Israel says Hamas weaponised rape. Does the evidence add up?
Israel says Hamas weaponised rape. Does the evidence add up?
The Israeli government insists that Hamas formally sanctioned sexual assault on October 7, 2023. But investigators say the evidence does not stand up to scrutiny. Catherine Philp and Gabrielle Weiniger report on eight months of claim and counter-claim
The Israeli government insists that Hamas formally sanctioned sexual assault on October 7, 2023. But investigators say the evidence does not stand up to scrutiny. Catherine Philp and Gabrielle Weiniger report on eight months of claim and counter-claim
Talk of rape began circulating almost before the massacres themselves were over. Much of it came from what Patten would later call “non-professionals” who supplied “inaccurate and unreliable forensic interpretations” of what they found, creating an instant but flawed narrative about what had taken place.
Meanwhile, the political establishment has opened a fresh battle with the UN over what the Patten report didn’t say: that sexual violence was beyond reasonable doubt, systematic, widespread and ordered and perpetrated by Hamas. Israeli advocates for the female survivors are now warning that the country’s refusal to co-operate with a full and legal investigation, which the carefully worded report was not, threatens the prospect of ever finding out the full truth about the sexual violence of October 7 and delivering justice for its victims.
It was not a legal investigation, Patten explained, as Israel had not allowed one: that mandate could only be fulfilled by the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which Israel has refused to work with since its inception. She hoped that would change.
Patten made it clear there was sufficient evidence of acts of sexual violence to merit full and proper investigation and expressed her shock at the brutality of the violence. The report also confirmed Israeli authorities were unable to provide much of the evidence that political leaders had insisted existed. In all the Hamas video footage Patten’s team had watched and all the photographs they had seen, there were no depictions of rape. We hired a leading Israeli dark-web researcher to look for evidence of those images, including footage deleted from public sources. None could be found.
You're viewing a single thread.
Hello!
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 @[email protected] - 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.
I get what you’re saying but I’m pretty sure it matters in international law for additional charges against Hamas leadership. There’s, tragically, sexual violence in basically every conflict, and individuals who do it have committed a crime for sure. But proving it’s systematic and used as a tactic would make higher ups in Hamas guilty of (even more) war crimes.
So, it is important for prosecuting Hamas leadership that there be a proper, legal investigation and that it be proven to be either knowingly allowed or (even worse) ordered as a tactic.
Obviously, Hamas and Israel have both committed enough war crimes already that the senior leadership will likely be found guilty of something at The Hague (if ever arrested). But properly accounting for all of the war crimes is important for both justice and history.
I mean, sure. Modern international law defines it as a war crime if you're not preventing your troops from raping as any kind of common occurrence, which is obviously how it should be defined, but is actually pretty recent that it works that way.
But yes I agree, we could probably charge the commanders with more if we could prove that they were explicitly approving of it. Honestly, thinking of taking half the Israeli cabinet and all of the Hamas leadership to the Hague just makes me sad because of how unlikely it is to happen. But yes that would be a great if that could happen and is obviously the right answer if you look at what either of them have done (and are still doing.)
My point was, it's not like the lack of proof that it was approved by the leadership makes it this kind of "gotcha" like OP's article makes it out to be, by cleverly adjusting the language to slip phrases like "does not stand up to scrutiny" in there without technically lying and trying to say that Hamas didn't rape lots and lots and lots of people. That's why I say it's a skillfully deceptive article; it's honestly pretty impressive how it's put together, in a sick sort of rape-apologist type of way.
Once again do explain why israel is blocking the UN investigation? Surely if it would reflect negatively upon Hamas israel would cooperate with it.
Israel hosted the UN investigation, both presenting to them their evidence and letting them travel around in Israel to the impacted areas, and letting them go around on their own including visiting the West Bank and meeting with Palestinian representatives.
They did make some effort, apparently, to dictate what the parameters of the investigation and report needed to be, which the report authors rejected which made the Israelis mad. Then they did the investigation and wrote their report anyway.
I honestly don't know what you mean by "blocking the UN investigation," but I suspect that it has to do with the Israeli government's non-cooperation with the investigative team at times, and rejection of a more thorough investigation, which I suspect was caused by them wanting to be able to lie without anyone investigating their lies. To me, that's a positive thing about the report and investigation, not a negative thing. If it's attempting to be objective in a way which angers Israel, including debunking some Israeli lies, then good.
Israel did not host a UN investigation. The Patten visit was not UN mandated. She was invited by israel for a propaganda tour nothing more.
Dude I don't want to just feed into the Gish Gallop indefinitely 🥲
I am curious, what exactly do you mean by Israel blocking the UN investigation? I know what the report says in section II(A) which sort of matches that description; I know they gave some resistance to the idea of investigating, but I am curious exactly what behavior you're talking about, so I can deal with what you're claiming a little more directly if I feel like investing the time into it.
Then read the post you are in before jumping to defend israel. Why is israel blocking the UN investigation?
I forgot what conversation I was in 🥲
I've answered the question of why I think Israel has given resistance to the investigation in general. "I suspect was caused by them wanting to be able to lie without anyone investigating their lies" was what I said. (And, actually, I would add to that just a general hostility to the UN based on the fact that the UN keeps pointing out that they're doing war crimes and wanting to investigate IDF sexual violence and similar things the Israelis don't want.) I've asked for more details about exactly what you mean, if you want a more specific answer pertaining to some more specific behavior on Israel's part.
If you want to provide those details, I'm happy to provide that more detailed answer, and if not, I'm not sure what else I could do. I'm aware that this whole conversation is an attempt by you to pivot away from the question "did Hamas rape a bunch of people?", so I'm a little reluctant to give it any energy at all, but I did say I would answer anything you wanted to ask, so there's the answer.
A sexual violence investigation does not require every UN investigative team to visit. It requires the one specialized in sexual violence.
Also strange that they invited Patten if they are so afraid of a real investigation...
Thanks for the details and the evidences
I am unsure why you keep pushing this myth that the Patten report counts as evidence. It does not. Patten herself says it does not count as legal evidence. This post makes it very clear that the Patten report does not qualify as evidence
You have dodged every question the last time around and you keep dodging the question. You want to quote the parts of the report you like and ignore the parts of the report that debunk the entire report.
I just all of a sudden remembered why I had stopped talking with you about this. 🥲
Patten herself says it does not count as legal evidence. This post makes it very clear that the Patten report does not qualify as evidence
Like I said before, "Creating an artificial debate couched in slanted language over, was this a legal investigation or some other type of investigation" etc etc
You have dodged every question the last time around and you keep dodging the question.
Hey fun! I have some questions which you didn't answer last time around. This is sort of bordering on senseless bickering which helps no one, but sure, I'm happy to repeat the questions you avoided answering in the last thread:
- Where in the report did you find information about how the hostages were treated? You claimed to have read the UN report, and then made specific claims about what it said -- where in the report did you find the information you were claiming?
- You made an 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. Can you tell me more about the logic, why this would follow? I mean I follow the basic premise that "pregnant hostage = rape", I'm just having trouble accepting the contrapositive. Can you explain more?
I actually just asked you that second one, but you dodged it. Want to address it?
(Oh, actually -- third question: "ignore the parts of the report that debunk the entire report." What parts of the report are there that debunk the entire report? Can you explain what you mean here? Like cite the part of the report that you're saying debunks the entire report, and what it says that would debunk the entire report?)
And, like I said, I'm happy to address any question you wanna ask. I thought about citing some times before when I did it with citations and all multiple times, and then you ignored the answers and continued insisting counterfactual things about the report, but maybe that's just getting into the weeds. And likewise, citing the times I asked you a question over and over again and you didn't want to answer it. I think just, ask your question, and I'm happy to answer without dodging.
Dude, when an article or comment disagrees with @[email protected] they are suddenly Nancy Drew tearing apart every word in the most detailed class in forensic analysis; however, if something agrees with their narrative opinion blog posts are just fine.
I've stopped engaging with their arguments because it's clear this is only a team sports type of online game. The truth is not particularly relevant to this person.
Yeah I had this sort of sudden moment of clarity just now like dude WTF am I thinking investing this level of time and energy into this person
I think a certain amount of debunking was productive but I think the back and forth is sufficient to speak for itself and I've had a chance to quote enough sections of the report to show what's going on, at this point.
I had this moment of realization when they came out the gate and accused me of Zionism or defending Israel-none of which I care for. In fact I find the actions of Israel despicable in this conflict. It was then that it became clear @[email protected] is more here for the team sports aspect of it rather than having a factual discussion to determine the truth of the matter. Right now the conversation is so diluted not much on the conflict can be discussed here because the team sports value has taken precedence over anything else, and personally I'm tired of playing team sports.
Best of luck.
Yeah. I'm honestly a little bit just curious about how their brain works, at this point.
Thanks for your opinion guy that claims israel is not an Apartheid state.
I've told you multiple times I'm ok calling it an apartheid state. This is like the 3rd or 4th time now. Go back to playing team sports now.
I don't think it's team sports. I think it's one of two things:
- Sometimes people just have a kind of pathology where they like to argue on the internet, because it's satisfying, and they have to "win" or present as a winner in every conversation, and so facts and reality (even demonstrable reality like what the other person said or what the primary sources say) sort of have to bend to what would let them "win" by making some claim or accusation.
- I looked over Linkerbaan's user a little bit and it has a little bit of a singular focus on Democrats and Biden ("Democrats are just Republicans these days" "Biden is actively violating Leahy law" "Trump isn't much different than any generic Republican"). Aside from picking crazypants arguments about Hamas not raping anybody, the only other real trend to their comments is domestic politics with a don't-vote-for-Democrats-fellow-leftists flavor that seems oddly familiar.
I initially thought they were way too committed and energetic about this stance they're taking about the UN report, to be any kind of shill, but now I'm less sure. They're certainly posting with a level of energy and aggressiveness that makes a lot more sense if it's their job, and usually people who have come by their counterfactual opinions organically have some kind of structure built up in their head for why it makes sense to them (Like they would say the UN report is crazy and biased and can't be trusted for some reason -- they wouldn't just insist for 2 days that it says a huge variety of very specific things that it doesn't say, and then just not address it on any level when someone points out the contradiction while continuing to go HAM on arguing about it. The second one sounds more like disinformation poster behavior to me.)
I don't really know. They don't act like most shills (or who I believe to be shills) that I have encountered. Like if you just looked at their comments arguing about Hamas, you probably wouldn't predict that their other singular area of focus in comments would be Biden and the Democrats. But the more that I look back over the conversation + take a look over their user, the more it makes sense to me as an explanation.
(Oooh... I just looked a little further; they also use the phrase "blue MAGA," and if you look back past the current conversation there's a lot more of a focus on Biden and Democrats and quite a concerted effort to link Israel's policies to Biden. The plot thickens.)
(Oooh... I just looked a little further; they also use the phrase "blue MAGA," and if you look back past the current conversation there's a lot more of a focus on Biden and Democrats
I've seen some of the other usual suspects use "blue maga" as well, along with the same biden and democrats rhetoric.
Yeah. It was virtually unknown on Lemmy up until around May 20th, when return2ozma and a few other accounts all started using it at the same time. It's sort of dropped off since then; I think their effort to make it catch on failed. But there are a few accounts that still like to drop it into conversation in perfectly natural fashion every now and again.
I think like a lot of propaganda, it's not meant to have any wild level of success on its own; it's more just one little piece that's designed to combine with a hundred other little pieces to create a sizable overall impact.
Yeah that's a good assessment. It's the aggressive and highly energetic and/or frenetic level to it that is particularly odd.
I've had lots of discussions or disagreements on this platform with various people, but the vitriolic nature of their comments indicates either a) very young person b) aesthetic / team sports argumentation for the sake of argumentation. Like arguing for the sake of arguing. Can be fun for some people I guess.
Yeah. For me the really notable factor is the weirdness of the disconnect. Like if you look at the person's claims and study the flow of the conversation back and forth, it starts to become really obvious that they don't actually have factual belief in the things they are saying. But they still want to continue the conversation and invest a bunch of energy into it. Like, a lot, over a long period of time.
So... why? There aren't too many plausible explanations for those two things in combination, and then coming alongside "blue MAGA" and Democrats this and Biden that, it all of a sudden clicks into focus and it all makes sense. Now that I'm looking at it more, I'm pretty sold on shilling being the explanation.
What exactly are you debunking? You didn't even read the report as you have yet to quote the evidence in it.
If you did read the report you'd find out why the UN isn't claiming there was any rape on oct7 and you'll never hear Antonio Gueterres say it.
You keep failing to answer why israel is blocking the official UN investigation. Pasting the same wall of text over and over again.
I had a feeling you wouldn't want to answer my questions. All good.
I don't think it's a good use of my time to just keep dealing with you indefinitely for any amount of Gish Galloping you feel like doing -- I did offer to answer your questions without dodging, though, so:
You keep failing to answer why israel is blocking the official UN investigation.
Two answers:
- I talked about this here, giving one level of answer, and asking you for some details which could inform a little more complete answer depending on what you're even claiming had happened
- UN investigators already concluded in Patten's report that there was quite a bit of rape during the October 7th attack and of hostages, notwithstanding your pretense that it didn't conclude that, or wasn't a "legal" investigation and that invalidates it, or that it contained no new information, or other wildly counterfactual things.
Honestly, dude, don't you feel bad about this? A whole bunch of innocent people got raped and are continuing to be raped, and you're over here standing up for the people who did it, trying to spread propaganda implying that it didn't happen, by twisting language around to say well the report that concluded that it happened wasn't a legal investigation, or some other weird little constructions, to obfuscate the very clear evidence which we've already talked about.
My question is, why? Why are you taking that stance? Aren't you against rape, whether or not the investigation that concluded that it happened was a legal investigation or not? I would think that's a pretty easy moral test to pass.
Same wall of text every time. Why is israel blocking the UN investigation?
I had a feeling you would not be eager to engage with the question of why you are working so vigorously to defend rape
Which rape? Am I defending israel anally raping Palestinians?