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.
That should tell you the answer right there. A state that has overtly lied to cover its own action in their ongoing genocide, that has painted their enemy as fascists have always tried to paint their enemies, is saying one thing and refusing to offer proof and refusing to allow the matter to be investigated.
It didn’t happen.
Not to mention, they were caught pushing the story in the NYT to begin with, which is where the rumor started. I don’t need any more proof that it didn’t happen like they say it did.
Rape happens in war. I don’t believe it was used systemically on Oct. 7, as Israel claims, or at least, there’s no evidence of that.
However, to claim that no one was raped during an attack that long and protracted, and with so many people involved, defies history and the realities of conflict.
What’s worse, anyone claiming “no rapes happened” as a counter to “it was systemically used”, means that a single case of rape invalidates their claim, and by default, bolsters Israel’s lie.
Right. As I was writing, I changed the definitive final sentence to a less definitive “it didn’t happen as they said it happened.” I never said there was no rape whatsoever.
Unfortunately rape is used in war. You’re right about that. Both sides are allegedly using it as a tactic. But their story was systematic rape used as terror on Oct 7 was a lie.
The OP article makes a big deal, too, about this distinction between Israeli women who were raped by Hamas fighters because the Hamas fighters wanted to rape, as opposed to because their commanders told them to go out and rape. I’m not sure that’s a super impactful distinction. Why do you think it’s an important distinction?
(Actually, the OP article says something stupider than that; it says that “some reports have asserted that those acts and other reported atrocities were committed by civilians and those not affiliated” with Hamas, without explaining what the fuck they’re even talking about, but I’m giving the benefit of the doubt and dealing mostly with their treatment that it’s important whether or not Hamas “ordered it” to happen, which is still stupid to me but not transparently absurd like the idea that unaffiliated civilians suddenly started coming in and raping all these Israeli women at the same time that the October 7th attacks were going on.)
There’s a huge difference between isolated incidents, and the systemic use of rape as a weapon of war.
One’s a regular criminal offense, and the other is Hague War Crime Tribal level of offense.
Not even slightly. Or, I mean, not for quite a while; the treatment of rape in war has evolved past what you are describing since quite some time ago.
- Pre World War 2: Shit happens, they’re soldiers, what are you going to do
- World War 2 through 1993: Hey I think they shouldn’t do that
- 1993: UN declares systematic rape to be a war crime <– you are here
- 1993-2008: Various minor redefinitions over a series of resolutions
Then in 2008, the UN took the fairly sensible when you think about it step of saying that if you are fielding an army, and that army is raping people with any regularity, then that is your problem i.e. a crime against humanity and you don’t get to mount the defense that you didn’t tell them to, and so it’s not your problem if it is happening.
Your viewpoint is disgusting and explicitly rape-apologist, as well as in this case legally incorrect.
Are you relying to the wrong the wrong comment? Or did you just not read mine correctly…?
Before I lay into the absurdity of your response as it relates to my comment, please double check.
Because it should be obvious that my comment adheres to the UN charter you reference and I never claimed that systemic only includes weaponized rape ordered through the chain of command.
You said that a soldier raping a civilian is a regular criminal offense. I cited the UN resolution that says among other things:
The Council demanded that all parties to armed conflict take immediate and appropriate measures to protect civilians, including by, among others, enforcing appropriate military disciplinary measures and upholding the principle of command responsibility; training troops on the categorical prohibition of all forms of sexual violence against civilians; debunking myths that fuel sexual violence; and vetting armed and security forces to take into account past sexual violence.
I mean, it’s possible that we’re saying the same thing; sort of contingent on what you mean exactly by “isolated incidents”. I am saying that widespread rape on October 7th is indicative of a war crime regardless of whether approval for it came through Hamas’s chain of command. Is that what you’re saying?
This is the other thing that’s weird about the “it was all debunked” side. So, they invaded the music festival, shot a bunch of people including plenty of women and children, hauled away a bunch of hostages, burned up some homes, and yet, nobody raped anybody. Just didn’t happen. That’s a red line that these music-festival-goer-shooters adhered to absolutely without fail.
The Israeli government does much worse, unprovoked, and much more systematically. But that doesn’t mean all of a sudden that you have to say every bad thing about Israel is true and every bad thing about Hamas is false, and these people who invaded a music festival and shot more than a thousand innocent people are these noble paladins you have to protect the right and honor of.
Rape does not happen during an attack it happens after. See israel raping Palestinians in their concentration camps.
Hamas certainly isn’t going to drop their weapons with Apache helicopters and rockets flying overhead to rape a blown up bodies in a car.
If Hamas would be raping people it would be the kidnapped hostages. Yet that rescued hostage from yesterday did not look very pregnant.
Yet that rescued hostage from yesterday did not look very pregnant.
Out of order. You can easily make the same point without resorting to perpetuating a misogynist myth about rape.
“Out of order” is not quite a strong enough reaction for “We found a woman who doesn’t look pregnant as far as I can tell so that means that her and all the other women definitely didn’t get raped, so stop worrying about it”
Did you really just try and claim that rape doesn’t happen during active and protracted urban combat…?
Also, while I agree that of the attackers that day, the Hamas forces were the least likely culprits due to training and defined mission objectives, they weren’t the only people to enter Israel after the barriers were breached. That doesn’t mean they didn’t, just that I think there are other scenarios with a higher probability.
And last, I’m not really sure if you’re being intentionally honest with your retelling of events, or if you really just don’t know that much about the scope and duration of the attack. Either way, you don’t really have a firm grasp enough to speak on this with any sort of authority, certainly not with the confidence you seem to have.
Since empathy with brown people appears to be impossible let’s switch it up a bit.
Let’s say the IDF kidnaps a Palestinian. Do they stick an electrified stick in their ass while in a firefight with Hamas, or do they kidnap the Palestinian back to base and then rape them?
Thanks for clearing that up, you’re being intentionally disingenuous.
Never have I defended the IDF, nor have I condemned any Palestinian combatants.
I certainly never expressed any skepticism about the genocide or sexual violence that does appear to be deliberately systemic within the IDF, or at minimum, widely tolerated up the chain.
So, with that out of the way. Re-read my comments, and then decide to engage honestly, or just go and try and peddle your uninformed garbage somewhere else.
I am saying that nobody rapes during combat in the middle of a firefight. Being in mortal danger is not a huge turn on.
The rape if it happens, happens after a victim is extracted to a safe location or an area is fully captured.
Same for the rapes that happened in Ukraine. There were no rapes during combat that happens after all combat is over.
I said I wasn’t going to indefinitely play the game of you saying total bullshit and me citing sources for why it’s wrong, because going back and forth with it too many times usually isn’t a good use of time, but for some reason this one irritated me all afresh.
I(17) from the report, page 5: “With respect to hostages, the mission team found clear and convincing information that some have been subjected to various forms of conflict-related sexual violence including rape and sexualized torture and sexualized cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and it also has reasonable grounds to believe that such violence may be ongoing.”
Tell me what that information is. Surely you have evidence to present.
Since I already cited a few entries out of the UN report to you, I’m gonna make this one into one of those “exercise for the reader” type of things. Like teaching a man to fish. In what entry in the table of contents to the report do you think the answer to this question might be contained?
I realize you will have to read most of the whole first page of the document to find it, but I believe in you. Hold your focus. Persevere.
You didn’t cite any evidence you just posted the summary.
What information is used to come to those conclusions in the summary? It’s in the report surely you’ve read it right?
What concentration camps? What are you talking about? You are literally just making this up.
It looks like you sent the wrong link. This article is related to prison abuse and has nothing to with concentration camps.
Not surprising, since as I said, they do not exist.
And that is, in fact, the point.
For Bibi, the propaganda value is far higher - and far more important - than actually seeking any sort of meaningful and rational justice for his citizens.
Well yeah, that’s the point. War crimes always get covered covered up if at all possible. Israel isn’t unique there. They’re the same monsters every militant power is.
Covering up war crimes of your enemies against you, though? That’s not at all typical.
This is the UN report which found strong evidence that widespread rape occurred during the October 7th attack, as well as debunking one or two particular claims that Israel was putting forth which got published in the news.
This is a press release from the UN about it.
For some reason, the couple of lies Israel told about sexual violence became the entire story, overshadowing the much larger truth about sexual violence by Hamas fighters. Most of the infamous NYT story was true.
Just because Israel is actively engaging in a genocide and are committing atrocities 10 times worse than whatever’s coming back to them doesn’t automatically mean that claims of atrocity by Hamas are automatically false.
The UN report found there is no evidence aside from unverifiable “witness testimonies.” She did confirm that israel had no forensic, video or photo evidence. It all hangs on israeli witnesses which have previously lied. When 10 israeli “witnesses” lie to manufacture rape propaganda there is no reason to believe the 11th.
There is no reason that Pramilla Patten should have classified those israeli provited witnesses are ‘credible’.
The NYT article is completely debunked there is nothing left standing from it. You are straight up spreading propaganda by claiming it holds weight. The reason israel invited Patten to begin with was because the NYT article fell apart.
The claim about NYT is irrelevant too as israel claiming in its interview with BBC that it had video evidence and that there were survivors of rape. Both which are not confirmed fake.
That is the exact opposite of what the UN report did. Did you actually read it, or if not where did you get all this information you’re telling me?
The executive summary is only a few pages and breaks down a high level of what they found pretty well, and then you can skip to particular sections to see more detail. Pages 4 and 5 have a pretty good high-level overview of which allegations in which locations they believe they gathered reasonable grounds to believe, which allegations they believed they debunked, and which ones they weren’t able to verify or debunk one way or another. Warning, it’s slightly graphic.
In particular, they pretty immediately debunked some of the Israeli governments’ accounts which got repeated early on in the media, actually specifically by comparing them against evidence and by doing their own interviews where they were able.
If this was true the UN would be saying Hamas raped people. But alas, the UN does not say that.
Instead the UN calls for an investigation like the post says. Wonder why that is…
Aha! We have arrived at the point of Never Play Defense. Someone simply observing the flow of the conversation, who doesn’t take a look at the report and compare it against what you’re saying it says, could be mistaken for thinking this is a vigorous debate between roughly equally justified points of view, or differing interpretations which are both roughly grounded in reality, or something else which isn’t you talking purely out of your ass and me giving factual citations for why you’re wrong. Kudos! Not sure what else you could do, but you’re playing it well.
I’ll do one more round, sure. It’s not a fun game for me to play indefinitely, but:
If this was true the UN would be saying Hamas raped people. But alas, the UN does not say that.
I(12), page 4: “Based on the information gathered by the mission team from multiple and independent sources, there are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred during the 7 October attacks in multiple locations across Gaza periphery, including rape and gang rape, in at least three locations.”
I(13), page 4: “At the Nova music festival and its surroundings, there are reasonable grounds to believe that multiple incidents of sexual violence took place with victims being subjected to rape and/or gang rape and then killed or killed while being raped.”
If you’re going to imply that civilians unrelated to Hamas might have done it, and it wasn’t part of Hamas’s attack – as the OP article, hilariously, does – then sure, you can, if you want.
Strange the UN does not claim Hamas raped anyone care to explain why that is?
Do mention what information is gathered. It is stated in the report.
I think I’m comfortable with the reasons I’ve already laid out so far with citations for why what’s in the OP article and what you’re saying about it is crap.
I’m gonna take a page from “Never Play Defense.” What do you think about this?
This week, Israel released an appalling video featuring five female Israeli soldiers taken captive at Nahal Oz military base on October 7. Fearful and bloody, the women beg for their lives while Hamas fighters mill around and alternately threaten to kill them and compliment their appearance. The captors call the women “sabaya,” which Israel translated as “women who can get pregnant.” Almost immediately, others disputed the translation and said sabaya referred merely to “female captives” and included no reference to their fertility. “The Arabic word sabaya doesn’t have sexual connotations,” the Al Jazeera journalist Laila Al-Arian wrote in a post on X, taking exception to a Washington Post article that said that it did. She said the Israeli translation was “playing on racist and orientalist tropes about Arabs and Muslims.”
These are real women and victims of ongoing war crimes, so it does seem excessively lurid to suggest, without direct evidence, that they have been raped in captivity for the past several months. (“Eight months,” the Israelis noted, allowing readers to do the gestational math. “Think of what that means for these young women.”) But to assert that sabaya is devoid of sexual connotation reflects ignorance, at best. The word is well attested in classical sources and refers to female captives; the choice of a classical term over a modern one implies a fondness for classical modes of war, which codified sexual violence at scale. Just as concubine and comfort woman carry the befoulments of their modern use, sabaya is straightfowardly associated with what we moderns call rape.
I think the official IDF translator lied about translations and you are reposting their propagandanda.
This was quite a scandal a little while back. Even Reuters censored the subtitles on the video because they said it was wrong. Of course anyone can use a translator these days and find out that the subtitles are propaganda.
Consider doing fact checking before posting.
The same as one rotten apple spoils the whole barrel, one lie taints the whole Israeli claim of rape.
Lesson to be learned here is don’t fucking lie to embellish a story to get the world on your side.
