133
submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world

Content Warning: Graphic descriptions of sexual assault

A two-month investigation by The Times uncovered painful new details, establishing that the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7.

Relying on video footage, photographs, GPS data from mobile phones and interviews with more than 150 people, including witnesses, medical personnel, soldiers and rape counselors, The Times identified at least seven locations where Israeli women and girls appear to have been sexually assaulted or mutilated.

Four witnesses described in graphic detail seeing women raped and killed at two different places along Route 232, the same highway where Ms. Abdush’s half-naked body was found sprawled on the road at a third location.

And The Times interviewed several soldiers and volunteer medics who together described finding more than 30 bodies of women and girls in and around the rave site and in two kibbutzim in a similar state as Ms. Abdush’s — legs spread, clothes torn off, signs of abuse in their genital areas.

Archive

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] qevlarr@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Respond with military force is not bombing the ever loving fuck out of the whole area, making almost all 2 million inhabitants homeless and causing a famine and water crisis. And there are examples of individual IDF atrocities just as well, such as shooting unarmed civilians waving a makeshift white flag. And we only learned about that one because they turned out to be Israeli civilians rather than subhuman Palestinian civilians

Again, nobody is saying Israel doesnt have a right to defend itself. It just doesn't have the right to kill indiscriminately, take people's homes, deny them basic human rights and level Gaza every couple of years.

[-] Copernican@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Yes. That is why I said the Israel response employed is not justifiable.

[-] qevlarr@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

So then why the euphemism? By "I think they went a teeny bit too far" do you mean this is an offensive war aimed at driving the Gazans into Egypt?

This is not a defensive action. This is not border security. This is not an anti-terrorism operation. Call it what it is: This is ethnic cleansing.

[-] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 1 points 11 months ago

It is cyclical and retaliatory.

Looking at the world through the lens of media is a concept as old as humanity itself. The edgier shows will have The Hero feel horror at the realization that their army is going to do bad stuff to a sacked city and depict them heroically protecting one family or person to show that they are above it all.

The reality is that doing so is a good way to have your army revolt against you right then and there. Fragging is for more than just the incompetent Lieutenant who is going to get the hero killed.

And that is what is happening here. Same as it happens in every war (just ask any Chinese or Korean person about their mixed feelings on the US and Russia liberating their grandparents from the horrors of Imperial Japan and how white people have never been able to tell Asians apart...). An atrocity happened. Vengeance is needed. And maybe the locals are "siding with the enemy" either vocally or by just not assisting in stopping them.

And that is even worse in this situation. Because the communities and people attacked were the ones who lived nearest to the prison walls and/or who outright advocated for peaceful resolutions. Knowing that your sister, who wanted nothing more than a peaceful resolution to the unjust imprisonment of a people, was brutally raped and murdered by those same people? That fundamentally shuts off your ability to listen to "both sides" and starts making it really hard to acknowledge that the residential building that you KNOW a terrorist leader is hiding in isn't actively protecting said leader.

So the soldiers and even leadership who understand how fucked this all is? They literally cannot do anything because it will just result in them having to realize how little control they have over their soldiers at this point and potentially being deemed "a traitor" while they are in a position where it would be trivial to say a terrorist popped out and killed them. Same with the rank and file who want to speak out against the violence or even the people relaying the orders for artillery and missiles.

At this point, everyone more or less understands that if you kill one "terrorist" you likely have made two more between collateral damage and just taking someone's loved one away from them. But the same applies to both sides. It is just that, ever increasingly, one side has enough munitions to level a large city and the other depends on human shields to protect them.

[-] SloppyPuppy@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago

I understand that bombing the shit out of them is not the ideal solution. But what on earth should be done when such a barbaric and vicious enemy is aslo hiding deep within civilian population. How the hell do you manage to separate them?

this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2023
133 points (73.8% liked)

News

23440 readers
519 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS