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.”
What information can you read it for me?
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.
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.
The UN literally said they had firsthand accounts.
Reading truly is difficult.
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”.
I don’t think you understand what “firsthand account” means.
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.
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