The Israeli government insists that Hamas formally sanctioned sexual assault on October 7, 2023. But investigators say the evidence does not stand up to scrutiny. Catherine Philp and Gabrielle Weiniger report on eight months of claim and counter-claim
Talk of rape began circulating almost before the massacres themselves were over. Much of it came from what Patten would later call “non-professionals” who supplied “inaccurate and unreliable forensic interpretations” of what they found, creating an instant but flawed narrative about what had taken place.
Meanwhile, the political establishment has opened a fresh battle with the UN over what the Patten report didn’t say: that sexual violence was beyond reasonable doubt, systematic, widespread and ordered and perpetrated by Hamas. Israeli advocates for the female survivors are now warning that the country’s refusal to co-operate with a full and legal investigation, which the carefully worded report was not, threatens the prospect of ever finding out the full truth about the sexual violence of October 7 and delivering justice for its victims.
It was not a legal investigation, Patten explained, as Israel had not allowed one: that mandate could only be fulfilled by the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which Israel has refused to work with since its inception. She hoped that would change.
Patten made it clear there was sufficient evidence of acts of sexual violence to merit full and proper investigation and expressed her shock at the brutality of the violence. The report also confirmed Israeli authorities were unable to provide much of the evidence that political leaders had insisted existed. In all the Hamas video footage Patten’s team had watched and all the photographs they had seen, there were no depictions of rape. We hired a leading Israeli dark-web researcher to look for evidence of those images, including footage deleted from public sources. None could be found.
I don’t think it’s team sports. I think it’s one of two things:
I initially thought they were way too committed and energetic about this stance they’re taking about the UN report, to be any kind of shill, but now I’m less sure. They’re certainly posting with a level of energy and aggressiveness that makes a lot more sense if it’s their job, and usually people who have come by their counterfactual opinions organically have some kind of structure built up in their head for why it makes sense to them (Like they would say the UN report is crazy and biased and can’t be trusted for some reason – they wouldn’t just insist for 2 days that it says a huge variety of very specific things that it doesn’t say, and then just not address it on any level when someone points out the contradiction while continuing to go HAM on arguing about it. The second one sounds more like disinformation poster behavior to me.)
I don’t really know. They don’t act like most shills (or who I believe to be shills) that I have encountered. Like if you just looked at their comments arguing about Hamas, you probably wouldn’t predict that their other singular area of focus in comments would be Biden and the Democrats. But the more that I look back over the conversation + take a look over their user, the more it makes sense to me as an explanation.
(Oooh… I just looked a little further; they also use the phrase “blue MAGA,” and if you look back past the current conversation there’s a lot more of a focus on Biden and Democrats and quite a concerted effort to link Israel’s policies to Biden. The plot thickens.)
Yeah that’s a good assessment. It’s the aggressive and highly energetic and/or frenetic level to it that is particularly odd.
I’ve had lots of discussions or disagreements on this platform with various people, but the vitriolic nature of their comments indicates either a) very young person b) aesthetic / team sports argumentation for the sake of argumentation. Like arguing for the sake of arguing. Can be fun for some people I guess.
Yeah. For me the really notable factor is the weirdness of the disconnect. Like if you look at the person’s claims and study the flow of the conversation back and forth, it starts to become really obvious that they don’t actually have factual belief in the things they are saying. But they still want to continue the conversation and invest a bunch of energy into it. Like, a lot, over a long period of time.
So… why? There aren’t too many plausible explanations for those two things in combination, and then coming alongside “blue MAGA” and Democrats this and Biden that, it all of a sudden clicks into focus and it all makes sense. Now that I’m looking at it more, I’m pretty sold on shilling being the explanation.
Antonio Gueterres, the head of the UN certainly doesn’t believe the things you are saying.
Cool! I love the “Never Play Defense” game, and would be happy to bring some other random assertion into the mix to counterbalance your random new assertion. But, I have exhausted the amount of effort I want to expend on this right now. Another day, sure; feel free to reach out any time.
You keep bringing up the same stale points debunked a million times in every thread. Even in the post it’s mentioned the Patten report is not a proper investigation.
You’re the one that doesn’t want to defend the fact that the UN doesn’t acknowledge the Patten report as evidence.
If you are really hankering that badly to continue the pointless back-and-forth, I should be able to provide you with something, just not right now. I will get back to you though. I have an idea that I think can keep you busy for more or less as much time as you want to spend on it.
We’re in an article that spent money on a dark web expert to dig up any rape evidence and still didn’t find any.
If only those fools from the UN team had spent their money on that, instead of a team of experts in sexual assault who then toured the affected areas and interviewed all those people and reviewed forensic evidence. The answers were on the dark web the whole time. Everyone knows the first thing you learn in Hamas is how to use Tor Browser. Now that you say it that way, it’s completely obvious.