Israel’s leadership is pushing the allegations that Hamas fighters raped Israeli women during the October 7 attacks for its own political objectives while the government’s ongoing refusal to allow the United Nations to conduct a full investigation into the matter threatens to hinder any evidence, advocates have warned.
I understand the challenges with the NYT expose about the sexual violence that might or might not have happened on 10/7, but why are we posting opinion pieces to world news? This is a blog post with no sources. Shouldn’t we do better?
For Bibi, the propaganda value is far higher - and far more important - than actually seeking any sort of meaningful and rational justice for his citizens.
This is the UN report which found strong evidence that widespread rape occurred during the October 7th attack, as well as debunking one or two particular claims that Israel was putting forth which got published in the news.
For some reason, the couple of lies Israel told about sexual violence became the entire story, overshadowing the much larger truth about sexual violence by Hamas fighters. Most of the infamous NYT story was true.
Just because Israel is actively engaging in a genocide and are committing atrocities 10 times worse than whatever’s coming back to them doesn’t automatically mean that claims of atrocity by Hamas are automatically false.
The UN report found there is no evidence aside from unverifiable “witness testimonies.” She did confirm that israel had no forensic, video or photo evidence. It all hangs on israeli witnesses which have previously lied. When 10 israeli “witnesses” lie to manufacture rape propaganda there is no reason to believe the 11th.
There is no reason that Pramilla Patten should have classified those israeli provited witnesses are ‘credible’.
The NYT article is completely debunked there is nothing left standing from it. You are straight up spreading propaganda by claiming it holds weight. The reason israel invited Patten to begin with was because the NYT article fell apart.
The claim about NYT is irrelevant too as israel claiming in its interview with BBC that it had video evidence and that there were survivors of rape. Both which are not confirmed fake.
Hey, @Linkerbaan do you provide this much scrutiny when you post articles from your blog websites? Or do you reserve that charitability only for one side?
Sure sure. But my question was-just in case you missed it: do you submit the blog posts you spam here to the same level of scrutiny or is your charitability only extended to only one side? That’s all we need to see that this is all a big larp for you
What people like @Linkerbaan (and most of these Lemmy LARPers) don’t understand is that I am the most on the side of Palestinians. However, I’m a solutions oriented person. I want the suffering of Palestinians to stop. Now. I don’t care to larp on social media for Karma points so I don’t spam news threads non-stop with junk blog opinion pieces. Their only goal is to dilute the conversation.
We all are aware the genocide is happening.
I want a ceasefire and I want to bring both sides to the table to negotiations because the Palestinian people are the ones caught in this awful situation between a proxy war for Iran and the zealotry of right wing Israeli politicians.
Buddy, I just conceded it’s an apartheid state two comments away in the same thread. Now what will you say about me in order to obfuscate and muddy the conversation?
Sure, Israel/Palestine could be classified as an apartheid state. There you go. Back to the original question (3rd time): Will you extend the same charitability to articles critical of Hamas? Or does the larp not work that way? Was just curious
No pal, I was very precise in my language: I said within Israel there are millions of Muslims that coexist with Jews. That was in direct response to the garbage you were posting in that specific thread because you are unable to engage with more than one topic at a time --perhaps it’s too difficult for you. I understand. All this larping on social media can be tiring after a while.
Because you constantly post opinion blog pieces on every community and they seem to not hold a candle to the slightest scrutiny, but when someone brings receipts (like UN reports) suddenly you are Nancy Drew. It’s pretty obvious that you have double standards when it comes to media literacy, no?
That is the exact opposite of what the UN report did. Did you actually read it, or if not where did you get all this information you're telling me?
The executive summary is only a few pages and breaks down a high level of what they found pretty well, and then you can skip to particular sections to see more detail. Pages 4 and 5 have a pretty good high-level overview of which allegations in which locations they believe they gathered reasonable grounds to believe, which allegations they believed they debunked, and which ones they weren't able to verify or debunk one way or another. Warning, it's slightly graphic.
In particular, they pretty immediately debunked some of the Israeli governments' accounts which got repeated early on in the media, actually specifically by comparing them against evidence and by doing their own interviews where they were able.
Aha! We have arrived at the point of Never Play Defense. Someone simply observing the flow of the conversation, who doesn't take a look at the report and compare it against what you're saying it says, could be mistaken for thinking this is a vigorous debate between roughly equally justified points of view, or differing interpretations which are both roughly grounded in reality, or something else which isn't you talking purely out of your ass and me giving factual citations for why you're wrong. Kudos! Not sure what else you could do, but you're playing it well.
I'll do one more round, sure. It's not a fun game for me to play indefinitely, but:
If this was true the UN would be saying Hamas raped people. But alas, the UN does not say that.
I(12), page 4: "Based on the information gathered by the mission team from multiple and independent sources, there are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred during the 7 October attacks in multiple locations across Gaza periphery, including rape and gang rape, in at least three locations."
I(13), page 4: "At the Nova music festival and its surroundings, there are reasonable grounds to believe that multiple incidents of sexual violence took place with victims being subjected to rape and/or gang rape and then killed or killed while being raped."
If you're going to imply that civilians unrelated to Hamas might have done it, and it wasn't part of Hamas's attack -- as the OP article, hilariously, does -- then sure, you can, if you want.
I think I'm comfortable with the reasons I've already laid out so far with citations for why what's in the OP article and what you're saying about it is crap.
This week, Israel released an appalling video featuring five female Israeli soldiers taken captive at Nahal Oz military base on October 7. Fearful and bloody, the women beg for their lives while Hamas fighters mill around and alternately threaten to kill them and compliment their appearance. The captors call the women “sabaya,” which Israel translated as “women who can get pregnant.” Almost immediately, others disputed the translation and said sabaya referred merely to “female captives” and included no reference to their fertility. “The Arabic word sabaya doesn’t have sexual connotations,” the Al Jazeera journalist Laila Al-Arian wrote in a post on X, taking exception to a Washington Post article that said that it did. She said the Israeli translation was “playing on racist and orientalist tropes about Arabs and Muslims.”
These are real women and victims of ongoing war crimes, so it does seem excessively lurid to suggest, without direct evidence, that they have been raped in captivity for the past several months. (“Eight months,” the Israelis noted, allowing readers to do the gestational math. “Think of what that means for these young women.”) But to assert that sabaya is devoid of sexual connotation reflects ignorance, at best. The word is well attested in classical sources and refers to female captives; the choice of a classical term over a modern one implies a fondness for classical modes of war, which codified sexual violence at scale. Just as concubine and comfort woman carry the befoulments of their modern use, sabaya is straightfowardly associated with what we moderns call rape.
I think the official IDF translator lied about translations and you are reposting their propagandanda.
This was quite a scandal a little while back. Even Reuters censored the subtitles on the video because they said it was wrong. Of course anyone can use a translator these days and find out that the subtitles are propaganda.
Here, I'll repost the full article, which of course does no such thing as relying on a single IDF translation as its sole and only source, and instead actually deals at length with what the word means, how it was recently resurrected, and what it does and doesn't imply about any official sanction from Hamas leadership.
I am not surprised that you want to replace this kind of detailed analysis with a simple and pithy oversimplification, since any detailed analysis will expose the truth that you're openly defending rape.
This week, Israel released an appalling video featuring five female Israeli soldiers taken captive at Nahal Oz military base on October 7. Fearful and bloody, the women beg for their lives while Hamas fighters mill around and alternately threaten to kill them and compliment their appearance. The captors call the women “sabaya,” which Israel translated as “women who can get pregnant.” Almost immediately, others disputed the translation and said sabaya referred merely to “female captives” and included no reference to their fertility. “The Arabic word sabaya doesn’t have sexual connotations,” the Al Jazeera journalist Laila Al-Arian wrote in a post on X, taking exception to a Washington Post article that said that it did. She said the Israeli translation was “playing on racist and orientalist tropes about Arabs and Muslims.”
These are real women and victims of ongoing war crimes, so it does seem excessively lurid to suggest, without direct evidence, that they have been raped in captivity for the past several months. (“Eight months,” the Israelis noted, allowing readers to do the gestational math. “Think of what that means for these young women.”) But to assert that sabaya is devoid of sexual connotation reflects ignorance, at best. The word is well attested in classical sources and refers to female captives; the choice of a classical term over a modern one implies a fondness for classical modes of war, which codified sexual violence at scale. Just as concubine and comfort woman carry the befoulments of their historic use, sabaya is straightforwardly associated with what we moderns call rape. Anyone who uses sabaya in modern Gaza or Raqqah can be assumed to have specific and disgusting reasons to want to revive it.
The word sabaya recently reappeared in the modern Arabic lexicon through the efforts of the Islamic State. Unsurprisingly, then, the scholars best equipped for this analysis are the ones who observed and cataloged how ISIS revived sabaya (and many other dormant classical and medieval terms). I refer here to Aymenn J. Al-Tamimi, recently of Swansea University, and to Cole Bunzel of the Hoover Institution, who have both commented on this controversy without sensationalism, except insofar as the potential of sexual enslavement is inherently sensational.
Under classical Islamic jurisprudence on the law of war, the possible fates of enemy captives are four: They can be killed, ransomed, enslaved, or freed. Those enslaved are then subject to the rules that govern slavery in Islam—which are extensive, and are nearly as irrelevant to the daily lives of most living Muslims as the rules concerning slavery in Judaism are to the lives of most Jews. I say “nearly” because Jews have not had a state that sought to regulate slavery for many centuries, but the last majority-Muslim states abolished slavery only in the second half of the 20th century, and the Islamic State enthusiastically resumed the practice in 2014.
In doing so, the Islamic State reaffirmed the privileges, and duties, of the slave owner. (Bunzel observes that the Islamic State cited scholars who used the term sabaya as if captured women were considered slaves by default, and the other fates were implicitly improbable.) The slave owner is responsible for the welfare of the slave, including her food and shelter. He is allowed to have sex with female slaves, but certain rules apply. He may not sell her off until he can confirm that she isn’t pregnant, and he has obligations to her and to their children, if any are born from their union. I cannot stress enough that such relationships—that is, having sex with someone you own—constitute rape in all modern interpretations of the word, and they are frowned upon whether they occur in the Levant, the Hejaz, or Monticello.
My evidence for Hamas raping people is the UN report I already posted which talks about all the evidence for Hamas raping people. We're talking about something different, which is Hamas fighters using a word which is explicitly associated with rape (and a pretty in depth explanation of what it does and doesn't imply.)
Isn't "Never Play Defense" fun? I can switch to a new accusation, if you decide to change your mind and continue the conversation.
That's actually a fairly reasonable question, which I know you asked a couple times already, which I haven't addressed.
So, I'll give a genuine answer: The report explicitly doesn't deal with the question of who raped the Israeli women who were raped during the October 7th attack, because they were already dealing with enough evidentiary difficulties just trying to put together and say conclusively whether or not it had happened, and where, and dealing with a certain amount of dishonesty and fog-of-war among other issues that made it hard to even sort out the basics, especially with victims who are now deceased where they were dealing purely with forensic evidence. Trying to bring a standard of proof of which specific men had done it into the equation would have made their already pretty challenging task more difficult and more open to criticism, I think.
To me, that's not automatically a bad thing. It means they're being cautious and trying to have solid backing for things they are saying. I would contrast it for example with the abysmally low standard of proof that led your OP article to write things like "some reports have asserted that those acts and other reported atrocities were committed by civilians and those not affiliated with the group." Of course, it's easy to simply say that obviously it was probably unrelated civilians who raped all these women during the October 7th attack, and not Hamas, if you don't feel bound by the need to produce evidence or even answer simple questions like, "What reports? Who are you saying did the rapes, then? What the fuck are you talking about?"
You are, of course, welcome to seize onto that pretty sensible decision by the report authors and shake it back and forth like a little bad-faith terrier, as if it somehow invalidated the whole report -- for example, implying that the evidence it presents of hostages who were raped during captivity somehow leaves open the possibility that they were raped by some other, non-Hamas captors during their time as prisoners of Hamas.
Speaking of which, how's that search for the report's treatment of the prisoners who were raped in captivity coming? I can give you a couple other hints about where to find it, if you still can't find it after I sent you a link to the report, and then gave you hints about where to look in the table of contents, which page of the TOC, and the general area on the page where you might be able to find the applicable entry.
What a weird hill to die on…you don’t have to defend Hamas in order to be critical of Israel. It’s not one or the other Linkerbaan. Or does that break the Larp. I can’t understand people like you.
I think some people's brains are all-or-nothing. I mean, it's certainly true that whatever significant crimes against humanity Hamas is doing, Israel is doing literally 10 times worse. But some people will go from there to saying that everything Palestinian is good, even if it's a violent and corrupt organization like Hamas which is bringing only death and destruction to innocents on both sides, and accomplishing nothing at all for better conditions for the Palestinian people.
Surely the right answer is for the Palestinian people who only want to live and not get murdered or starved to death, and the Israeli people who only want to go to the music festival and not get raped or shot or kidnapped, to gang up and seize all the people on both sides who want to continue and profit off the conflict, and string them up upside-down like Mussolini, so they can die of thirst over several days in the hot desert sun. Then, the problem simplified, they can get together and work out some approximation of a peace agreement.
Surely there are a few problems with that, not least of which that the people who like continuing the war have most of the weapons and wouldn't agree to the proposal. But that makes more sense to me than picking a "right side" and defending them regardless of what horrifying thing they're doing to innocent people on the "wrong side."
Because people like @Linkerbaan don’t really care about any of this. It’s all a larp.
I see it as the same effect as Kony 2012 was when everyone was updating their FB profile (or like when people put the rainbow flag during pride month). It’s an aesthetic, nothing more. If they really cared about resolutions they would be promoting anything towards that, not constant opinion blog posts. Not constant bickering. Not this vitriolic reactionary stuff every time someone pushes back or asks questions.
(2/2 - this is the rest of the article I pasted as the "1/2" section of the comment)
But in the premodern context, before the rights revolution that consecrated every person with individual, unalienable worth, sex slavery was unremarkable, and the principal concern was not whether to do it but what to do with the children. The Prophet Muhammad freed a slave after she bore him a child. The Jewish paterfamilias Abraham released his slave Hagar into the desert 14 years after she bore him Ishmael. But these are cases from antiquity, and modern folk see things differently. Frederick Douglass, in the opening of his autobiography, emphasized the inhumanity of American slave owners by noting the abhorrent results of those relationships: fathers hating, owning, abusing, and selling their own kin.
Sabaya is a term in part born of the need to distinguish captives potentially subject to these procreative regulations from those who would be less complicated to own. To translate it as “women who can get pregnant” is regrettably misleading. It makes explicit what the word connotes, namely that these captives fall under a legal category with possibilities distinct from those of their male counterparts. As Al-Tamimi observes, Hamas could just as easily have used a standard Arabic word for female war captives, asirat. This neutral word is used on Arabic Wikipedia, say, for Jessica Lynch, the American prisoner of war from the 2003 Iraq invasion. Instead Hamas used a term with a different history.
One could read too much into the choice of words. No one, to my knowledge, has suggested that Hamas is following the Islamic State by reviving sex slavery as a legal category. I know of no evidence that it has done so, and if it did, I would expect many of the group’s supporters, even those comfortable with its killing of concertgoers and old people, to denounce the group. More likely, a single group of Hamas members used the word in an especially heady moment, during which they wanted to degrade and humiliate their captives as much as possible. Thankfully, the captives appear unaware of the language being used around them. The language suggests that the fighters were open to raping the women, but it could also just be reprehensible talk, after an already coarsening day of mass killing.
Reading too much into the language seems, at this point, to be less of a danger than reading too little into it. As soon as the Israeli translation came out, it was assailed for its inaccuracy, when it was actually just gesturing clumsily at a real, though not easily summarized, historical background. What, if anything, should the translation have said? “Female captives” does not carry the appropriate resonance; “sex-slavery candidates” would err in the other direction and imply too much. Every translation loses something. Is there a word in English that conveys that one views the battered women in one’s control as potentially sexually available? I think probably not. I would be very careful before speaking up to defend the user of such a word.
Since you abandoned this line of conversation, I posted the article (in a non paywalled version) if you're interested in resurrecting it.
I am somewhat anticipating that me posting it will be interpreted as Zionism, so you may be in good company if you want to head over to the comments and start yelling at me that I am a bad person for being opposed to this particular type of rape, because of who the victims are.
Well yeah, that’s the point. War crimes always get covered covered up if at all possible. Israel isn’t unique there. They’re the same monsters every militant power is.
That should tell you the answer right there. A state that has overtly lied to cover its own action in their ongoing genocide, that has painted their enemy as fascists have always tried to paint their enemies, is saying one thing and refusing to offer proof and refusing to allow the matter to be investigated.
It didn’t happen.
Not to mention, they were caught pushing the story in the NYT to begin with, which is where the rumor started. I don’t need any more proof that it didn’t happen like they say it did.
Rape happens in war. I don’t believe it was used systemically on Oct. 7, as Israel claims, or at least, there’s no evidence of that.
However, to claim that no one was raped during an attack that long and protracted, and with so many people involved, defies history and the realities of conflict.
What’s worse, anyone claiming “no rapes happened” as a counter to “it was systemically used”, means that a single case of rape invalidates their claim, and by default, bolsters Israel’s lie.
This is the other thing that's weird about the "it was all debunked" side. So, they invaded the music festival, shot a bunch of people including plenty of women and children, hauled away a bunch of hostages, burned up some homes, and yet, nobody raped anybody. Just didn't happen. That's a red line that these music-festival-goer-shooters adhered to absolutely without fail.
The Israeli government does much worse, unprovoked, and much more systematically. But that doesn't mean all of a sudden that you have to say every bad thing about Israel is true and every bad thing about Hamas is false, and these people who invaded a music festival and shot more than a thousand innocent people are these noble paladins you have to protect the right and honor of.
I said I wasn't going to indefinitely play the game of you saying total bullshit and me citing sources for why it's wrong, because going back and forth with it too many times usually isn't a good use of time, but for some reason this one irritated me all afresh.
I(17) from the report, page 5: "With respect to hostages, the mission team found clear and convincing information that some have been subjected to various forms of conflict-related sexual violence including rape and sexualized torture and sexualized cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and it also has reasonable grounds to believe that such violence may be ongoing."
Since I already cited a few entries out of the UN report to you, I'm gonna make this one into one of those "exercise for the reader" type of things. Like teaching a man to fish. In what entry in the table of contents to the report do you think the answer to this question might be contained?
I realize you will have to read most of the whole first page of the document to find it, but I believe in you. Hold your focus. Persevere.
I sent you a link to the full report. Maybe that needs to be the first part of your challenge then: Finding the link to the report, and then finding the table of contents, and then identifying which entry in the table of contents might contain the answer to your question.
Do you really not want to take on the challenge of finding it? I am trying to help you become more capable with sources and verification procedures. I wasn't expecting finding the report that I sent the link to to be the hard part, but I honestly don't think any part of it should be altogether super-challenging.
I already read the report and stated what is in it. You are the person claiming differently so link the part where they had anything other than witnesses to present.
What page of the report did you read that dealt with hostages?
Not that I don't believe you; I just have forgotten, and I want you to remind me so I can reference it really quick so we can continue the conversation.
I'm gonna quit being a sarcastic dickhead for a second to take this question seriously.
I already gave citations of evidence -- a link to the report with some criticisms of what the article was saying was literally my first comment here, and then after that, I responded to questions usually with page numbers or section citations or quotations (examples here, here, and here).
But that made absolutely no difference to how you reacted. You continued to make 100% wrong claims about what was in the report, and didn't react substantively to the demonstrations that what you were already saying were wrong.
As I said, I don't feel like simply continuing that cycle of me providing citations and you continuing to blandly argue wildly wrong things like this. I decided to try a different tactic of asking you about the citations, providing enough hints that you should easily be able to find them in the report you claim to have read. I'm actually pretty happy with it, since it breaks the cycle of "duck season" "rabbit season" "duck season" and so on, and throws it into sharp relief when you're pointedly ignoring some kind of evidence that disproves your case.
Honestly, I'm happy with the result so far. I think it's a lot more effective at highlighting the fact that you're not actually interested in looking up information, or checking these wild claims you're making against some kind of objective basis.
So. Are you sure you don't feel like looking in the table of contents of the link I sent you, and locating the specific section which might possibly contain the answer to your question? There is, really, only one entry that qualifies. It should be very easy.
Of course, you could also pretend that someone me sending you the link and telling you to look in the table of contents near the bottom of the first page and you will probably find the information you seek, represents me not giving you a citation. You can claim that. It is your right. I will not stop you.
Yeah, sure, my lack of posting documents with detailed explanations of what the evidence was, and pointing to where within those documents you can find that information -- that's the problem here. How could I not have seen it 🙂. I can only hope to do better in the future.
(Pages 8-11 cover the standards of proof and methodology employed in general, and of course each subsection discusses briefly what specific evidence was employed in reaching the conclusions of that section.)
Hey, quick question -- you seemed to say that the report covered only the festival itself, as part of an argument where it would be impossible for rape to even have occurred because apparently attacking the festival was an active firefight and not a terrorist attack on a helpless and terrified civilian population. What are the five subsections of III(c)1 that come after the first one (festival and surroundings), please? I am testing your reading comprehension and ability to follow links to evidence, since you seem to be having a great deal of difficulty in doing so.
I did not ask you which factors were taken into consideration I asked you which factors were used as evidence for the conclusion of the report. Which the UN refuses to use as evidence that Hamas committed rape.
Hey, quick question -- you seemed to say that the report covered only the festival itself, as part of an argument where it would be impossible for rape to even have occurred because apparently attacking the festival was an active firefight and not a terrorist attack on a helpless and terrified civilian population. What are the five subsections of III(c)1 that come after the first one (festival and surroundings), please? I am testing your reading comprehension and ability to follow links to evidence, since you seem to be having a great deal of difficulty in doing so.
Actually, I got curious and read a bit of your link, and I have some comments:
II(7) claims that the team was purely guided and fed information by the Israeli government, and didn't offer "any dissent, even a peep, from the official 'narrative'". This is verifiably false; Patten debunked some of the Israeli government's more outlandish claims by analyzing evidence, and also among other things visited the West Bank and called for a corresponding investigation into IDF and settler sexual violence (section IV(81) in the UN report.)
III(10) wildly mischaracterizes the scale of the abuse that the UN report alleges; adding up various selected numbers from the report to arrive at a lower bound of 5 on the number of instances of sexual abuse, which is so wildly out of line with what the report actually says that it only be explained by someone who read the UN report, but cherry-picked some things out of it and presented them with the assumption that people would read the dishonest summary and not compare it to the original report.
I stopped reading at that point. As with a lot of these things, it's not possible for me to verify anything directly about what actually happened on the ground in Israel or Gaza. I can only read reports. But, I can definitely say that when one report is being grossly dishonest in its summary of what is contained in a different report, which I can also obtain and read for myself, then that first report is clearly lying.
II: The report debunks a few cases… Which were often already debunked. Such as the Kibbutz cases. It would not reflect well upon the report to report verifiably debunked claims. As the report does not cite its sources for the newer claims those are virtually impossible to debunk.
The report concedes that “the information gathered by the mission team was in a large part sourced from Israeli national institutions,” while the report’s findings carry bare minimum weight as the “mission is neither intended nor mandated to be investigative in nature.” The only discernible purposes of Patten’s tawdry mission reduce to, first, acting as yet another purveyor, vehicle, conduit, and conveyance of the “evidence” Israel has been propagating since 7 October, and, second, lending the UN’s authoritative imprimatur to this “evidence.” The analysis presented here began with the puzzle, What exactly is the Patten mission? That question can now be tentatively answered. It is neither an investigative nor a quasi- investigative body. On the contrary, it is a stage production directed by the UN bureaucracy to appease Israel and its powerful backer in Washington. How and why Ms. Patten came to play the starring role in this theatrical extravaganza are of secondary importance.
III:
The Patten mission states that it was “unable to establish the prevalence” of sexual violence “during and after the 7 October attacks,” and that a “comprehensive assessment … would require a fully-fledged investigation by competent bodies with adequate time and capacity.” But truth be told: if it wasn’t a “competent” investigative body, then it was “unable to establish” anything. Further, its vague quantification, as well as its repeated references to “circumstantial” evidence that “may be indicative” and to allegations that “couldn’t be verified,” certainly gave credence to the official Israeli “narrative” that the sexual violence was widespread.
Hey, quick question -- you seemed to say that the UN report covered only the festival itself, as part of an argument where it would be impossible for rape to even have occurred because apparently attacking the festival was an active firefight and not a terrorist attack on a helpless and terrified civilian population. What are the five subsections of III(c)1 that come after the first one (festival and surroundings), please? I am testing your reading comprehension and ability to follow links to evidence.
Yeah, yeah, you meant something totally different when you said "There were some stragglers playing hide and seek but the operation was mostly over the second the IDF copters shows up which was within 24 hours. The 'witness allegations' which turned out to be untrue were during the main raid including the festival. The UN report allegations also pertain to the festival. These were the earliest hours." That whole line of argument was something totally different than what it clearly was.
Be that as it may. Let's dive a little bit into "If Hamas would be raping people it would be the kidnapped hostages. Yet that rescued hostage from yesterday did not look very pregnant."
Your assertion is that one woman rescued from captivity who doesn't look very pregnant has some bearing on whether her or any other women are being raped in custody? I mean I follow the basic premise, I just wanna hear a little bit more about the logic and the evidentiary standard here.
Did you really just try and claim that rape doesn’t happen during active and protracted urban combat…?
Also, while I agree that of the attackers that day, the Hamas forces were the least likely culprits due to training and defined mission objectives, they weren’t the only people to enter Israel after the barriers were breached. That doesn’t mean they didn’t, just that I think there are other scenarios with a higher probability.
And last, I’m not really sure if you’re being intentionally honest with your retelling of events, or if you really just don’t know that much about the scope and duration of the attack. Either way, you don’t really have a firm grasp enough to speak on this with any sort of authority, certainly not with the confidence you seem to have.
Since empathy with brown people appears to be impossible let’s switch it up a bit.
Let’s say the IDF kidnaps a Palestinian. Do they stick an electrified stick in their ass while in a firefight with Hamas, or do they kidnap the Palestinian back to base and then rape them?
Thanks for clearing that up, you’re being intentionally disingenuous.
Never have I defended the IDF, nor have I condemned any Palestinian combatants.
I certainly never expressed any skepticism about the genocide or sexual violence that does appear to be deliberately systemic within the IDF, or at minimum, widely tolerated up the chain.
So, with that out of the way. Re-read my comments, and then decide to engage honestly, or just go and try and peddle your uninformed garbage somewhere else.
There were some stragglers playing hide and seek but the operation was mostly over the second the IDF copters shows up which was within 24 hours.
The “witness allegations” which turned out to be untrue were during the main raid including the festival. The UN report allegations also pertain to the festival. These were the earliest hours.
The only one basing things off their gut is people claiming they have evidence of rape which they clearly don’t have.
The UN report allegations also pertain to the festival.
Quick question, since you're clearly familiar with the report: Section III(c)1 is divided into 6 different subsections, of which the first is the festival and surrounding areas. What are the other 5 subsections?
I can start to give some hints if you have trouble answering this question. There's also III(c)2 and 3 but I already asked some questions about III(c)2.
(That was another hint, a big one, to one of my earlier questions you still seem to be having some trouble with.)
So, you don't feel like checking III(c)1 to verify your claim that the UN report pertains only to the festival? I am trying to make it easy for you to learn how to check your claims against sources, but you do not seem eager to develop your skills in this area.
“Out of order” is not quite a strong enough reaction for “We found a woman who doesn’t look pregnant as far as I can tell so that means that her and all the other women definitely didn’t get raped, so stop worrying about it”
“Out of order” is one of the most scathing critiques that a well-to-do British person will ever make of someone. I’m guessing that it’s not received that way in the US.
Right. As I was writing, I changed the definitive final sentence to a less definitive “it didn’t happen as they said it happened.” I never said there was no rape whatsoever.
Unfortunately rape is used in war. You’re right about that. Both sides are allegedly using it as a tactic. But their story was systematic rape used as terror on Oct 7 was a lie.
The OP article makes a big deal, too, about this distinction between Israeli women who were raped by Hamas fighters because the Hamas fighters wanted to rape, as opposed to because their commanders told them to go out and rape. I'm not sure that's a super impactful distinction. Why do you think it's an important distinction?
(Actually, the OP article says something stupider than that; it says that "some reports have asserted that those acts and other reported atrocities were committed by civilians and those not affiliated" with Hamas, without explaining what the fuck they're even talking about, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt and dealing mostly with their treatment that it's important whether or not Hamas "ordered it" to happen, which is still stupid to me but not transparently absurd like the idea that unaffiliated civilians suddenly started coming in and raping all these Israeli women at the same time that the October 7th attacks were going on.)
Not even slightly. Or, I mean, not for quite a while; the treatment of rape in war has evolved past what you are describing since quite some time ago.
Pre World War 2: Shit happens, they're soldiers, what are you going to do
World War 2 through 1993: Hey I think they shouldn't do that
1993: UN declares systematic rape to be a war crime <-- you are here
1993-2008: Various minor redefinitions over a series of resolutions
Then in 2008, the UN took the fairly sensible when you think about it step of saying that if you are fielding an army, and that army is raping people with any regularity, then that is your problem i.e. a crime against humanity and you don't get to mount the defense that you didn't tell them to, and so it's not your problem if it is happening.
Your viewpoint is disgusting and explicitly rape-apologist, as well as in this case legally incorrect.
Are you relying to the wrong the wrong comment? Or did you just not read mine correctly…?
Before I lay into the absurdity of your response as it relates to my comment, please double check.
Because it should be obvious that my comment adheres to the UN charter you reference and I never claimed that systemic only includes weaponized rape ordered through the chain of command.
You said that a soldier raping a civilian is a regular criminal offense. I cited the UN resolution that says among other things:
The Council demanded that all parties to armed conflict take immediate and appropriate measures to protect civilians, including by, among others, enforcing appropriate military disciplinary measures and upholding the principle of command responsibility; training troops on the categorical prohibition of all forms of sexual violence against civilians; debunking myths that fuel sexual violence; and vetting armed and security forces to take into account past sexual violence.
I mean, it's possible that we're saying the same thing; sort of contingent on what you mean exactly by "isolated incidents". I am saying that widespread rape on October 7th is indicative of a war crime regardless of whether approval for it came through Hamas's chain of command. Is that what you're saying?
Add comment