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.”

  • @LinkerbaanOP
    link
    English
    -4
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    You can keep screaming it over and over. Consider coming with evidence. People tend to take you more seriously when you do that.

    What’s that, there’s no evidence?

    • @FlowVoid
      link
      English
      -310 months ago

      There is eyewitness evidence, which you ignore as usual.

      But it’s interesting to see that you think the UN is not a credible source. No doubt you’ll still keep quoting them when it serves your needs

      • @LinkerbaanOP
        link
        English
        -2
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        No it’s literally Zaka and the discredited paramedic.

        The UN employee got questioned by Journalists today and it’s just the same stuff from this NYT article.

        A complete embaressment

        • @FlowVoid
          link
          English
          -310 months ago

          The UN team did way more than that. It “conducted 33 meetings with Israeli representatives, examining more than 5,000 photographic images and 50 hours of video footage. It conducted 34 confidential interviews including with survivors and witnesses of the 7 October attacks, released hostages, first responders and others.”

          • @LinkerbaanOP
            link
            English
            -2
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Yes you just mentioned Zaka in there.

            And after reviewing the footage the UN found zero evidence of rape.

            • @FlowVoid
              link
              English
              -210 months ago

              Wrong, they “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.”

              Just repeating “Zaka” over and over won’t make evidence disappear, as much as you wish it would.

              • @LinkerbaanOP
                link
                English
                -2
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                Can you cite those locations?

                • @FlowVoid
                  link
                  English
                  -2
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  They are in the UN report, so obviously you didn’t even bother reading it before dismissing it.

                  • @LinkerbaanOP
                    link
                    English
                    -210 months ago

                    I did read it. It did not contain evidence. Did you read it?