Raptor Borealis 🇨🇦🇮🇱🇺🇦🇮🇷

A Community Note pending on @Palestine_UN’s propaganda video. The notes listed below aren’t even the half of the historical revisionism in their tweet. If you can upvote the note, make sure you do. And tick the box to apply it to all other tweets who shared this crap. Liars.

🚨“Dog rape” hoax update: The @nytimes continues to stand by Nicholas Kristof’s story alleging Israel trained dogs to sexually penetrate prisoners on command, part of what he claims is "standard operating procedure." Key updates: 📌Somehow, despite this claim about dogs never being documented in history and garnering intense worldwide interest, neither the NYT nor any other major outlet has treated it as a news story. It remains “opinion journalism,” as the NYT itself admits. 📌One of the key sources, Shaiel Ben-Ephraim, has already walked back the central claim on Piers Morgan's show. It is no longer “penetration” on command. Now he says: “the detainee sort of exposed and having a dog sort of seemed like it was about mounting… Whether there’s been penetration or not, I don’t know if there has been or hasn’t.” Even this is still wholly unverified, but it is very different from Israel trained dogs to rape. 📌Former Israeli PM Ehud Olmert contradicts Kristof’s claim that he accepted the article’s allegations. Olmert says he was effectively duped into endorsing a narrative he did not accept as true. So the most easily checkable testimony in the piece was misrepresented, but we are supposed to trust the testimony of mainly unnamed persons that of course cannot be fact-checked. 📌After 5 days of international discussion, millions of views, and endless comments, not one dog expert has come forward to confirm that a dog can be trained on command to become aroused and penetrate a human anally. All so far have called the claim absurd and anatomically impossible. The NYT claims the story was carefully fact-checked but did not produce an expert to back the claim. 📌The supposed historical examples do not rescue the story. The claims about Pinochet era Chile and Nazi Klaus Barbie are false and do not support the specific claim of actual rape, which by definition requires penetration. In those cases, dogs were reportedly used to mount naked victims as torture and assault. Obviously horrific, but it is not evidence of dogs being trained to become aroused and penetrate humans on command. 📌The actual Chile testimony (not articles about the incident) regarding Ingrid Olderock and her dog Volodia by a victim says the dog was ordered to “climb on top of me.” One naked victim specifically said, “mercifully, there was NO PENETRATION.” Another said she thought a man was coming to rape her, then realized “it was a dog” when it was on her. None of the testimony establishes penetration, just mounting and general assault on naked victims. 📌The Klaus Barbie testimony specifically says: “Barbie kept two German shepherd dogs. One was trained to lunge and bite. The other was trained to mount naked women who had first been ordered on their hands and knees.” Again, no arousal or penetration is claimed - because that is not possible. Many bad faith actors have called anyone who points this out as "denying the Holocaust." 📌The same appears true in the David Parker Ray case. Dogs were allegedly used to threaten, terrorize, and sexually abuse naked victims. But the record does not establish dogs trained to perform actual penetration on command. There is no evidence Ray was a dog trainer capable of such feats that dog experts say is impossible. Ray horrifically did what Olderock & Barbie did. 📌Further connections established (even though it was already 100% established) between Euro-Med Monitor, the ultimate source for this story and Hamas. "Journalist" Sami al-Sai also a proven Hamas mouthpiece. Ultimately the entire "opinion" piece is a form of well-laundered "Hamas told me so." 📌The NYT’s denial that the piece was timed ahead of the Civil Commission report on Hamas’ 10/7 sexual violence is not credible. Publishing this about 12 hours earlier as sheer coincidence strains belief. Journalists from various outlets were approached in the weeks prior to the report's release and people in the industry talk. Israeli officials affirmed they approached the NYT, and this is credible. Why approach CNN and others but not the NYT? Someone at the NYT knew and curated the timing. 📌“Why not allow an investigation?” is not an answer to this hoax. First, Israel is not required to open outside investigations every time an opinion writer publishes an unverified atrocity claim. Plenty of Israelis are already demanding investigations into prison abuses, and those should be handled by Israel internally as a law-abiding democracy. Second, the burden of proof is on the accuser. If you allege “dogs trained to rape,” you need credible evidence. You do not get to make an absurd claim and then demand that others disprove it. Sources below: