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.”
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.
Lies, more lies, and genocide
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The rejection of the Times reporting in the kibbutz by Be’eri spokesperson Michal Paikin further undermines the credibility of the paper’s controversial December article “‘Screams Without Words’: How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on Oct. 7.”
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.
Ben Smith, the editor-in-chief of Semafor and the former media columnist for the New York Times, reported Sunday that Sella recommended his uncle’s partner, Schwartz, to the Jerusalem bureau chief, and she was brought on board for the investigation.
A recent interview in the Israeli media with the Sharabi sisters’ grandparents offers details that directly contradict the Times reporting that the girls at Kibbutz Be’eri were sexually assaulted on October 7.
The family also gave several interviews to international news outlets before “Screams Without Words” was published that provided information that undercuts the assertions in the Times article, raising questions about why the paper did not include these publicly available details.
On February 29, Israel’s Channel 12 broadcast a feature story on the grandparents, who traveled from Britain to the kibbutz to view the home where their loved ones died and to meet with neighbors, family members, and officials.
The original article contains 2,786 words, the summary contains 237 words. Saved 91%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Oh good, they weren’t raped and murdered, they were just murdered.
That’s a relief.
It’s awful, but it’s still important to report accurately on such terrible events.
Fair point, but it’s not the win some people here seem to think it is.
Thing is: There’s plenty Hamas & related groups did on Oct 7th to enrage a population - no exaggeration is necessary.
However, there ISN’T enough to justify a genocide … especially since Israelis have been torturing Palestinians for decades.
Israel needs to de-humanize the locals to the point where the population can justify an ethnic cleansing. Hence: Ridiculous accusations of using breasts as foot-balls and mass rape.
Removed by mod
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 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.
Long story short, there’s no new substantive evidence beyond what the NYT already said? And considering how badly the NYT fucked up with their recent poll, I’m even more inclined than before to doubt their story.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
New breaking points video debunking this report
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
You are disgusting human being.
The truth must hurt you a lot. I’m sorry.
Truth what? Faking rape is not good, denying true rape case is even worse. Fucking moron.
Tell the IDF to stop faking rape claims then. They told us back in November they had mountains of forensic evidence and thousands of witnesses. And now they can’t find a single CCTV recording and they lost the forensic evidence? They can’t even find two “witnesses” which corroborate a story.
Until you find evidence it’s rather obvious these are nothing but lies to manufacture consent for the Genocide of Gaza.
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.
I mean I suppose there are a few ways you could read this.
One is that the NYT article was inaccurate - it wouldn’t be the first time that fake news around this conflict has travelled halfway around the world before the truth has had its breakfast.
But another interpretation is that tight-knit communities don’t want the full horror of the final moments of these girls and women to be so publicly exposed to the world. The article points out that the NYT article effectively identified the individuals and that can’t have been a helpful experience for their surviving families and friends.
