Earlier cholantesh failed to accept the bedrocks of western jurisprudence. I would be happy to debate cholantesh if he first accepts: (1) the western concept of presumed innocence; (2) that while the video from Sde Teiman does show suspicious circumstances, the allegations must be tested in court; (3) the accused are innocent until proven guilty; (4) there is also certain potentially exculpatory evidence undermining the accusations (a hospital report that doesn't show rape; a grainy and edited video, where the alleged sex act cannot clearly be seen, among other things)

In the meantime, what I will say for other readers is that just as cholantesh ignores the foundations of western jurisprudence, cholantesh also ignores one of the foundational principles of the enlightenment, and the motto of the royal society: nullius in verba - take nobody's word for it. One doesn't make a case by appealing to authorities like the Church of England or agencies with three-letter acronyms, but thinks from first principles to generate good explanations. Various evidence-free circular theories, like "kids look starving due to prenatal nutritional deficiencies" sound incredibly stupid (really, 10 year olds? kids with cerebral palsy?), and classifying arguments as belonging to forbidden categories ("hasbara talking points") is a dollar store technique for throwing reason out the window.