- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Two of the three victims specifically singled out by the New York Times in a marquee exposé published in December, which alleged that Hamas had deliberately weaponized sexual violence during the October 7 attacks, were not in fact victims of sexual assault, according to the spokesperson for the Kibbutz Be’eri, which the Times identified as the location of the attack.
The Times article described three alleged victims of sexual assault for whom it reported specific biographical information. One, known as the “woman in the black dress,” was Gal Abdush. Some of her family members have contested the claims made by the Times. The other two alleged victims were unnamed teenage sisters from Kibbutz Be’eri whose precise ages were listed in the New York Times, making it possible to identify them.
When asked about the claims made by the New York Times, Paikin independently raised their name. “You’re talking about the Sharabi girls?” she said. “No, they just — they were shot. I’m saying ‘just,’ but they were shot and were not subjected to sexual abuse.” Paikin also disputed the graphic and highly detailed claims of the Israeli special forces paramedic who served as the source for the allegation, which was published in the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and other media outlets. “It’s not true,” she told The Intercept, referring to the paramedic’s claims about the girls. “They were not sexually abused.”
Oh good, they weren’t raped and murdered, they were just murdered.
That’s a relief.
Well yes supposedly Hamas was using rape as a weapon of war. Which is factally not true.
Hamas did do some war crimes such as shooting non-combatants. It’s important that our newspapers don’t just completely make up facts about mass-rapes.
In this one specific instance it wasn’t true, sure.
More like all specific instances. this current article is now even debunking the “anonymous” claims.
In the context of the coordinated attack by Hamas and others of 7 October, the UN mission team found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred in multiple locations, including rape and gang rape in at least three locations in southern Israel.
The team also found a pattern of victims - mostly women - found fully or partially naked, bound and shot across multiple locations which “may be indicative of some forms of sexual violence”.
In some locations the mission said it could not verify reported incidents of rape.
Or is the UN an Israeli propaganda machine, now?
Since that UN report is citing Zaka (40 beheaded babies) as a “credible source,” it is indeed complete propaganda.
New breaking points video debunking this report with an important takeaway:
The UN is not a monolith. There are certain employees fully willing to spread certain narratives, and this is one of them.
You are disgusting human being.
The truth must hurt you a lot. I’m sorry.
Aw shucks “anonymous israeli witnesses” lied again?
I’ve given up trying to convince people here otherwise. lemmy.ml at least gives sane discussion on this issue.
People have drastically changed their minds in the last few months. I used to farm downvotes here for debunking IDF fake rape claims.
Lemmy.ml is based, but also not really the people that need to be educated on this.
There is very substantial evidence of rape, well beyond that one NY Times story.
Can you read this article for me? There were a lot of people asking israel to collect forensic evidence of those rapes four months ago when (if any rapes happened) there would be evidence. Why did that not happen?
Israel women’s groups warn of failure to keep evidence of sexual violence in Hamas attacks
Are you asking me to guess? Rampant, patriarchal misogyny, same answer as always because very few countries do do their due diligence when prosecuting rape. But that’s speculation, which is what it sounds like you’re asking for.
Your articles just reference the NYT article if you haven’t noticed.
Do you have anything else? You can try the newly released and already debunked UN article from today if you like.
Your articles just reference the NYT article if you haven’t noticed.
I only linked one article, singular, and it claims sources aside from the NYT article. Do you mean the videos I linked?
Here is a second article claiming its own sources.
Gonna hit the gym now, hope that satisfies you.