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.

Archive link

  • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
    64·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      15·
      4 months ago

      You keep failing to answer why israel is blocking the official UN investigation. Pasting the same wall of text over and over again.

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        5·
        4 months ago

        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.