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

  • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
    35·
    5 months ago

    You keep bringing up the same stale points debunked a million times in every thread. Even in the post it’s mentioned the Patten report is not a proper investigation.

    You’re the one that doesn’t want to defend the fact that the UN doesn’t acknowledge the Patten report as evidence.

    • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
      52·
      5 months ago

      If you are really hankering that badly to continue the pointless back-and-forth, I should be able to provide you with something, just not right now. I will get back to you though. I have an idea that I think can keep you busy for more or less as much time as you want to spend on it.

      • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
        24·
        5 months ago

        We’re in an article that spent money on a dark web expert to dig up any rape evidence and still didn’t find any.

        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

        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.

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

          If only those fools from the UN team had spent their money on that, instead of a team of experts in sexual assault who then toured the affected areas and interviewed all those people and reviewed forensic evidence. The answers were on the dark web the whole time. Everyone knows the first thing you learn in Hamas is how to use Tor Browser. Now that you say it that way, it’s completely obvious.

          • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
            23·
            5 months ago

            Which forensic rape evidence was found? You’re bringing it up so surely you mean to imply there’s forensic evidence of rape in the UN report?

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

              Why would I need to tell you? You’ve read the report, you said, so you would know what is and isn’t in it.

              A sarcastic response occurred to me, so I let it out, but I’m not interested in continuing the lengthy dishonest exchange where you cosplay as someone who’s “winning” (for reasons I still don’t really understand.) The interaction is done from my side.

              • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
                24·
                5 months ago

                There’s a new UN report out. Some interesting reading material for you maybe.

                But they did find rape evidence… of israel raping Palestinians.

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

                  Second message portion (2/2). This is the recommendations. If you want to keep talking with me, you can start with this section, answering some of the unanswered questions and following the recommendations on how you can engage more productively in the conversation. If you’re open to doing that, then sure! Let’s rap.

                  Chapter 4: Recommendations

                  Section 4.1: Questions for Linkerbaan to Address

                  • Substantive Responses to Specific Questions:

                    • Provide direct answers to the specific questions posed by @mozz, particularly about the details of the UN report and the logic behind Linkerbaan’s assertions regarding the treatment of hostages.

                  • Clarification of Evidence Claims:

                    • Clarify which parts of the UN report allegedly debunk the entire report and explain how these sections invalidate the report’s findings.

                  • Address Misrepresentation Concerns:

                    • Respond to accusations of misrepresentation by either substantiating claims with concrete evidence or acknowledging any inaccuracies in previous statements.

                  Section 4.2: Steps for Productive Engagement

                  • Engage with Nuanced Points:

                    • Engage directly with the nuanced points and specific queries raised by other users to foster a more informed and balanced discussion.

                  • Provide Clear Citations:

                    • When making claims about the UN report or other sources, provide clear citations and quotes to support these claims and allow for transparent verification by other participants.

                  • Acknowledge Other Viewpoints:

                    • Demonstrate a willingness to acknowledge and consider other viewpoints, even when they conflict with personal beliefs, to facilitate a more respectful and constructive dialogue.

                  This structured report aims to objectively assess the engagement of Linkerbaan in the specified comment chain, highlighting areas of evasion, misrepresentation, and providing constructive recommendations for future discussions.

                  • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
                    24·
                    5 months ago

                    If you don’t want to engage on a subject consider not replying to a thread. One can’t make false rape accusations and then be upset when they get debunked.

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

                  My god dude. Okay, sure. This next is a two part message (1/2)

                  Me

                  I’d like you to create a report on Linkerbaan’s level of good faith engagement in this comment chain. You’ll have to be a little bit careful to observe the nested structure of the comments, which ones are replies to which, and then make a detailed report – in the format of a formally structure report like a UN presentation of fact-finding, divided into chapters, sections, and then subsections where appropriate.

                  Some of the main chapters I’d like to include are:

                  • Unanswered questions: Things people asked Linkerbaan that they never responded substantively to
                  • Misrepresentation: Claiming that someone else said something, or some source said something, when it never happened that way
                  • Any others you feel are appropriate. Either positive or negative characterizations of Linkerbaan’s engagements in the conversation would be appropriate as you determine.
                  • At the end, a concrete list of “recommendations” – a bulleted list of things that would be good for Linkerbaan to answer, or provide, in order to move the conversation forward productively.

                  Here is the comment chain that I’d like you to summarize in that way. Bear in mind that the topic is a fairly sensitive topic.

                  (comment chain is redacted)

                  GPT

                  Report on the Engagement of Linkerbaan in the Comment Chain

                  Chapter 1: Unanswered Questions

                  Section 1.1: Key Instances of Unanswered Questions

                  • Question from @Belastend:

                    • Original Question: “Who keeps blocking the real UN rape investigations again? Oh right, israel.”
                    • Response: Linkerbaan repeatedly redirected the conversation back to this point without addressing other questions asked by different users. For example, in response to a direct question about the UN report’s evidence of sexual assault, Linkerbaan reverted to asking, “Why does israel keep blocking the UN investigation?” without providing substantive answers to the other points raised.

                  • Question from @mozz:

                    • Original Questions:
                      1. “Where in the report did you find information about how the hostages were treated?”
                      2. “Can you explain more about the logic, why this would follow?”
                      3. “What parts of the report are there that debunk the entire report?”
                    • Response: Linkerbaan did not provide direct answers to these questions. Instead, they repeated their assertion that Israel is blocking a UN investigation without engaging with the specific questions asked.

                  Section 1.2: Repeated Evasion of Specific Queries

                  • Throughout the conversation, Linkerbaan consistently evaded specific queries about the details of the UN report and evidence presented within it. Despite repeated requests for clarification and specific details, Linkerbaan’s responses focused on a single point regarding Israel blocking investigations, without addressing the nuanced questions posed by other participants.

                  Chapter 2: Misrepresentation

                  Section 2.1: Misrepresentation of Sources

                  • Claim about the UN Report:
                    • Original Claim by Linkerbaan: “Not sure why you keep citing a report that has no legal base. The only thing Patten concludes is that there is grounds to do a real investigation.”
                    • Misrepresentation: Linkerbaan’s statement downplays the content of the UN report, which included findings of reasonable grounds for sexual assaults occurring, thus misrepresenting the conclusions of the report to undermine its credibility.

                  Section 2.2: Misrepresentation of Other Users’ Statements

                  • Interaction with @mozz:
                    • Claim by Linkerbaan: “You have dodged every question the last time around and you keep dodging the question.”
                    • Misrepresentation: This statement misrepresents @mozz’s engagement, as @mozz provided detailed responses and posed specific questions that Linkerbaan did not address substantively.

                  Chapter 3: Positive Engagement

                  Section 3.1: Points of Constructive Dialogue

                  • Acknowledgment of Counterpoints:
                    • On a few occasions, Linkerbaan acknowledged the need for a thorough investigation and expressed concerns about the suppression of evidence, which can be seen as a constructive element in their engagement.

                  (To be continued, 1/2)