5 Filters

Important Grayzone analysis on those mass rape allegations

War and conflict
#1

These allegations have been given a massive new push by the Israeli government, as worldwide support for its ongoing massacres and genocide in Gaza plummets.

A New York Times article on Dec 28 purported to be a two-month investigation on the ground.

" ‘Screams Without Words’: How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on Oct. 7"

“A Times investigation uncovered new details showing a pattern of rape, mutilation and extreme brutality against women in the attacks on Israel.”

Irrespective of the merits of the NYT ‘investigation’, it is inevitable that it would be picked up by the rest of the US media and used to re-ignite the flagging support for Israel’s murderous actions in Gaza.

Womens’ groups have been reluctant to condemn the alleged actions, probably out of suspicion and the lack of coherent evidence since Oct 7.
As a result they have come under pressure from what are essentially thinly disguised warmongery pro-Israeli forces masquerading as concerned women.
This cynical-looking process has had steroid injections since the NYT article claiming to confirm the allegations against Hamas.

The Grayzone, who have been steeped in all the news items since October 7, sifted the NYT claims versus the existing evidence.

In short, the NYT investigation produced very little in the way of new detail, and such detail that was provided was either demonstrably false, or had been supplied by people who had demonstrably peddled falsehoods already.

In even shorter, it was pure propaganda.

Max Blumenthal’s analysis (Grayzone) shows that the NY Times uses suggestion and arrangement to maximize the effect while avoiding obvious contradictions and holes in the allegations, not to mention outright lies.

His analysis is impressive, not least due to the level of detail which shines a clear light on the NYT story, at least. Nearly 3 months on, we are still awaiting credible evidence of any rapes.

Bear in mind the accusation is systematic rape by Hamas - note the NYT headline.

Which brings an ironic twist to the story, being mainly about rape at knifepoint. If rapes were committed, it would most likely be by ‘riffraff’ (Blumenthal’s term) elements that escaped Gaza on Oct 7, as Hamas fighters were armed with Kalashnivovs, RGG’s and grenades.
But the story is no proper ‘use’ unless it is about Hamas policy - as the purpose of these allegations is solely to suppport Israel’s ongoing masssacre of Palestinians in Gaza. However, that’s just another distinction (among very many) for western governments supporting Israel, and the main media, to ignore.

3 Likes
#2

Thanks Evvy. A minefield of an issue, as the propagandists well know. The Hasbara-X tweeters have gone all-in on this one, a sure sign of a bullshit blizzard imho.

I had trouble getting past the paywall for the NYT but this worked for me. Not a recommendation as such…

https://archive.ph/n7ip2

Once I got to the bit about the terrorists throwing around an amputated breast (box cutter used, well, sure, every turrist has one of those) I stopped reading. The overall tone was like very bad fanfic but I’ve only ever read pastiches of that, so who am I to judge; most recently in Eliza Clark’s outstanding book Penance.

Watch out for the Houthis Played Hockey With My BFF’s Head stories sometime soon. (Puke)

3 Likes
#3

Indeed. It’s tempting to feel comfort that at least some analysis is coming out that makes sense - as if that changes the dynamics. It doesn’t, of course.

Meet Harvard’s ‘Doxxing truck’.
It’s what happens to Harvard students that express support for Palestine.

image
image1024×912 57.2 KB

The New York Post, which hosts covid-dissent but is otherwise Trumpian, manages to look almost balanced in reporting this furious pro-Israel storm, from which there is no hiding, not around Harvard and its financial forces anyway.

This isn’t an abuse of elite power per se - Harvard’s President Claudine Gay is getting it in the neck too. They’ve discovered some alleged plagiarism in her 1997 Doctorate thesis. Very handy, as she is accused of not clamping down hard enough on student ‘antisemitism’ allegedly arising post Oct 7, manisfesting in suggestions like, Israel might actually be responsible for its own actions…

Ivor Chudov, who is jewish himself it seems, opened up the question to his substack audience.
He’s a bit of a shrewdie IMO, and had an idea what to expect. His audience of mostly ‘antivaxxers’ seemed to latch on to the seriousness of the alleged plagiarism but not the agenda behind the witch hunt; many think it’s time Harvard’s, woke, black, female president (“is she lesbian?”) was cancelled anyway.

Somehow I don’t think the plucky little truthseeking Grayzone analysis is going to change much in the US.

3 Likes
#4

. . . and she’s gorn, Claudine Gay that is. Her successor, for now, is a nice bearded white Jewish male.

The plagiarism thing is no cover story, see KarlStack, who has been gunning for her a long time now.

2 Likes
#5

Thanks for that link, it’s a window into a right old mess of past cancellations and allegations going all the way back to someone’s previous alleged involvement with Jeffrey Epstein.

I think the real allegation/issue is one of fabrication, made against a prof. Ryan Enos.
Gay is accused by Brunet (Karlstack) of dismissing a solid case against him, and he’s been on his and her case since he messed up his expose on Enos, who he publicly denounces as a fraud, though nothing seemingly came of the fabrication claim as he’s still at Harvard.

It did look a bit fishy TBH.

If the case against Gay was about plagiarism, should she not have had an academic process other than a social media witch hunt, and a forced resignation in men-in-grey-suits syle?

Chudov says there was some plagiarism though, and gives examples, but also says the required academic standard of attribution is very high, in theory.
TBH his first example I thought was a nothing burger though there seemed to be better ones but I soon gave up trying to figure it out. Chudov says it’s the kind of thing that’s usually ignored but was weaponised here.

I might be wrong but it still seems to me the antisemitism allegation did appear in the last month or so, as Chudov says. Though you are right there was earlier stuff on Gay to do with a possible cover up of Enos, this may be just Brunet, who presumably now is in a camp with others on this issue.

I didn’t want to delve any deeper as it’s so unpleasant. Brunet comes across as being mainly interested in taking down a big fish or two following his biased and botched (he admits) expose of nearly two years ago.

I’d be interested in your comments on the ‘plagiarism’ subtance shown by Chudov if you can be bothered but Chudov’s other link showing 1600 Jewish Alumni threatening to end financial donations over ‘antisemitism’ paint a compelling picture to me.

Cheers

2 Likes
#6

This is ultimately to do with lack of support for a small minority. Obviously Harvard knew about her record, and tried to protect her because DIE.

Last time I checked, there was 45+ allegations affecting 8 of her 17 published works.

Screenshot_20240104-065229
Screenshot_20240104-0652291080×2400 202 KB

What’s to be gained from this mess? Not a lot at all. Clearly corruption is endemic.

I wonder if she plagiarised her resignation?

2 Likes
#7

Well, the replacement is (from @KarenEliot above), a ‘white bearded Jewish male’. From Wikidecevia, " In October 2019, The Harvard Crimson reported that Garber collected more than $2.7 million serving on the board of directors for Exelixis[16] and Vertex Pharmaceuticals[17]". He is also a fellow of the Nuffield Trust.

Glad to see that Harvard have stabilised the ship.

PS I tried desperately not to misspell that last word.

3 Likes
#8

I was thinking of the wider picture.

We have a person who fits an agenda, whose place at the top was not earned. That place was secure until recent events, even though the crime was know for years prior.

Why was the prior evidence ignored until now?
Who knew about the plagiarism?

Could it be that the same people who pushed feminism are the same people pushing DIE? And could they be the same people as the new boss?

2 Likes
#9

I maybe stating the obvious, but aren’t all successful political candidates elected because they all have hidden swords of damacles in the cupboard known to the movers and shakers so as to ease the exit of those who suddenly stop obeying orders?

cheers

3 Likes
#10

Hi CJ1

Maybe in the old world when supposed scandals had to be juicy. I think the new element is that the extremes of zero tolerance mean that suddenly those in power can use even very bad ‘examples’ to zap anyone (antisemitism shows that); and this is being used to reshape power itself. So there would be no need to ‘vet’ MPs like Andrew Bridgen, they’ve all said something or other. Gay was fiercly criticized for not being hard enough on the Harvard students. Equals antisemitism, in the prevailing climate

How serious is the level of plagiarism? The first example given by Chudov looked to me more like a sloppy description, using a reference that was given. I think there are stronger examples, but even those need to be compared, not with the ‘zero’ level of standard, but with standards that are tolerated for people who have more permissible views on Israel.

I don’t doubt the raging right have a point about woke agendas, but I think to focus as they do exclusively on the issue raised by the zappers misses the point. In the Bridgen example, the ‘antisemitism’ claim was so hollow that no-one even bothered to give any justification for it; yet the power is so strong none was needed.

The fake antisemitism meme was clearly also hammered silly to get Jeremy Corbyn. It’s emerged as a bigger weapon than even draconian anti-terror laws.
As a useful aside, it boosts support for Israel no end as it makes people have to be careful what they say even away from the spotlight, and probably results in shutting most of them up.
Cheers

4 Likes
#11

Here’s another thought for the day - given we know Israel is a genocidal state doesn’t that make all our political parties’ “Friends of Israel…” organisations automatically supporting genocide thereby making all their members guilty of complicity in genocide!

The Rule of Claw will of course prevent any UK or US prosecutions and I fully expect the ICJ to find a loophole for Israel despite all the damning evidence we have seen of ethnic cleansing and open admissions of intention to clean out Palestinians from Gaza and next the West Bank!

cheers

3 Likes
#12

Aaron Mate in (slightly) lighter mode, in a nice double act with Katie Halper on the Useful Idiots podcast.

This one is a freebie - most of the podcasts are charged for.

I think the “Democrats suck” and “Republicans suck” feature is probably a regular.

With some of those featured, some levity is genuinely needed to ward off the toxic effects of what you are hearing from otherwise supposedly civilised people.
Sadly another damaging effect of the genocidal actions has been to match up cameras and mikes with fruitloops in the US.

#13

Oh undoubtedly it’s a case of follow the money, with Penny Pritzker in particular leveraging massive funding from the Hyatt hotels conglomerate. That family are deep Deep State. Nevertheless the sloppy academic practise makes a nonsense of her appointment being anything other than tokenism. Brunet is claiming the win of course.

#14

Who knows…? Run it through TurnItIn and see…

#15

Israeli runs the US media, it seems.

CNN And Washington Post Busted For Pro-Israel Propaganda Shenanigans

Intercept story apparently.

1 Like
#16

More Blumenthal. He’s a brave man…

2 Likes
#17

Thanks for that - Max has done some brilliant investigative journalism on this.

As with any Q&A type interview no-one can present all the points needed to answer the questions - and the questioner is in the power seat, having had time to research and prepare the questions!
One thing that Max made reference to but did not flesh out was that the IDF killed Israelis on October 7th, he said the object of Hamas was to collect hostages and kill Israeli soldiers and that’s what they did.
The male presenter pointed to all the dead bodies of October 7th and described their reported condition and the other presenter said with all these horrible deaths why bother with going the further step to show sexual crimes .
Here Max could have referred to all the evidence of the 8 Israeli Apache helicopters which used hellfire missiles and machine guns (that punch grenade size holes through victims) not just with one full discharge of munitions but with repeated re-arming with such weapons at people who they could not truly identify ( as confirmd by at least one pilot) and at buildings they knew contained Israelis!

In other words just pointing to dead bodies does not mean they were killed by Hamas, in the light of the known use by Israel of the Hanibal procedure many if not all deaths of unarmed Israeli civilians on October 7th could have been from Israeli military fire.

Even the deaths of some members of the IDF on october 7th were admitted to have been caused by a commander calling for an airstrike on his own forces that were overun by Hamas.

To assume Hamas killed all the Israelis found dead on October 7th is not actually evidence - it’s an assumption. Without evidence Hamas fighters could have avoided deliberately killing any civilians, as hostage taking and killing IDF soldiers were the 2 objectives according to MB.

The NYT seems to have used the typical trick of a criminal prosecutor - repeatedly show to the jury the horrors suffered by the victims whilst claiming the defendants were the perpetrators without actually providing evidence linking the defendants to the death of the victims. The presenters of this interview have adopted the same approach.

cheers

2 Likes
#18

My first thought was simply Yeah he’s brave…when I got to 2m I saw what you meant!

I’ve not watched it through but it starts off friendly though he immediately shoots across the bows with a quip to the effect of Why is there nobody on to call him an antisemite.
This is bantered away but a presenter asks him why he thinks there are legitimate questions to be asked about the NYT report and he is having none of that - they are not just legitimate questions, but that this is a gigantic hoax to shore up consent for Israel’s genciodal rampage in the Gaza strip, which has killed over 10,000 women. And this was rolled out in December as a propaganda stunt, when Israel’s assault was losing support among Joe Biden’s base which includes a lot of feminists.

Surely this will absolutely infuriate the White House and Israel who would expect this kind of showdown to be avoided.

Good points @CJ1 and I’ll need to watch the rest - I just wondered if Max B reckoned this was such a big challenge to make that it might be better on its own rather along with a string of other challenges that might more readily be dismissed in this arena, or might take the discussion down a rabbit hole if his evidence on these other points was challenged by even fake rebuttals. Just a thought…as I say I need to watch the rest!
Cheers

2 Likes
#19

He is indeed a very brave man! I watched the entire video and think Blumenthal did exceptionally well. It’s easy to watch the recording and say he missed this point or that one. If he was a pro NWO spokesperson, he would have had all the questions and talking points in advance. However, being on the spot without knowing what’s coming in advance is very different.

When the male interviewer says things like “I’ve seen the October 7th footage. I’ve seen the footage of the body, many of the murders, two people being beheaded … bodies of the women been zip tied …”. Or the female presenter says things like, “… I think it’s perfectly plausible that sexual violence did occur …” and then rambles on uninterrupted for 2 minutes. At the end she talked herself into saying, “… it is incumbent on us to ask why this story is so flimsy”.

All I can say, is well done Max!

4 Likes
#20

Blumenthal is in our view probably the best public commentator on the subject by miles. No-one better for confronting the arseholes whatever the criticisms.

Why is the ‘Hannibal Directive’ so called? Hannibal ended his own life voluntarily (allegedly!) whereas. . . .

Surely ‘Goldin Directive’ would better describe the process.

2 Likes