Amit Soussana is the first former hostage to publicly say she was sexually abused in captivity. A U.N. report has said it found “clear and convincing information” that some hostages suffered “conflict-related sexual violence.”

Ms. Soussana, 40, is the first Israeli to speak publicly about being sexually assaulted during captivity after the Hamas-led raid on southern Israel. In her interviews with The Times, conducted mostly in English, she provided extensive details of sexual and other violence she suffered during a 55-day ordeal.

Ms. Soussana’s personal account of her experience in captivity is consistent with what she told two doctors and a social worker less than 24 hours after she was freed on Nov. 30. Their reports about her account state the nature of the sexual act; The Times agreed not to disclose the specifics.

. . .

For months, Hamas and its supporters have denied that its members sexually abused people in captivity or during the Oct. 7 terrorist attack. This month, a United Nations report said that there was “clear and convincing information” that some hostages had suffered sexual violence and there were “reasonable grounds” to believe sexual violence occurred during the raid, while acknowledging the “challenges and limitations” of examining the issue.

Archive

  • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
    812·
    3 months ago

    But I think the most salient and important point here is that there is no “good guy” or “right side” among the war combatants. It’s awful people fighting awful people.

    Edit: Turns out I forgot to actually write the comment so here goes:

    Hamas aren’t good people, but the idea they’re even comparable to the IDF is just wrong. Hamas at least has a cause they’re fighting for, and have a real, valid reason for taking hostages (namely that without hostages post-war Gaza is fucked) (not saying they’re allowed to abuse them that’s just fucked up). And have the basic decency not to shoot children.

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldEnglish
      106·
      3 months ago

      Natives scalped Americans killing them. ANC killed civilians during their fight against Apartheid.

      Don’t look up what the Haitians did for their freedom.

      The illusion that these people fought their oppressors without committing their own war crimes is some Hollywood shit.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.worldEnglish
        53·
        3 months ago

        Killing people actively attacking you and murdering slaveowners is a far cry from kidnapping and raping civilians. I also would not say Hamas is a liberation group exactly, considering how they suppress any Palestinian dissent and steal charity meant for the Palestinian people.

        A war crime is a war crime. The whole reason I make a distinction between Hamas and the Palestinian people is because the latter aren’t raping captives. The vast majority just want to live in peace.

        Violent rebellion against oppressors is completely justified. Violence against civilians is not. Think about this woman in the article for instance. Would you consider it acceptable if she killed innocent Palestinians in the process of taking revenge on her former captors? What then about the family of the dead innocent Palestinians?

        The IDF is absolutely worse. Let me make that clear. And I’m not terribly troubled by Hamas fighting them. Let the two of them wipe each other out. What bothers me is when the IDF kills innocent people in the process, and Hamas tortures innocent people in the process. Neither side’s sins justify the other’s.

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.worldEnglish
      33·
      3 months ago

      I agree that the IDF is far worse, and it’s not my intent to say they’re the same as Hamas. I’m just saying both are bad, even if one is clearly worse.

      But I also wouldn’t say Hamas has a cause worth fighting for exactly. They aren’t a Palestinian liberation army of freedom fighters. Their leaders are a bunch of rich fucks in the UAE and they expressly wanted active violence to start once more. They hoard supplies and steal charity meant for Palestinians. And they brutally suppress any Palestinian protest to their rule.

      They still aren’t as bad as the IDF, but they’re not a group worth championing.

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
        52·
        3 months ago

        They’re everything you said, and also freedom fighters, at least at the present stage. They have the goal of a Palestine free from Israel occupation and aggression and take real action to make that happen. That’s pretty much what the bar for being a freedom fighter is, and doesn’t preclude them from being bad people otherwise.

        and they expressly wanted active violence to start once more.

        TBF in the case of Palestine active violence is the only realistic path to peace. Not via a military victory, but to gather the international community’s attention and lose Israel international support. The status quo where Israel one-sidedly blockades and airstrikes Gaza isn’t a desirable situation for Palestinians, because it’s become normal. It doesn’t make the news, spread the Palestinian cause or threaten presidents’ reelection campaigns. You’ll see this in the fact that while Gaza tends to take the forefront in news coverage of the conflict, the West Bank usually takes a backseat and even now is covered as an accessory to the situation in Gaza, because the West Bank doesn’t have much active violence.

        What I wanna say is: They want active violence because it works. There’s no path to peace without violence when the other side is a country like Israel. The IRA, ANC and Civil Rights Movement (where what pushed the CRA over the edge was riots following MLK’s death), among others, have thoroughly proven this.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.worldEnglish
          42·
          3 months ago

          Violence works, but it needs to be correctly directed and well thought out. No group is able to succeed without allies. In all the cases you mentioned, the groups did not succeed because they conquered the ruling authority, but because the situation created a tent of allies, perhaps reluctantly, who also worked towards getting the injustice to stop.

          Peaceful, if annoying, protest against civilians. Violent protest against authority. And if there’s going to be hostages, you treat them as kindly and favorably as you can. Hamas would be in a far superior negotiating position if the released hostages were saying that they were treated kindly and cared for, they just weren’t allowed to leave. It would create a sharp dichotomy among the Israel’s where the government allowed hostages to be taken, but the actual kidnappers treated them better than the government.

          I confess, this topic is a conundrum to me. I’m conflict avoidant when it comes to irl issues, so you can imagine I’m a strong proponent of non confrontational methods and I believe they work. The issue of Palestine and Israel is one that really strains that worldview. Sometimes violence is necessary when an aggressor speaks no other language. But does that mean bystanders have to get hurt too? I really want the answer to be no. Maybe it’s just sad idealism on my part, I don’t know. I don’t want to have to believe that innocent people need to die for a greater good.

          • Krono@lemmy.todayEnglish
            41·
            3 months ago

            Hamas would be in a far superior negotiating position if the released hostages were saying that they were treated kindly and cared for

            You should read the accounts of released hostages then, many of them have publically stated they were treated kindly.

            This horrific recounting of captivity and rape is an outlier.