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
    74·
    6 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.

    • TheFonz@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        7·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • TheFonz@lemmy.worldEnglish
          31·
          6 months ago

          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.

          • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
            41·
            6 months ago

            Yeah. I’m honestly a little bit just curious about how their brain works, at this point.

            • TheFonz@lemmy.worldEnglish
              51·
              6 months ago

              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.

              • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
                31·
                6 months ago

                I don’t think it’s team sports. I think it’s one of two things:

                1. 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.
                2. 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.)

                • FiremanEdsRevenge@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  3·
                  6 months ago

                  (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.

                  • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
                    21·
                    6 months ago

                    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.

                • TheFonz@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  31·
                  6 months ago

                  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.

                  • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
                    31·
                    6 months ago

                    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.

              • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
                14·
                6 months ago

                You don’t appear to be very okay with it seeing how people calling out israel is a very sensitive subject.

                • TheFonz@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  31·
                  6 months ago

                  Thanks for your assessment of what appears ok and what doesn’t. Your discernment and insight is always top notch!

        • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
          15·
          6 months ago

          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.

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      16·
      6 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
        6·
        6 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.