This article denies the sexual violence that happened on the 7th october done by Hamas and allies. Is there any reason why we should trust the other claims in this article?
this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
11 points (92.3% liked)
Pleasant Politics
215 readers
166 users here now
Politics without the jerks.
This community is watched over by a ruthless robot moderator to keep out bad actors. I don't know if it will work. Read !santabot@slrpnk.net for a full explanation. The short version is don't be a net negative to the community and you can post here.
Rules
Post political news, your own opinions, or discussion. Anything goes.
All posts must follow the slrpnk sitewide rules.
No personal attacks, no bigotry, no spam. Those will get a manual temporary ban.
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
top 5 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
why we should trust the other claims in this article?
You shouldn't trust this article or any media. You should check their claims and decide for yourself depending on what you find. I did this and found out that these claims have been debunked time and time again.
Check out the following links:
-
“Between the Hammer and the Anvil” The Story Behind the New York Times October 7 Exposé
-
Kibbutz Be’eri Rejects Story in New York Times October 7 Exposé: “They Were Not Sexually Abused”
-
Here’s what Pramila Patten’s UN report on Oct 7 sexual violence actually said
-
Even Haaretz in an attempt to defend these claims mentions:
In the course of their work, which included photographing faces only and covering the victims ahead of their evacuation, more than 200 bodies were documented. These teams did not document a single case of sexual assault or cases of genital mutilation.
You can find the above and much more evidence on this topic in the video included in this article:
Debunking "Screams Before Silence," Sheryl Sandberg’s 7 October "mass rapes" film, with Ali Abunimah
First thank you for your informative and well thought out reply. I read around half of the linked sources. They mostly seem to focus on the question if clear evidence for systematic and targeted sexual violence, mass rapes or something similar exists.
The article mentions sexual violence in the "lies about rape" part and links to other articles that also only focus on the question if clear evidence for systematic and targeted sexual violence, mass rapes something similar exists.
So both you and the article kinda deny atleast indirectly that any sexual violence happened with sources that do not actually talk all that much about that specifically. If this is a misunderstanding from my side please correct me.
Here's what happened:
On and after October 7th, Hamas combatants invaded Israel, committing rape, gang rape, and sexual torture among other crimes as they went.
Then, the Israeli government exaggerated what had happened, fabricating outlandish stories to accompany the genuine ones, because lying and demonizing Palestinians is in their DNA.
Then, the New York Times published a story featuring both true and false accounts of sexual assault, ignoring people within their organization who were trying to raise the alarm that some of the information they were relying on was not credible.
Then, supporters of Palestine seized on the inaccuracies in the Times's reporting to try to pretend that no sexual assault had ever happened. Hallmarks of this type of disinformation include zeroing in on irrelevant questions. Were the widespread rapes that occurred during the invasion officially ordered by Hamas leadership? What sorts of evidence did Pramila Patten's investigative teams find, and what sorts did they not find? Did the Israeli government lie? By focusing in on these questions, it's possible to produce answers which create a strong impression that the question you have asked is, "Did Hamas commit widespread rape on and after October 7th?" and that the answer is no. But the answer to that question is clearly yes.
Here are Pramila Patten's findings: https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147217
They speak for themselves. She's very open about her methodology, her sources, her conclusions, and the boundaries of her conclusions. The rhetorical methods of the people who seize on or exaggerate those careful boundaries, as a way of attempting to argue that she didn't actually find clear and convincing evidence of widespread sexual assault, also speak for themselves.