Israel’s leadership is pushing the allegations that Hamas fighters raped Israeli women during the October 7 attacks for its own political objectives while the government’s ongoing refusal to allow the United Nations to conduct a full investigation into the matter threatens to hinder any evidence, advocates have warned.
I did not ask you which factors were taken into consideration I asked you which factors were used as evidence for the conclusion of the report. Which the UN refuses to use as evidence that Hamas committed rape.
Consider reading https://normanfinkelstein.substack.com/p/pramila-pattens-rape-fantasies instead of the UN report. Legalese proves too difficult for some.
Actually, I got curious and read a bit of your link, and I have some comments:
II(7) claims that the team was purely guided and fed information by the Israeli government, and didn’t offer “any dissent, even a peep, from the official ‘narrative’”. This is verifiably false; Patten debunked some of the Israeli government’s more outlandish claims by analyzing evidence, and also among other things visited the West Bank and called for a corresponding investigation into IDF and settler sexual violence (section IV(81) in the UN report.)
III(10) wildly mischaracterizes the scale of the abuse that the UN report alleges; adding up various selected numbers from the report to arrive at a lower bound of 5 on the number of instances of sexual abuse, which is so wildly out of line with what the report actually says that it only be explained by someone who read the UN report, but cherry-picked some things out of it and presented them with the assumption that people would read the dishonest summary and not compare it to the original report.
I stopped reading at that point. As with a lot of these things, it’s not possible for me to verify anything directly about what actually happened on the ground in Israel or Gaza. I can only read reports. But, I can definitely say that when one report is being grossly dishonest in its summary of what is contained in a different report, which I can also obtain and read for myself, then that first report is clearly lying.
II: The report debunks a few cases… Which were often already debunked. Such as the Kibbutz cases. It would not reflect well upon the report to report verifiably debunked claims. As the report does not cite its sources for the newer claims those are virtually impossible to debunk.
III:
Hey, quick question – you seemed to say that the UN report covered only the festival itself, as part of an argument where it would be impossible for rape to even have occurred because apparently attacking the festival was an active firefight and not a terrorist attack on a helpless and terrified civilian population. What are the five subsections of III©1 that come after the first one (festival and surroundings), please? I am testing your reading comprehension and ability to follow links to evidence.
I never said the UN report covered only the festival. Once again reading proves difficult.
Now please cite the information used as evidence for the conclusion. you have had enough time to read the report.
Yeah, yeah, you meant something totally different when you said “There were some stragglers playing hide and seek but the operation was mostly over the second the IDF copters shows up which was within 24 hours. The ‘witness allegations’ which turned out to be untrue were during the main raid including the festival. The UN report allegations also pertain to the festival. These were the earliest hours.” That whole line of argument was something totally different than what it clearly was.
Be that as it may. Let’s dive a little bit into “If Hamas would be raping people it would be the kidnapped hostages. Yet that rescued hostage from yesterday did not look very pregnant.”
Your 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? I mean I follow the basic premise, I just wanna hear a little bit more about the logic and the evidentiary standard here.
Hey, quick question – you seemed to say that the report covered only the festival itself, as part of an argument where it would be impossible for rape to even have occurred because apparently attacking the festival was an active firefight and not a terrorist attack on a helpless and terrified civilian population. What are the five subsections of III©1 that come after the first one (festival and surroundings), please? I am testing your reading comprehension and ability to follow links to evidence, since you seem to be having a great deal of difficulty in doing so.
No thanks I don’t feel like taking a pivot. Go read Finkelsteins blog spelling it all out and come back then if you have any questions about it.