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
    -2
    edit-2
    9 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.

    • @FlowVoid
      link
      English
      -1
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      The UN literally said they had firsthand accounts.

      Reading truly is difficult.

      • @LinkerbaanOP
        link
        English
        -1
        edit-2
        9 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”.

        • @FlowVoid
          link
          English
          -19 months ago

          I don’t think you understand what “firsthand account” means.

          • @LinkerbaanOP
            link
            English
            -19 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
              link
              English
              09 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.

              • @LinkerbaanOP
                link
                English
                -2
                edit-2
                9 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

                • @FlowVoid
                  link
                  English
                  0
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  Your cognitive dissonance is so overwhelming that you can’t even accept that words have meanings.

                  You can spin imaginary tales if it helps you sleep. But everyone else who reads the UN report understands what they wrote. Those hostages saw rapes firsthand.