This article is a masterclass in slant. It's not attempting to cast any doubt on whether the report shows evidence that Hamas was and still is doing a bunch of sexual assault (to which the answer is pretty clearly yes.) Instead, it does some extensive hand-wringing over related but debatable questions, so as to create out of thin air an aura of controversy and flawed reporting where none exists.
Instead of asking:
Did Hamas rape anybody?
They ask:
Did this investigation find evidence that Hamas formally sanctioned sexual assault by its troops? (which is a separate question from, did it happen, but even whether the official sanction happened at all is pretty irrelevant as compared with whether the rape happened)
Was the investigation a legal investigation? Or just a team of experts gathering evidence and interviewing witnesses as they visited the sites where assaults were alleged to have taken place and then presenting their findings?
Did anyone find videos of Hamas raping people on the dark web?
It's a bunch of crap. The UN's press release summarizes the report that this article concerns pretty comprehensively, although the full report is also very accessible if you want to see some details or skip to some particular section of their conclusions and see exactly what they were and how they conducted their investigation and what they did and didn't find.
From the report:
"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."
"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."
That's the important part. Creating an artificial debate couched in slanted language over, was this a legal investigation or some other type of investigation, or were we able to find a Hamas fighter who was willing to confirm to a UN investigative team that his commander said it was okay if he did some raping, is a bunch of crap.
(That's separate from the issue of this person I've never heard of, saying that making false claims of rape would cause the Israeli government to work harder to release the hostages. That doesn't make a ton of sense to me and the rest of the article is so explicitly propagandist that I'm highly skeptical.)
Hey @Linkerbaan - I asked you for some details on your argument that Hamas couldn't have been raping anybody because that one released hostage didn't look pregnant. Do you want to restart that conversation?
I'm also happy to cite the evidence for anything I'm saying here or anything you want to ask about; I got tired of doing it after the first three times, the last time you posted basically this same article, but this is a whole new thread, so if you want to try just claiming confidently again that some particular things aren't in the report, I'm happy to show you where they are in the report.