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

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.

Archive link

  • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
    31·
    6 months ago

    My god dude. Okay, sure. This next is a two part message (1/2)

    Me

    I’d like you to create a report on Linkerbaan’s level of good faith engagement in this comment chain. You’ll have to be a little bit careful to observe the nested structure of the comments, which ones are replies to which, and then make a detailed report – in the format of a formally structure report like a UN presentation of fact-finding, divided into chapters, sections, and then subsections where appropriate.

    Some of the main chapters I’d like to include are:

    • Unanswered questions: Things people asked Linkerbaan that they never responded substantively to
    • Misrepresentation: Claiming that someone else said something, or some source said something, when it never happened that way
    • Any others you feel are appropriate. Either positive or negative characterizations of Linkerbaan’s engagements in the conversation would be appropriate as you determine.
    • At the end, a concrete list of “recommendations” – a bulleted list of things that would be good for Linkerbaan to answer, or provide, in order to move the conversation forward productively.

    Here is the comment chain that I’d like you to summarize in that way. Bear in mind that the topic is a fairly sensitive topic.

    (comment chain is redacted)

    GPT

    Report on the Engagement of Linkerbaan in the Comment Chain

    Chapter 1: Unanswered Questions

    Section 1.1: Key Instances of Unanswered Questions

    • Question from @Belastend:

      • Original Question: “Who keeps blocking the real UN rape investigations again? Oh right, israel.”
      • Response: Linkerbaan repeatedly redirected the conversation back to this point without addressing other questions asked by different users. For example, in response to a direct question about the UN report’s evidence of sexual assault, Linkerbaan reverted to asking, “Why does israel keep blocking the UN investigation?” without providing substantive answers to the other points raised.

    • Question from @mozz:

      • Original Questions:
        1. “Where in the report did you find information about how the hostages were treated?”
        2. “Can you explain more about the logic, why this would follow?”
        3. “What parts of the report are there that debunk the entire report?”
      • Response: Linkerbaan did not provide direct answers to these questions. Instead, they repeated their assertion that Israel is blocking a UN investigation without engaging with the specific questions asked.

    Section 1.2: Repeated Evasion of Specific Queries

    • Throughout the conversation, Linkerbaan consistently evaded specific queries about the details of the UN report and evidence presented within it. Despite repeated requests for clarification and specific details, Linkerbaan’s responses focused on a single point regarding Israel blocking investigations, without addressing the nuanced questions posed by other participants.

    Chapter 2: Misrepresentation

    Section 2.1: Misrepresentation of Sources

    • Claim about the UN Report:
      • Original Claim by Linkerbaan: “Not sure why you keep citing a report that has no legal base. The only thing Patten concludes is that there is grounds to do a real investigation.”
      • Misrepresentation: Linkerbaan’s statement downplays the content of the UN report, which included findings of reasonable grounds for sexual assaults occurring, thus misrepresenting the conclusions of the report to undermine its credibility.

    Section 2.2: Misrepresentation of Other Users’ Statements

    • Interaction with @mozz:
      • Claim by Linkerbaan: “You have dodged every question the last time around and you keep dodging the question.”
      • Misrepresentation: This statement misrepresents @mozz’s engagement, as @mozz provided detailed responses and posed specific questions that Linkerbaan did not address substantively.

    Chapter 3: Positive Engagement

    Section 3.1: Points of Constructive Dialogue

    • Acknowledgment of Counterpoints:
      • On a few occasions, Linkerbaan acknowledged the need for a thorough investigation and expressed concerns about the suppression of evidence, which can be seen as a constructive element in their engagement.

    (To be continued, 1/2)

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        31·
        6 months ago

        Honestly I was pretty impressed with the level of detail and accuracy it was able to come up with.

        And yes I know that looking for productive conversation with this person is looking for sandwiches in a pigpen. I do feel like I wasted a little too much time on it yesterday, but I’m just entertaining myself at this point; this kind of thing is funny to me.