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.”
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.
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.
The BBC has seen and heard evidence of rape, sexual violence and mutilation of women during the 7 October Hamas attacks.
Gonna hit the gym now, hope that satisfies you.
You linked three articles. How can you even quote the second article if you only posted one?
Your BBC link says “hears witness”. No evidence was observed. Same shit as from the debunked NYT article.
You are not presenting anything new. In fact your links were from when the IDF still claimed they had forensic and video evidence. Something which we now know is a lie.