christians don’t have the same concept of martyrdom doesn’t suddenly mean glazing.
BigDictionEnergy@reddit
Your words. It clearly read like an endorsement, at least to me.
seiryuu-abi@reddit
That was in quotations because I was quoting zkrooky who said, “Yeah they’re stuck in the Old Testament while God moved on to better things.” Not my endorsement.
BigDictionEnergy@reddit
I confused one redditor making a silly argument for another redditor making a silly argument. ban me, I guess
BigDictionEnergy@reddit
God in the OT: Kill your child if you believe in me so much. Also, if kids make fun of bald people, I will send bears after them
God in the NT: I am dying for your sins, just chill and be nice to each other
Forged-Signatures@reddit
"Be chill and be nice to each other. And, oh yeah, Slaves obey your masters".
seiryuu-abi@reddit
Following along the trend of god moving on how come the dude you’re replying to isn’t quoting the Quran?
BigDictionEnergy@reddit
Dude here. You could have asked me directly, but whatever. I'm not into poetry. I read it once but I don't recall much.
seiryuu-abi@reddit
You’ve read it and you don’t remember? I’ve read it too. God moved on from the NT.
BigDictionEnergy@reddit
Sure thing, dude. Moved on to what?
seiryuu-abi@reddit
Moved on from the NT to the Quran and that’s also pretty different. For example, Muslims do have martyrdom but not in the same way that Christians do. They will take up the sword and fight if need be and Muhammad himself fought.
BigDictionEnergy@reddit
...because all Muslims follow the same doctrine, right.
Also, are you saying the christians were entirely peaceful?
seiryuu-abi@reddit
I was just saying that in the times of Jesus things were different compared to the times of Muhammad even if they are following the same god. Neither Jesus nor the apostles took up arms when met with persecution. Muhammad and the companions did.
BigDictionEnergy@reddit
So you're saying they 'moved on' back to violence.
Forged-Signatures@reddit
Realistically, because fewer Western people know the Quran well enough to argue the points, whereas many of us grew up with some form of Christianity, and a version of the Bible. I know I'd rather argue a topic I know than a topic I do not, which is why I would leave the Quran talk to athiests/agnostics from Islamic backgrounds.
I wouldn't particularly speak to Catholicism, or Orthodox for much the same reason.
m0ngoos3@reddit
OT, divorce is a thing and should be accepted.
NT no on no, divorce is evil and should not be accepted at all. Also, rich people can't get into heaven, so sell off everything and come join my cult.
seiryuu-abi@reddit
The NT accepts divorce in the case of unchastity or infidelity iirc. But yes if something like abuse is happening then you would likely have to be separated from your spouse, not divorced.
But yes with the creation of Christianity the rest of the world religions were considered wrong and demonic/satanic like Buddhism.
BigDictionEnergy@reddit
grabs popcorn before mods lock thread
Familiar_Control_906@reddit
I did. And is not.
He is recorded numerous times not particularly liking then.
He is also recorded saying he can make new sons to Abraham out of rocks, so honestly, they're not special.
The rest of the Abrahamic religions still consider Israel (the land) special, but the people living there are as naturally saint as my neighbor who fall out of a ladder last week
fiction8@reddit
That would be a good thing. Their problem is too much god.
DevCatOTA@reddit
Discovery would be a blast. Bibi wouldn't turn anything over and the case would be quietly dropped.
Magjee@reddit
The discovery is the available video of the rape, the lack of punishment and parading the rapist around like a hero on tv
And that was just one example
FeralGiraffeAttack@reddit
Don’t never need to get to discovery. Truth is a complete defense to defamation in the United States
Snoo63@reddit
I can't be the only one reminded of the TRUTH will set you FREE!
snowflake37wao@reddit
any country who needs a PR group with the name anti-defamation in it probably does a lot of things defaming itself. why not just litigate this new-zionism bullshit thru them, the leagues based in new york afterall. Seems like new york could use an Anti-DARVO league soon.
Magjee@reddit
I guess it will
Freethecrafts@reddit
The process would be the punishment. They’d use cost leverage to drag people into court, try to silence sources and future sources.
It’s all not a secret though, Israel itself has prosecuted such bad acts. Not sure how one fights such claims when Israel itself prosecutes the acts, then hands down much lighter sentences for convictions.
Mediocre-Frosting-77@reddit
I’m so tired of reading the phrase “blood libel”
Freethecrafts@reddit
The solution is clearly to use blood libel in reference to mass ethnic cleansing and deaths of civilians because some militants did something. Clearly conflates at least the children with armed militants in excuse to do all the bad things.
RascalRandal@reddit
They’ve ran anti-Semite into the ground so they’ve had to move on to other terms.
CurbYourThusiasm@reddit
Lamine Yamal waved a Palestinian flag during a victory parade a couple of days ago. Just waved a flag, nothing else. He made no comment or anything, and the response from Israel was:
They've actually lost their minds.
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
Remember that a few months ago Zionists interpreted the statement “don’t kill children” as a blatant attack on Israel and antisemitic.
Anything perceived as criticism is attacked hysterically. No criticism is tolerated.
PartySr@reddit (OP)
2 years ago, UN displayed some paintings from Palestinian children that were talking about peace and Zionists lost their mind over them.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HlNzR8Ps2BA
bearkin1@reddit
For anyone who doesn't know the context, literally all there was was a "STOP KILLING CHILDREN" message on the grass prior to the kickoff of a Champions League football match. In the ensuing days and weeks, many zionists, some with big followings, publicly stated how it was an anti-semitic statement.
Animeninja2020@reddit
That is a weird hill to die on.
The ways that it could have been reported to make people saying the message was bad I am surprised that people did not run with that. I am sure that some groups did but not the main stream news, that I head about.
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
Here is a link one of the articles about it in full:
https://spectator.com/article/uefas-stop-killing-children-banner-isnt-fooling-anyone/
IAMADon@reddit
Their entire logic here is "if the shoe fits". I wonder if they realise that their own argument is that Israel kills kids?
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
They seem to be totally blind to their own violence, even while defending it. It’s always “what choice do we have?” Answering “don’t mass murder children” means you’re an antisemite.
NotActuallyIraqi@reddit
These peoples brains are cooked.
If I made a sign “End Rape,” they’re going to claim this is an attack on them despite claiming without evidence for 2 years that Israelis are rape victims.
Paradoxjjw@reddit
I would say throw an insult into the aether and the person who it is meant for will catch it, but these aren't even insults anymore. Zionists get irrationally angry over things like saying that murdering children is bad even when you don't direct it at them
IlluminatedPickle@reddit
Shit if they keep using older and older terms it's going to start justifying questioning all the stories about discrimination centuries ago.
BigDictionEnergy@reddit
There's another one: "false symmetry."
Minimum_Guitar4305@reddit
Wouldnt it be a false dichotomy?
NotGalenNorAnsel@reddit
Naw, false symmetry is both-sidesing. False dichotomy is pretending there are only two choices/options.
So false symmetry is saying the American election is between a douche and a turd sandwich, false dichotomy is saying you either vote for Trump or you vote for Al Aqaeda. Or, to quote Talladega Nights: You're either first or last.
BigDictionEnergy@reddit
false dichotomy
...no?
wfsgraplw@reddit
Right? 99% don't give a shit about their race, religion, whatever. They could be Hindi, Muslim, Buddhist, doesn't fucking matter. People hate the state for what they do, not who they are.
Shame, though. While screaming anti-Semitism doesn't work as well as it used to, their desperation to tie their particular brand of Zionism into Judaism as a whole is actually driving an increase in anti-Semitism worldwide, because ill-informed people buy their line, see a Jew, think Gaza, and hate them for it. Do they care, though? Course they fucking don't.
eeeking@reddit
It was the IHRA definition of antisemitism, in particular the conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism, that lead down this path.
When Israel is criticized for obvious breaches of humanitarian law, but then uses the antisemitism defense, antisemitism became less meaningful.
NearABE@reddit
That is by design. People in Tel Aviv do not want Jews in London or Mew York to feel safe and at home there.
runsongas@reddit
it's a feature not a bug because they need Jews from outside Israel to boost their manpower pool to keep their campaigns invading neighboring countries going. they have to make it even more dangerous to be in the US, canada, Europe than having to dodge Iranian/Hezbollah rockets to give a good enough reason for moving to israel
voidox@reddit
yup, everything is now "blood libel", wonder what they'll move onto next once they've run that to the ground if they already haven't.
Kelor@reddit
It is something that historically been accurate/true, but Israel has been almost cartoonishly villainous here and is trying to abuse calling out the trope
re_carn@reddit
"Blood Bibi"
BlueKante@reddit
They're doing this to discourage other journalists and papers from exposing their heinous acts in the future.
3nterShift@reddit
Blood libel has lost all its meaning... What was once a specific medieval myth used to justify pogroms and other hateful tragedies committed against Jews is now... anything critical of Israel, including reporting on facts or showing solidarity to other victims of genocide.
There's no antisemitism quite like zionism.
abzftw@reddit
I wonder who is going to get twisted and forced to retract
re_carn@reddit
Why on earth has Israel’s image in other countries suddenly become such a concern to them? They used to proudly organize demonstrations in support of rapists, and government officials would declare, “It’s our right!” And now, all of a sudden, they’ve decided to take the matter to court...
bearkin1@reddit
They have literally always cared about their reputation across the world, since their formation. The only thing that changed recently is their reputation has fallen into the toilet because of the ongoing genocide they're perpetuating, so now they're trying a lot harder with the propaganda.
Waesrdtfyg0987@reddit
Luckily our President will not support this behavior.
Magjee@reddit
He likes his raping off camera
/$
Occamsfacecloth@reddit
We'll find out how bribed or blackmailed the judges are
Edaimantis@reddit
Calling it blood libel is so funny. Anything that goes against Israel is antisemitism nowadays.
Butterfly_Mine_69@reddit
What a manic, broken and backwards people.
chriskicks@reddit
There is absolutely no question of rape. The evidence is there. I've read accounts and see interviews of people mentioning dogs. I'm not sure what proof they would find of "training dogs to rape" though. That's obviously not going to be in the books or be captured in any official record. Unless there's a picture or video that is leaked.. that's an extreme accusation to prove.
NotActuallyIraqi@reddit
Animals don’t need training to do this, just sprinkle some female dog scent on people and the dog will have sex with whatever object is holding still. Don’t watch the videos but there’s whole websites that show thousands of videos of the act as well as how-to’s for zoophiles to entice your dog at home. (Even if I wanted to link to any they’re a violation of TOS to post any here)
rattleandhum@reddit
dry heave
Redditthedog@reddit
I mean the NYT stood by that claim. As part of discovery the names will be disclosed so Israel can then show otherwise
sulaymanf@reddit
Al Jazeera documented these rapes in 2024 and people ignored it. B’Tselem documented it in 2025 and they were ignored. But the NYTimes publishes it and suddenly the Israeli government flips out. Because ‘normal people’ read the NY Times and its defense of and excuses for Israel.
sulaymanf@reddit
So they’re not even going to pretend to investigate themselves, they’re just going to blanket deny it and sue the reporters for the allegations and not the Palestinian victims who made the reports?
SaneForCocoaPuffs@reddit
I think this is fantastic. Truth is absolute defense against defamation so Israel will have to allow the defense to send reporters to investigate or the entire case will be thrown out.
Redditthedog@reddit
Discovery alone will kill the case. Israel is basically announcing it will forcibly unmask anonymous sources. Either they do unmask the Palestinians making the claims and them do actually find them false or they are true. Regardless of any of that the next guy to report is gonna be way less willing and in turn journalist are gonna be way more skeptical
Shady_bookworm51@reddit
The moment those Palestinians, they will suddenly have an accident...
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
“Mysteriously, your honour, all the victims were killed by the IDF yesterday and all the whistleblowers are in jail for treason…”
Redditthedog@reddit
I mean the NYT will have to name names, their credibility and full story will come under question. It also means going forward is gonna be named anyone who is used as a source or any journalist better be very sure what they are reporting is accurate
Wall-SWE@reddit
There are videos of it happening. In the video I saw about 7 soldiers help another soldier rape a girl by blocking the view from the security cameras with their shields.
Redditthedog@reddit
link it?
Wall-SWE@reddit
NFSWHere
Shady_bookworm51@reddit
Empty words that he has said in the past when Israel's bad deeds get exposed. I would be very surprised if this ended up coming to fruition as the discovery would be killer for Israel.
baeb66@reddit
Lol at Netanyahu threatening to sue an America news outlet that consistently whitewashes his crimes against humanity. This never makes it to a courtroom. He just wants to intimidate reporters he can't drone strike.
adeadbeathorse@reddit
“Members of the jury, how do you find the defendant on the charge of... blood libel? Wait, is that a real thing? Is that what this whole trial's been about!?”
ribald_jester@reddit
Aren't there videos posted that showed this abuse? This sort of bullshit intimidation is why Israel is loathed worldwide. Maybe, don't torture prisoners - sexually or otherwise. But that's a bridge too far.
Stubbs94@reddit
There is the video of the gang rape that happened in the Sde Temain concentration camp. But none from the dozens of victims who told the reporters about the systemic rape by the IDF
redelastic@reddit
According to testimony, one of the victims said the soldiers told each other not to film the rape. And the rapes are done in areas not covered by cameras. They must have been told off last time for getting caught.
redelastic@reddit
It can't be libel if it is true.
But well done Israel on using the Streisand Effect to amplify your depraved crimes against humanity. The more people know about your evil actions, the better.
nilamo@reddit
Why would the New York Times be liable for whatever Israel's laws are? This seems like it'd just immediately get shot down by any reasonable judge. If Israel were that upset about it, they wouldn't rape their prisoners.
PerforatedPie@reddit
So he's just pandering to his base. Other than that this sounds like a non-story?
elihu@reddit
So, probably nothing will come of this.
PapaverOneirium@reddit
Generally, nation states cannot sue U.S. entities for defamation within the U.S. court system according to precedent and constitutional protections on free speech.
ChillAhriman@reddit
I for one hope they sue. It's a great way to draw further attention to Israeli prisons.
Paradoxjjw@reddit
If what the NYT said was false Israel would have made the press conference announcing they had already sued the NYT. Threatening to sue rather than just suing shows Israel knows its claims won't hold up in court.
AutoModerator@reddit
The link you have provided contains keywords for topics associated with an active conflict, and has automatically been flaired accordingly. If the flair was not updated, the link submitter MUST do so. Due to submissions regarding active conflicts generating more contrasting discussion, comments will only be available to users who have set a subreddit user flair, and must strictly comply with subreddit rules. Posters who change the assigned post flair without permission will be temporarily banned. Commenters who violate Reddiquette and civility rules will be summarily banned.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.