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.”

    • @FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -2
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      No need, because the UN summarized it for me. Just as I believe there are 30,000 dead Gazans, even though I don’t have a list of names and proof they are dead.

      No doubt you too believe there are 30,000 dead Gazans, based on someone else’s summary. Which as usual means you only believe facts that fit your narrative.

      • @Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -2
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        No you said firsthand witness what you just read wasn’t that. It was someone that said they “heard a rumor while in captivity.” They never witnessed it.

        Reading is truly difficult.

          • @Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -1
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            First hand accounts of rumors they heard. Not of rape which what you claimed.

            Which in layman’s terms means “we spoke a hostage that said they heard someone say that there was rape but they never saw any rape nor were they sexually violated themselves”.

              • @Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -110 months ago

                What evidence is there of Carroll’s rape besides an eyewitness account?

                There are multiple eyewitness accounts of rape/murder on 10/7. Furthermore, released hostages gave firsthand accounts to the UN of rape while in captivity.

                But you only accept eyewitness accounts when they fit your narrative. That’s why nobody should believe Hamas’ denials.

                • @FlowVoid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  010 months ago

                  Yes, the UN report says there are multiple eyewitness accounts of rape, on 10/7 as well as from freed captives.

                  If you didn’t know, a “firsthand” account is a synonym for an eyewitness account.

                  • @Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    -2
                    edit-2
                    10 months ago

                    No released hostage has claimed to have witnesss any rape so far. Only heard stories. If I’m wrong you are welcome to link it to me so I can chance my mind