Skip Navigation

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
48 comments

  • The report does make a convincing case of the sexual violence having been happened.

    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. Across the various locations of the 7 October attacks, the mission team found that several fully naked or partially naked bodies from the waist down were recovered – mostly women – with hands tied and shot multiple times, often in the head. Although circumstantial, such a pattern of undressing and restraining of victims may be indicative of some forms of sexual violence.

    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. Credible sources described finding 5 murdered individuals, mostly women, whose bodies were naked from their waist down – and some totally naked – tied with their hands behind their backs, many of whom were shot in the head. On Road 232, credible information based on witness accounts describe an incident of the rape of two women by armed elements. Other reported instances of rape could not be verified in the time allotted. The mission team also found a pattern of bound naked or partially naked bodies from the waist down, in some cases tied to structures including trees and poles, along Road 232. In kibbutz Re’im, the mission team further verified an incident of the rape of a woman outside of a bomb shelter and heard of other allegations of rape that could not yet be verified.

    You should read the report, it's much more even handed than you give it credit. It notes the issues in their findings, it does bring it all up straight away, goes after two false claims and doesn't claim to be comprehensive proof, but does make the case that from everything they could find out, sexual violence very likely happened.

    And I think all such claims shouldn't be dismissed lightly. And from all we know so far, I think it's very likely sexual violence did happen.

    • These are the same "allegations" which NYT gave which have been fully debunked.

      The fact that these are included is practically evidence that the report is filled with disproven IDF propaganda and the UN "investigator" did not in fact investigate anything.

      It is highly unlikely that sexual assault happened during the attack. Sexual assault always happens after battles are over. Nobody goes on a raping spree while there's an IDF helicopter firing at them.

      The fact that all the main claims have been fully debunked proves it. The only people that still buy into this myth are those that want to believe it.

      • I don't think your article debunks the claims made by the UN Special Representative. From your linked article

        The question has never been whether individual acts of sexual assault may have occurred on October 7. Rape is not uncommon in war, and there were also several hundred civilians who poured into Israel from Gaza that day in a “second wave,” contributing to and participating in the mayhem and violence. The central issue is whether the New York Times presented solid evidence to support its claim that there were newly reported details “establishing that the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7” — a claim stated in the headline that Hamas deliberately deployed sexual violence as a weapon of war.

        NYT reported that the sexual violence was a systematic thing employed by Hamas as a tool while the UN report is about sexual violence having occurred there.

        Also the report specifically mentions some of the same claims and says they've been disproven. And how they've done their own interviews and seen the photographic evidence for other things. So it doesn't seem to be the same NYT thing you're focused on.

        • There was no photographic evidence nor any video evidence such as CCTV or gopro footage. Nor any forensic evidence, No evidence whatsoever. Just more completely made up Zaka-style claims

          Credible information was obtained regarding multiple incidents whereby victims were subjected to rape and then killed. There are further accounts of individuals who witnessed at least two incidents of rape of corpses of women.

          including one case of genital mutilation of one male soldier and several female soldiers during the attack on the military base, which likewise could not be established.

          So the UN is making a wild claim that Hamas was raping corpses. (and what seems to imply chopping off penises?) Yet no forensic evidence was found. it's literally just the same shit from NYT. With the same Zaka people makes. And multiple of these statements look so made-up that the UN already says "no corpses in this condition were found".

          • There was no photographic evidence nor any video evidence such as CCTV or gopro footage.

            I'm talking about this

            "The mission made up of Ms. Patten and nine experts – which was not investigative in nature – conducted 33 meetings with Israeli representatives, examining more than 5,000 photographic images and 50 hours of video footage. It conducted 34 confidential interviews including with survivors and witnesses of the 7 October attacks, released hostages, first responders and others."

            And the report has it like this, for example

            "In the medicolegal assessment undertaken by the mission team of available photos and videos of crime scenes, a few corpses with conspicuously spread legs were observed. These postures could not be adequately explained by, for instance, “postmortem pugilistic posturing” due to burn damage. The reviewed photos and videos further revealed a minimum of twenty corpses with partially or fully exposed intimate body parts such as breasts and genitalia, resulting from the absence, displacement, or tearing of clothing. Also, at least ten distinct corpses displayed indications of bound wrists and/or tied legs."

            They are not saying they have videos or photos of acts of rape but rather that they have reviewed photographic evidence such as that that strongly circumstantially suggests sexual violence. With the whole report calling for further investigation based on the photos and videos they've seen.

            So the UN is making a wild claim that Hamas was raping corpses.

            No. They are reporting of about an "accounts of individuals who witnessed" rape of corpses (not specifically by Hamas). As your quoted part even says, "There are further accounts of individuals who witnessed at least two incidents of rape of corpses of women".

            I feel like you don't understand that they're purposefully using that careful language.

            • Your example is literally just Gal Abdush, The most debunked claim of all.

              Why are you writing long comments before having read the debunking of the NYT article?

              • I've read both, that and the report. We already discussed this. But if you want to debunk a specific claim here (I guess to show the report in all parts unreliable) you should probably quote the relevant parts here so the discussion is easier to follow.

                • If you ctrl+f Gal Abdush in the article I linked you will find her story quite similar to your claims.

                  If you have any actual evidence to present I will concede my point.

                  The problem with this UN report here remains clear; no CCTV evidence, no forensic evidence, no people claiming they were raped. only "witness statements". You cannot seriously expect anyone to believe this.

                  If anything it's evidence that no rapes happened as they could not find a shred of conclusive evidence while looking for it so hard. That's why the title here contains the word "likely".

                  • If you ctrl+f Gal Abdush in the article I linked you will find her story quite similar to your claims.

                    It would be a lot easier to discuss if you'd quote the relevant parts from both here and show how you feel it debunks it.

                    If you have any actual evidence to present I will concede my point.

                    I'm genuinely not sure what your point is. I feel like you at first misunderstood the report and then what is being claimed here. After review of the available evidence (photos, videos testimonies) the UN people came away with the conclusion that very likely sexual violence was done during (or in the immediate aftermath) of the attack. And the link you provided to debunk this report seems to consider it very likely too, just not how NYT wrote about it.

                    The problem with this UN report here remains clear; no CCTV evidence, no forensic evidence, no people claiming they were raped. only "witness statements". You cannot seriously expect anyone to believe this.

                    I mean I think most believe sexual violence happened there and the report, the debunking you provided and really just a layman's view of the attack and knowledge about how prevalent war rape is would all speak on behalf of it very very likely to have happened. All these factors pointing at the direction of the sexual violence are hard to dismiss.

                    The doubtful part is what NYT claimed, that it was systematic tool used by Hamas.

                    If anything it's evidence that no rapes happened as they could not find a shred of conclusive evidence while looking for it so hard. That's why the title here contains the word "likely".

                    The report was a two week mission and clearly states it wasn't a proper investigative one. That's why they are calling it just likely and calling for a proper and through investigation

48 comments