There was no photographic evidence nor any video evidence such as CCTV or gopro footage.
I’m talking about this
“The mission made up of Ms. Patten and nine experts – which was not investigative in nature – conducted 33 meetings with Israeli representatives, examining more than 5,000 photographic images and 50 hours of video footage. It conducted 34 confidential interviews including with survivors and witnesses of the 7 October attacks, released hostages, first responders and others.”
And the report has it like this, for example
“In the medicolegal assessment undertaken by the mission team of available photos and videos of crime scenes, a few corpses with conspicuously spread legs were observed. These postures could not be adequately explained by, for instance, “postmortem pugilistic posturing” due to burn damage. The reviewed photos and videos further revealed a minimum of twenty corpses with partially or fully exposed intimate body parts such as breasts and genitalia, resulting from the absence, displacement, or tearing of clothing. Also, at least ten distinct corpses displayed indications of bound wrists and/or tied legs.”
They are not saying they have videos or photos of acts of rape but rather that they have reviewed photographic evidence such as that that strongly circumstantially suggests sexual violence. With the whole report calling for further investigation based on the photos and videos they’ve seen.
So the UN is making a wild claim that Hamas was raping corpses.
No. They are reporting of about an “accounts of individuals who witnessed” rape of corpses (not specifically by Hamas). As your quoted part even says, “There are further accounts of individuals who witnessed at least two incidents of rape of corpses of women”.
I feel like you don’t understand that they’re purposefully using that careful language.
I’ve read both, that and the report. We already discussed this. But if you want to debunk a specific claim here (I guess to show the report in all parts unreliable) you should probably quote the relevant parts here so the discussion is easier to follow.
If you ctrl+f Gal Abdush in the article I linked you will find her story quite similar to your claims.
If you have any actual evidence to present I will concede my point.
The problem with this UN report here remains clear; no CCTV evidence, no forensic evidence, no people claiming they were raped. only “witness statements”. You cannot seriously expect anyone to believe this.
If anything it’s evidence that no rapes happened as they could not find a shred of conclusive evidence while looking for it so hard. That’s why the title here contains the word “likely”.
If you ctrl+f Gal Abdush in the article I linked you will find her story quite similar to your claims.
It would be a lot easier to discuss if you’d quote the relevant parts from both here and show how you feel it debunks it.
If you have any actual evidence to present I will concede my point.
I’m genuinely not sure what your point is. I feel like you at first misunderstood the report and then what is being claimed here. After review of the available evidence (photos, videos testimonies) the UN people came away with the conclusion that very likely sexual violence was done during (or in the immediate aftermath) of the attack. And the link you provided to debunk this report seems to consider it very likely too, just not how NYT wrote about it.
The problem with this UN report here remains clear; no CCTV evidence, no forensic evidence, no people claiming they were raped. only “witness statements”. You cannot seriously expect anyone to believe this.
I mean I think most believe sexual violence happened there and the report, the debunking you provided and really just a layman’s view of the attack and knowledge about how prevalent war rape is would all speak on behalf of it very very likely to have happened. All these factors pointing at the direction of the sexual violence are hard to dismiss.
The doubtful part is what NYT claimed, that it was systematic tool used by Hamas.
If anything it’s evidence that no rapes happened as they could not find a shred of conclusive evidence while looking for it so hard. That’s why the title here contains the word “likely”.
The report was a two week mission and clearly states it wasn’t a proper investigative one. That’s why they are calling it just likely and calling for a proper and through investigation
I’m talking about this
“The mission made up of Ms. Patten and nine experts – which was not investigative in nature – conducted 33 meetings with Israeli representatives, examining more than 5,000 photographic images and 50 hours of video footage. It conducted 34 confidential interviews including with survivors and witnesses of the 7 October attacks, released hostages, first responders and others.”
And the report has it like this, for example
“In the medicolegal assessment undertaken by the mission team of available photos and videos of crime scenes, a few corpses with conspicuously spread legs were observed. These postures could not be adequately explained by, for instance, “postmortem pugilistic posturing” due to burn damage. The reviewed photos and videos further revealed a minimum of twenty corpses with partially or fully exposed intimate body parts such as breasts and genitalia, resulting from the absence, displacement, or tearing of clothing. Also, at least ten distinct corpses displayed indications of bound wrists and/or tied legs.”
They are not saying they have videos or photos of acts of rape but rather that they have reviewed photographic evidence such as that that strongly circumstantially suggests sexual violence. With the whole report calling for further investigation based on the photos and videos they’ve seen.
No. They are reporting of about an “accounts of individuals who witnessed” rape of corpses (not specifically by Hamas). As your quoted part even says, “There are further accounts of individuals who witnessed at least two incidents of rape of corpses of women”.
I feel like you don’t understand that they’re purposefully using that careful language.
Your example is literally just Gal Abdush, The most debunked claim of all.
Why are you writing long comments before having read the debunking of the NYT article?
I’ve read both, that and the report. We already discussed this. But if you want to debunk a specific claim here (I guess to show the report in all parts unreliable) you should probably quote the relevant parts here so the discussion is easier to follow.
If you ctrl+f Gal Abdush in the article I linked you will find her story quite similar to your claims.
If you have any actual evidence to present I will concede my point.
The problem with this UN report here remains clear; no CCTV evidence, no forensic evidence, no people claiming they were raped. only “witness statements”. You cannot seriously expect anyone to believe this.
If anything it’s evidence that no rapes happened as they could not find a shred of conclusive evidence while looking for it so hard. That’s why the title here contains the word “likely”.
It would be a lot easier to discuss if you’d quote the relevant parts from both here and show how you feel it debunks it.
I’m genuinely not sure what your point is. I feel like you at first misunderstood the report and then what is being claimed here. After review of the available evidence (photos, videos testimonies) the UN people came away with the conclusion that very likely sexual violence was done during (or in the immediate aftermath) of the attack. And the link you provided to debunk this report seems to consider it very likely too, just not how NYT wrote about it.
I mean I think most believe sexual violence happened there and the report, the debunking you provided and really just a layman’s view of the attack and knowledge about how prevalent war rape is would all speak on behalf of it very very likely to have happened. All these factors pointing at the direction of the sexual violence are hard to dismiss.
The doubtful part is what NYT claimed, that it was systematic tool used by Hamas.
The report was a two week mission and clearly states it wasn’t a proper investigative one. That’s why they are calling it just likely and calling for a proper and through investigation