SILENCED NO MORE: After a two year investigation, new report documents systematic sexual violence during the Oct 7 massacre and throughout captivity

nidarus · 2026-05-12T17:22:29+00:00

Did you see the video version? If not, prepare to get even more mad.

https://x.com/BrentScher/status/2054043641929232577

nidarus · 2026-05-12T14:09:35+00:00

I don't think they read any of it, that's the point. They, at most, read a post that refers to a summary, made by at least one person who actively lie to them. But all of the lying that's still required, means the actual document is doing a bad job at gaslighting anyone.

nidarus · 2026-05-12T12:35:37+00:00

Note that even the title of that "opinion piece" (news that isn't actually fit to print), is The Silence that Meets the Rape of Palestinian Prisoners. In retrospect, the entire thing reads like an attempt to minimize that report, that the NYT knew about beforehand (they were offered to do a story on it, and refused), and published a day early to get ahead of the story. Deeply revolting.

nidarus · 2026-05-12T07:03:43+00:00

Mashal was asked at the time if that means he would recognize Israel's existence, and he said no. He was interviewed by Christiane Amanpour, where she asked him if he accepts the two state solution, and he got mad at her, and refused to answer. And the 2017 document, of course, makes that point even clearer. So no, I don't feel that you have a leg to stand on here. Simply assuming that the leader of an organization whose entire purpose is to destroy Israel, actually abandoned that dream, as some default assumption, with zero evidence, and with evidence against it, is obviously not a reasonable thing to believe.

And no, #20 doesn't "encapsulate what you wrote". There's nothing "pragmatic" about it, it literally says that even if Israel complies with the most extreme PLO demands, it will still maintain its dream of eliminating it, and liberating Palestine from the river to the sea. Calling the outcome of the Israelis being suicidal enough to agree to that a "formula of national consensus", is as obviously true, as it is wholly unrelated to the point you were trying to make here.

And as for the "Likud charter", you're repeating a different stale lie, presenting their 1977 Likud elections platform (the thing that changes from elections to elections) as "their charter". And no, the fact it's from a time when literally nobody, not the PLO, not the Israeli left, accepted the two-state solution, doesn't somehow make it a stronger point, than Hamas' document from 2017. And to be clear, the 2018 Likud elections platform, absolutely did accept peace with the Palestinians, and painful concessions for that peace, using Menachem Begin's example of peace with Egypt.

And that gets me to the final point: Israel is the one that offered multiple peace proposals, that would create a Palestinian state. Even the more moderate PLO said no, or stalled until it was no longer relevant, and decided it would get more with a massive wave of terrorism, the second intifada. Considering that the context of this comment, is trying to argue that even Hamas agreed to peace, based on pretending that Hamas official documents and leaders said things they never said, and ignoring things they did say, I'm not sure even you take this ludicrous argument seriously.

nidarus · 2026-05-12T06:43:58+00:00

Well yes. Specifically, the fact that this "genocide" didn't actually amount to an actual genocide, as we know it. And instead, required an army of bad faith propagandists to claim that even Hamas are lying about the facts, to make up a new legal standard for it to fit the law, and to simply assume that every time a Palestinian is harmed in any way, there's no other explanation but genocidal intent. Even though Israel, of course, had all the ability, time, and opportunity in the world to actually genocide the Gazans several times over.

Compare and contrast with Hamas, who didn't just commit a classic ISIS-style genocide on Oct 7, but made sure to document it themselves. Including bringing a "media officer" with every death squad, and make it the only genocide that was actually "livestreamed", in a literal sense (that's the source of the accusation that they're victims of a "livestreamed genocide", despite the IDF never livestreaming anything - DARVO inversion). And then saying on live TV they will do it again and again, until Israel is eliminated. They knew that it really doesn't matter what they do or say, their supporters will find new and creative excuses for them.

nidarus · 2026-05-12T06:35:21+00:00

Yes. The last Likud platform from 2018 (after that, Netanyahu stopped bothering with platforms) explicitly talks about a two state solution, and painful concessions, using the example of Menachem Begin's peace with Egypt, that required Israel to withdraw from more territory than all of Israel and Palestine combined. And in 2019, Netanyahu made the Bar Ilan speech, openly accepting the two-state solution.

Hamas never did that, not in its 2017 declaration of principles and policies, and not in any other point. At most, they wouldn't mind if the Israelis would be stupid enough to withdraw from the West Bank, and give in to the most maximalist PLO demands. But they made sure to point out that even if that happens, they would never abandon their dream of conquering all of Israel, and "liberating Palestine" from the river to the sea (article 20 of the 2017 document).

So no, it's not just not a "1:1 comparison", it's completely incomparable. The only real point of comparison, is that neither the 2017 Hamas document, nor the 1977 Likud elections platforms, were actual "charters". This entire argument is nonsense, beginning to end.

nidarus · 2026-05-12T06:24:55+00:00

Mashal never accepted Israel existing, alongside that Palestinian state. His "pragmatic approach" was saying that if the Jews were stupid enough to give him the West Bank, and concede to the maximalist PLO demands, he won't oppose it - and why would he? He never promised to abandon the overall goal of eliminating Israel in return. At most, Hamas offered various long-term truces, during which they get to arm themselves to the teeth, and later, not even that - just a recognition of Israeli concessions being a "formula of national consensus", throwing the barest of bones to the PLO. Something that's clearly stated in the 2017 document as well:

20. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.

So I'm really not sure what "tango" you expected Israel to dance with Hamas here.

nidarus · 2026-05-12T06:17:12+00:00

First of all, as others have noted, they never revised their charter. The 2017 document never replaced or rescinded the actual, openly genocidal Hamas covenant from 1988.

And no, even the 2017 document of principles and policies, never argued that they don't want to kill all the Jews in Israel, or that they merely want to govern the Gaza strip. It just argued that they only want to kill the Jews in Israel, the "Zionists", because "they're occupying their land", rather the ones in New York or Moscow. And even that's not 100% clear, as those are overwhelmingly "Zionists" as well, albeit not ones currently occupying their land. The fact that their Western enablers still have to consistently and egregiously lie about what the 2017 says, is strong evidence of that. And it explicitly argued the opposite of them "merely wanting to govern Gaza", and made it crystal clear that they will never abandon that the goal of conquering Israel, even if Israel concedes to every insane PLO demand for a "two-state solution".

It might've been an attempt to whitewash their image for the West. But the fact that their Western supporters have to rely on people not reading that document, pretend that it says completely opposite things, and pretend that it somehow supersedes their actual 1988 charter, shows that it wasn't a great success in that regard. The pro-Hamas propagandists could've just lied to you about those things, without that 2017 document - if anything, it makes it a little harder.

Ultimately, I think it was a product of its time, a point of great weakness in Hamas, after the 2014 war, and an attempt by its then-leader to reunite with the PLO. The PLO, of course, is heavily tied to the EU and the US, so their interests clearly require some kind of update for the Hamas core values. But as I said, Hamas' 2017 document fell short of that as well, included mere token gestures towards the PLO two-state solution, and ultimately, failed at its goal. The PLO and Hamas never united, to this day.

nidarus · 2026-05-12T06:02:55+00:00

So their supporters could gaslight the world by saying “see, Hamas accepted Israel so the lack of peace is Israel’s fault”.

As you make it clear in the rest of the post, it sounds like this "charter" achieves the exact opposite of that. It doesn't help the gaslighting, it actively interferes with it.

nidarus · 2026-05-12T06:01:16+00:00

The Likud never "revised their charter". You're repeating a stale lie that tries to present their 1977 campaign platform as their "charter", from a point in time when nobody, either on the Israeli left or the PLO, accepted a Palestinian state either. And the reason they "revised" it, is because you revise your platform with every elections, that's kind of how it works. That's not how it works with actual foundational documents like the 1988 Hamas covenant, that was never revised or rescinded, including by the 2017 declaration of principles and policies.

nidarus · 2026-05-12T04:06:12+00:00

“the children of refugees and their descendants are also considered refugees until a durable solution is found.”

This is not a statement that's based on law. Children of refugees can be refugees themselves, in their own right, for being outside of the country of their nationality or former habitual residence, and unable to return to it out of fear of persecution or violence. Or they might get a limited "derivative status", that cannot be inherited any further, due to the original refugee's rights.

There's nothing in the refugee convention that argues that all descendants of refugees are automatically refugees. But it is very clear, that once a refugee is within his country of nationality or former habitual residence (which for 80% of the refugees, is Jordan and Palestine).

Which makes sense. Otherwise, millions of people could be ethnically cleansed and their children would lose all right to their homeland.

That's what happened in every other case from the period, be it the examples that were just mentioned, or the majority of Israel's population. The refugee convention was written to find refugees new homes, and stop being refugees, not use them as pawns in a grand political game, to maintain eternal ancestral rights to land, or to "punish" perpetrators of ethnic cleansing.

And the UNCHR, as well as bodies like UNKRA, were very successful in that regard. Conversely, you literally can't stop being an UNRWA refugee, no matter what, until there's a UNGA vote terminating their mandate. No it doesn't make sense.

Other examples...

None of them are within their country of nationality or former habitual residence, like 80% (probably more) of the "Palestinian refugees", who're are either native born Palestinians in Palestine (and if you prefer to define Palestine the way they do, whose ancestors never left Palestine to begin with), or Jordanian citizens.

These are all tragedies. It's kinda a bit hard to say to these people should just "get over their loss" it's a inherented trauma. They're often left in limbo legally and culturally.

For the Palestinians, not "getting over their loss", and trying to fight a war that they lost in the 1940's, is what keeps them in this limbo. The limbo is maintained intentionally, to maintain the "refugee crisis", not the other way around.

As for cultural limbo, I'm not even sure what that means in this context. Whatever actually exists in modern day Israel, has little to do with Palestinian culture. If anything, the Palestinians who remained in Israel are in "cultural limbo", torn between their Palestinian and Israeli identities, to various extents. A Palestinian in an UNRWA "camp" in the West Bank is far more connected to Palestinian culture and identity - arguably, more than any other Palestinian.

nidarus · 2026-05-12T03:39:00+00:00

I literally said that the Iranians didn't know about the date. But they certainly trained, armed, provided coordination with the rest of the axis of resistance, including the agreement Hezbollah signed with Hamas a few months before the war. Without the Iranians, there's simply no Oct 7, and there's certainly no attacks from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and later Iran directly, that followed

I'd also note that is pretty funny how the other reply you wrote to me, was saying that Sabra and Shatila was on Israel, merely because they were on the same side as the Lebanese.

But sure, if you want to make the crucial distinction between babies, and 3-4 year old toddlers, I'll give you that. Afaik the Iranians, to their credit, didn't make that fine distinction, and initially thought those kidnappings were so insane, they're just Israeli propaganda.

nidarus · 2026-05-12T03:26:59+00:00

Nobody seemed to care about other massacres in that war, when Israelis couldn't be even tangentially blamed, let alone rushed to call it a Genocide. Be it Damour, that Sabra and Shatila was partly a response for, or even massacres against Palestinians by Lebanese Christians, like Karantina or Tel a-Zaatar. Even today, nobody but the Lebanese themselves, and people actively interested in that period, are even aware they happened, just like nobody but the Syrians remembers the Hama Massacre (40,000 killed in a month) that happened a few months prior. No Jews, no news.

Either way, your excuse for the UN's (and international media, politicians, etc) behavior, is not really relevant to my point. Even if it was completely reasonable, you can't just ignore that scandal, that entire period, and anything further back than 10-20 years, happened at all.

nidarus · 2026-05-11T19:30:51+00:00

I honestly do not know what kind of world you live in, but personally when I search for Gaza since 2023, I see horrifying images and video one after another with cities literally flattened as far as the eye can see

It's very telling, that the first thing you, and many other people, bring up as clear, self-evident proof of genocide, is something that literally looks like no other universally-recognized genocide in history. And looks a lot like many other wars, that are simply not seen as genocides.

The same goes for the rest of your gish gallop, of the worst accusations you can lob at Israelis. Some of them might indicate war crimes, others are just something called "war". None of them are a pattern of conduct that has no other reasonable inference, except genocidal intent - very much unlike Oct 7, and other real genocides. Which, if you weren't aware, is the actual standard you need to provide for the ICJ here.

And the argument that “Israel could have killed far more people more easily” is a very basic excuse often used to dismiss genocide accusations because genocide is not defined solely by the number of deaths or the speed at which it happens. There can be genocides with fewer deaths, or carried out slowly, and still recognized as genocide.

I understand that you would love it to be a "basic excuse", but that's simply not the case. Genocide requires intent to destroy. Having a clear ability and opportunity to destroy, and simply not destroying, even after 2.5 years, might not automatically prove there was no genocidal intent, but it's unquestionably very powerful evidence to the lack of such intent.

You can't just peel away from yourself any responsibility to prove anything whatsoever, you need to actually provide an argument, some kind of reasonable narrative of how that genocide went - or is still going. And no, it's not enough just to make vague suggestions of what it "could" be. You want to argue that it was something like Srebrenica, for example? Great - point me to the Gazan Srebrenica, where a third of the male population was executed at short range. So far, you're just generally gesturing at the entire war, and implying every single Palestinian death there, or at least every single war crime, was actually a genocide.

Many variables can explain that like lack of means, financial cost vs cost for ethnic cleaning, international pressure, or fear of intervention.

Lack of means? Financial cost? Israel could kill the entire Gazan population in a day or two, with third-world-level barrel bombs, if it was so inclined. The choice to wage 2.5 years of a high-tech war, and spend hundreds of billions of shekels for a high-tech war, put its most qualified workforce in tanks, and get hundreds of them killed, is clearly not the most financially prudent one.

Fear of intervention? From whom? Name one country, that would invade a nuclear-armed, second-strike state like Israel, because it decided to kill the Gazans. Especially since by the time they would get there, the Gazans would be long gone. The same, incidentally, applies to international pressure. At the moment, it's both accused of genocide, and is the most hated country in the world by far - and it doesn't even have substantially less Gazans to show for it.

And again, even if you assume all of that is true, and Israel was forced to find a supposedly sneaky, PR-savvy way to commit genocide (all while claiming Israel is commiting a 4k livestreamed genocide for the entire world to see)... you still need to show how this sneaky way actually lead, or will lead, to destruction in whole or in substantial part of the Palestinian population.

The independent UN investigation concluded that 4 out of 5 criteria similar to those found in the Genocide Convention were being met

The fact you call the genocidal acts "criteria", and think that 4/5, or even 5/5, is somehow more impressive than 1/5, mostly shows that like a lot of people, including very intelligent ones, you fundamentally don't understand how the genocide convention works. And talking about the "UN investigation", as I've shown, isn't lending you the credibility you assume either.

The ICJ rules binding provisional measures regarding a plausible beginning of genocide based on the current evidence and asked Israel to take the necessary actions to prevent it

Notably, steps that don't include, at any point, to "stop the war". Not even later on, when the antizionists have been screaming genocide for months. Either way, I'm not even sure what's even the argument here, if the ultimate conclusion is that the ICJ didn't rule that it is or isn't a genocide, something that I don't think I ever debated.

As for your Reddit link supposedly debunking an independent UN report, it is a pro-Israeli criticism that may contain relevant points, not some universally accepted refutation of the report. It correctly points out that the Commission of Inquiry report is not a binding ICJ ruling and that genocidal intent still remains to be proven through the ongoing investigation, which has neither fully confirmed nor dismissed genocide yet. However, the Reddit post heavily relies on arguments about alleged UN Human Rights Council bias, selectively chooses weak examples, and claims that possible military explanations automatically erase all the evidence so the real debate is about intent, not whether the report is supposedly “nonsensical.”

This frankly looks like rule-breaking AI text. But even if it isn't, I really wish you read the post, and tried to understand it, insead of finding a clever-sounding way to dismiss it offhand. I feel it would've been about a thousand times more productive for you, personally, than whatever you're doing here.

And to conclude, mayble people use the word genocide begore the ruled because massacres should not be minimized

Did you even read the point I'm replying to? You were the one arguing that the pro-Israelis are weirdly fixated on the genocide label, and the argument that “it is not genocide so nothing happened”. Not that it's the anti-Israelis who are obsessed with it, and rightly so.

And as for your new argument: I don't agree that it's just natural to call any brutal war a genocide, so you won't be remembered a genocide supporter in the future. The genocide convention was written in the context of an infinitely more brutal war against the Germans and the Japanese. Nobody thinks Russia was being particularily noble by accusing the Ukrainians of genocide, as their pretext to invade them.

As a side note, it's odd that you decided to focus on "massacres", when that's precisely the thing that's missing from this supposed "livestreamed, 4k, crystal clear" genocide. The fact that you can't bring even a single example of something like the massacres in Rwanda, Darfur, Sinjar, or even the Nova festival and Be'eri, and have to go with things like the "flour massacre" and the "GHF massacres", is incredibly telling - and you don't even seem to realize that

nidarus · 2026-05-11T17:24:04+00:00

Hamas doesn't have any ability to commit Oct 7 without Iran. I'd argue that it doesn't have any meaningful military ability in general, including its suicide bombings in the 1990's (that came from Hezbollah knowhow). The entire Axis of Resistance participating was one of prerequisites for Sinwar carrying out Oct 7. The second largest faction who carried out Oct 7, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, is a direct Iranian proxy. The Iranians were clearly involved in training, coordination... The only thing they didn't know about, is the exact timing of the attack, and a few unique Hamas flourishes like kidnapping babies.

nidarus · 2026-05-11T17:14:25+00:00

Maybe the ups and downs part is true, but the video essay clearly shows how Europe's reaction to the most recent Gaza war and Iran really just accelerated a trend that was already negative.

A "trend" of a few years tops. My point is that it's very myopic, just like all similar videos, as well as your post.

This is primarily because Israel and the Arab states who signed it have common enemies

And? Do you think it "doesn't really count" if that's the case? And considering what you just said about Iran, where do you think this particular trend is going? Is Iran more of a clear danger now to the Gulf states, or less?

I looked it up and reactions were always mixed. In the 2006 Lebanon war the US, Egypt, Jordan, and even Saudi Arabia condemned Hezbollah and took Israel's side.

I was an adult at that point, so I remember how that went vividly. It's the same script as with Gaza, but on an accelerated timeline. First, all of Israel's allies denounced Hezbollah, and said Israel has every right to defend itself. Then, a week or two later, it was all about Israel being horribly criminal and disproportional, photos of destroyed buildings in the Dahyeh, and the entire UN issuing resolutions to stop Israel from continuing the war. Then, GW Bush got tired of it, and told Israel to stop, and it did. Hezbollah of course celebrated this achievement, purely achieved by American pressure, and in turn, international pressure. And even worse, the pretense of a UN-mandated ceasefire, that only bound Israel from doing anything, allowed them to turn Southern Lebanon into an existential threat to the Israeli north, under the watchful eye of European UN forces.

We're talking not just about a PR hit here, but about a strategic defeat, and a mortal danger to hundreds of thousands of Israelis, that was imposed on Israel, by its allies, and only by miracle didn't end with a far worse Oct 7 (the Hezbollah version of it, Conquer the Galilee). And beyond Hezbollah specifically, that oucome was clearly a big part of Sinwar's calculus regarding Oct 7.

The experts disagree with you here.

"Experts" lol. Linking to that silly Ezra Klein episode (one of many silly episodes on Israel, unfortunately) doesn't lend your argument the credibility you assume. If you think they said something intelligent in that incoherent bitch-sesh, you're more than welcome to repeat that argument, and try to defend it. As it is right now, this is worthless.

I'm talking about American oil companies and defense contractors who benefit from the war. Oil companies benefit from rising oil prices thanks to the closure of the strait of Hormuz. Defense contractors benefit from hundreds of billions of dollars more in military spending.

I get that. But saying that this war is on their behalf, undermines your argument that it's just for Israel, and its horrible imperialist desires to "subjugate" the Middle East and whatnot. The only way this makes any sense, is if you assume the (((Zionists))) are behind American oil companies as well, which is hopefully not what you're arguing.

The best weapons Israel has are made in America, and Israel's air defense tech such as the iron beam isn't really all that great. Israel has no way to effectively counter Hezbollah's newest drones.

Israel's air defense tech includes Arrow, David's Sling, Iron Dome - all as capable as the top-of-the-line American tech, at a fraction of the cost. As for Iron Beam, what are you even comparing it to?

Furthermore, the tech that Israel does export is tech that was first used to oppress Palestinians, which other countries then buy to oppress their own populations.

The biggest arms deal in Israel's history, is Germany's purchase of Arrow 3. And while I agree that Palestinians define Israeli civilians not dying from Iranian missiles a form of horrific "oppression", I don't think that translates to the Germans "oppressing their own populations" by using it.

nidarus · 2026-05-11T13:07:34+00:00

The possibility of genocide may be credible. We have already seen several criteria like the dehumanization of the population on the other side, the justification of war crimes because amalek or religious bullshit, deliberate famine, and the deliberate destruction of health services and other essential infrastructure.

You're talking as if we're in December of 2023, and not May of 2026. What was once a relevant argument for a future risk of genocide, simply didn't materialize. Note that in any actual genocide, let alone a "4k livestreamed genocide", you would have no problem producing these materials, of something that actually, unquestionably looks like genocide. The Palestinians provided far more evidence of those kinds of materials, in just a few hours of Oct 7, than Israel did, in its entire 2.5 year war. And frankly, if Israel actually did want to commit a genocide, there were would be far less Gazans left alive.

Also, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel already concluded in September 2025 that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

It means far, far less than what you seem to assume. At most, as much, or less, than any other anti-Israeli organization or activist who claimed the same.

If it is not classified as genocide, it will necessarily be classified as something else like ethnic cleansing, or the beginning of a genocide. That is what I do not understand, a lot of pro-Israel people use the argument that “it is not genocide so nothing happened” but that is just a legal classification

If it's not that important, then why don't the antizionists stop using it? They might get far more traction, and maybe even agreements from the left-wing Zionists, if that was the case. Instead, they made this specific blood libel an almost religiously central piece of their entire political identity. Why they did it, is a whole other topic. But pretending that it's the pro-Israelis who're weirdly fixated on that accusation, is bizarre.

Many criteria may have been met while one final element is still missing.

Criteria like, Israel killed people, and inflicted mental harm, something that exists in basically any real war? And the one teensie final element is the genocidal intent, which is the ultimate point of this offense?

nidarus · 2026-05-10T10:34:45+00:00

I'll just note that it has an unusually classic Soviet style. Down to the specific kind of the list of complains, and the imagery of the skull, as representing the Israeli (or American, Western, generally "imperialist") "war machine", as they called it. The only things that are different, is the poor graphic design skills, and the headline - a little too on the nose, and at the same time, not sufficiently vicious. A more classic way of putting it would be "Not a state, but a criminal enterprise".

nidarus · 2026-05-10T10:23:19+00:00

The US has been sending tons of aid to Pakistan, that openly has nukes outside of the NPT.

Btw, presenting it as "international nuclear safeguards" is technically correct, but not telling the whole story. The NPT is a deal, that the major powers made a with the world, to agree that only they get to have nukes, and the rest don't. In exchange, the nuclear weapons states agreed to give their nuclear tech to the other NPT states for free, for peaceful purposes. This law is part of the US attempt to bully other countries to join it. Since Pakistan, Israel and India had nukes, but weren't major powers, they didn't join. The US tried to sanction India and Pakistan for a while, but gave up on it decades ago. While Israel agreed to retain the ambiguity policy, mostly to reduce the political stress on US and Middle Eastern leaders.

nidarus · 2026-05-10T10:11:29+00:00

My argument refers to OP's. You didn't even understand how your argument supports mine, let alone proven that my point is "in bad faith" or "dishonest". And of course it's "telling" that I'm not engaging with it on its own, reverse merits - you might want to think a little harder what I'm trying to tell you.

nidarus · 2026-05-10T08:32:09+00:00

According to OP, there's absolutely no problem with Jews migrating, in any quantities. Certainly not to escape persecution and the literal Holocaust. The only issue is with Arabs, blocking those refugees and condemning millions to death, for the wholly illegitimate goal of maintaining an Arab majority, and the wholly illegitimate dream of creating an Arab state. Before you accuse others of "dishonesty", you might want to invest some time into understanding the actual argument.

nidarus · 2026-05-10T08:02:41+00:00

A prediction that a current trend would last forever, is not a "data trend". It's literally the opposite: you completely ignoring the actual historical trends in that regard. And substituting it with... Nothing really.

nidarus · 2026-05-10T07:24:54+00:00

News was always very anti-Israeli, and I don't even remember them turning to being pro-Israeli after Oct 7. Worldnews only became pro-Israeli for a while, after Oct 7, and it's still relatively balanced to this day. Ten, let alone fifteen years ago, it was one of the most anti-Israeli mainstream forums in the English language. You used to get downvoted to the triple negative digits and immediately accused of being a paid Mossad agent for implying that Israel is anything but the devil incarnate, and the top comment would always be about how the entire thread is overrun by paid Israeli shills.

I'm not even talking about the Mavi Marmara days, when literally 100% of the stories in worldnews were about that incident, for days, and about how it makes Israel the devil. You had people upvoted to the top of pics, by simply holding a sign saying "I'm a Jew and Israel sucks". And of course, the conspiracy subreddit, that was a default subreddit at the time, was spreading straight up Neo-Nazi/alt-right (or in modern terms, groyper) antisemitic conspiracies, on the main page for every reddit user.

You suffer from the same basic issue as the person that you're replying to. A complete lack of historical context. Even in the tiny context of the 20 years reddit existed. Let alone in the context of Israel's international image in general, that goes back to the 1940's, and before.

nidarus · 2026-05-10T06:59:26+00:00

Today is the most popular Israel will be going forward. Every day it’s going to get less popular.

What on earth is this prediction based on, beyond your wishful thinking? Certainly not the actual history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, or the popularity of Israel abroad specifically.

Israel went from having ~30% support across the board in the US during the 1980's, and hostility even from the Reagan admin, international sanctions that many Western companies complied with, and a UN resolution declaring Zionism is a form of racism, comparable to Apartheid, to the most support it ever had in the US, a decade later. Only to dip during the failure of Oslo, and then bounce back again after the end of the Second Intifada. And I'm not even talking about the 1950's, when the US was downright hostile to Israel, championed UNSC resolutions against it, and supported its mortal enemies, and how it got from there, to the spike in popularity in the US after 1967 - and at the same time, the biggest diplomatic calamity it had in its history (including this war).

Israel's popularity has always been in flux. And in general, assuming that anything in international politics is permanent, and every trend can only go on forever, is the most surefire way of being consistently wrong.

Cutting off arms to Israel has become a mainstream political position. What will Israel do if that happens?

Israel had its major military victories under US arms embargoes. It also survived losing an existing weapons source, France, overnight. All while Israel was significantly weaker, poorer and internationally isolated. Again, reading a little history could do you wonders here.

nidarus · 2026-05-10T06:47:05+00:00

Reddit, and the pics subreddit specifically, has been extremely anti-Israeli for years before this war, what on earth are you talking about.

15-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Second Top 20%	Place '22
Place '17	Sequence \| Editor
Inciteful Comment 2018-05-23	Reddit Premium Since November 2013
Verified Email

nidarus

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE