Messages

What I find hard to believe that UN team "was unable to establish the prevalence of sexual violence and concludes that the overall magnitude, scope, and specific attribution of these violations would require a fully-fledged investigation." but the ICC had better access.

The Patten's report notes, Israel has consistently refused to cooperate with independent UN investigators but Israel did with the ICC.

Patten and her team were unable to locate a single victim and did not speak to any alleged survivors of sexual violence or rape – despite making a public appeal for such survivors to come forward and speak confidentially and with assurances of safety and privacy but the ICC has.

As I have stated since the beginning that in all wars etc. that sexual assaults likely occur but I don't believe the Israeli lies or that it was used as a weapon by Hamas and happened on a large scale.

what is a govt. capable of lying about 40 beheaded babies and have the US president repeat it capable of.

There is, as far as I'm aware, no evidence of this gang rape/mass rape thing. Its also pretty much accepted that Israel shot up a large amount of their own people. If they gave a damn about hostages they would gave negotiated their release, instead they carpet bombed civilian areas. You need to think of Israel as Nazis to understand the evil you are dealing with here.

I have no doubt that Israel wilfully murder and starve Palestinians - it's clear from their actions.

Though hasn't the ICC also accepted that Hamas fighters used sexual violence? I'd imagine they must have seen evidence before stating such.

Maybe they have, they've certainly said Hamas has a case to answer on it. But I've not seen any evidence from reliable sources and in fact some of the initial witnesses stating this were shown to be very unreliable. I would have thought it surely would've been out there for all to see if evidence was available. A bit like the weapons and tunnels in hospitals, none of it ever surfaced.

Israel's exaggerated reports of sexual violence are unbelievable but if the ICC are also citing it in their case agains the leadership of Hamas I'm inclined to think there must have been some level of truth in the original reports of rapes occurring.

The 'human shield' thing Israel use against Hamas I find ridiculous. Israel has never cared about harming civilians so what use are they as any type of shield.

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/icc-has-no-evidence-7-october-rapes-documents-indicate

Sorry but "My office continues to investigate reports of sexual violence committed on Oct 7th' does not mean that it did not occur.  Did Israel tell lies about the scale of it? I would say yes. Did rape occur? I'll wait for the ICC investigation to reach a conclusion on that.

The ICC seems to possess evidence that rape occurred in captivity, however the Electronic Intifada article is very causally dismissive of that:

"But does that mean that Khan possesses enough evidence of rapes and sexual violence against Israelis in captivity to warrant charges against Hamas leaders?

Obviously, we have not seen all the evidence that Khan claims to possess, but despite that we can fairly confidently assess that he does not."

I mean, come on, 'we can fairly confidently assess' - can you? How exactly?

what access to the current hostages does Khan have? there is no access to Gaza for international observers? How would the ICC know is happening to any hostages?

Khan's announcement stated:

"My Office also submits there are reasonable grounds to believe that hostages taken from Israel have been kept in inhumane conditions, and that some have been subject to sexual violence, including rape, while being held in captivity. We have reached that conclusion based on medical records, contemporaneous video and documentary evidence, and interviews with victims and survivors. My Office also continues to investigate reports of sexual violence committed on 7 October."

From that, it sounds like they have interviewed and examined released hostages.  I don't see any other way of reading it. From a quick search it seems 112 hostages have been released so far.

so not based on actual evidence... or you would assume that would be stated that... "only reasonable grounds to believe".

Do you think if one of the released hostages had been sexually assaulted Israel would keep that quiet? given their record of fake rape stories by Zaka and beheaded babies etc.

most of the initial media I saw of interviewd hostages didn't allude to any sexual assaults infact Hamas took care of hostages. I think one hostage then changed in future interviews to say they felt like they wanted to assault her...

I think there is over 2m Gazan living in inhumane conditions.

What actual evidence can there ever be in a case of rape other than testimony and medical examination of the alleged victim? The ICC statement says they have both. I can't think of any reason why they say that if they don't have it.

No disagreement from me on the conditions of the open air prison camp of Gaza or on Israeli war crimes.

The only thing that actually surprised me about the ICC report is that they are actually citing then Israelis for war crimes. That makes a welcome and long overdue change.

if they have both why is it only reasonable grounds to believe.  Did Israel grant the icc more access than the UN?  If the information is provided by Israel how reliable is it given Israel record of lying.

they cited 2 Israelis and 3 Palestinians a complete cop out but as you say more than can be expected give western values.

There is, as far as I'm aware, no evidence of this gang rape/mass rape thing. Its also pretty much accepted that Israel shot up a large amount of their own people. If they gave a damn about hostages they would gave negotiated their release, instead they carpet bombed civilian areas. You need to think of Israel as Nazis to understand the evil you are dealing with here.

I have no doubt that Israel wilfully murder and starve Palestinians - it's clear from their actions.

Though hasn't the ICC also accepted that Hamas fighters used sexual violence? I'd imagine they must have seen evidence before stating such.

Maybe they have, they've certainly said Hamas has a case to answer on it. But I've not seen any evidence from reliable sources and in fact some of the initial witnesses stating this were shown to be very unreliable. I would have thought it surely would've been out there for all to see if evidence was available. A bit like the weapons and tunnels in hospitals, none of it ever surfaced.

Israel's exaggerated reports of sexual violence are unbelievable but if the ICC are also citing it in their case agains the leadership of Hamas I'm inclined to think there must have been some level of truth in the original reports of rapes occurring.

The 'human shield' thing Israel use against Hamas I find ridiculous. Israel has never cared about harming civilians so what use are they as any type of shield.

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/icc-has-no-evidence-7-october-rapes-documents-indicate

Sorry but "My office continues to investigate reports of sexual violence committed on Oct 7th' does not mean that it did not occur.  Did Israel tell lies about the scale of it? I would say yes. Did rape occur? I'll wait for the ICC investigation to reach a conclusion on that.

The ICC seems to possess evidence that rape occurred in captivity, however the Electronic Intifada article is very causally dismissive of that:

"But does that mean that Khan possesses enough evidence of rapes and sexual violence against Israelis in captivity to warrant charges against Hamas leaders?

Obviously, we have not seen all the evidence that Khan claims to possess, but despite that we can fairly confidently assess that he does not."

I mean, come on, 'we can fairly confidently assess' - can you? How exactly?

what access to the current hostages does Khan have? there is no access to Gaza for international observers? How would the ICC know is happening to any hostages?

Khan's announcement stated:

"My Office also submits there are reasonable grounds to believe that hostages taken from Israel have been kept in inhumane conditions, and that some have been subject to sexual violence, including rape, while being held in captivity. We have reached that conclusion based on medical records, contemporaneous video and documentary evidence, and interviews with victims and survivors. My Office also continues to investigate reports of sexual violence committed on 7 October."

From that, it sounds like they have interviewed and examined released hostages.  I don't see any other way of reading it. From a quick search it seems 112 hostages have been released so far.

so not based on actual evidence... or you would assume that would be stated that... "only reasonable grounds to believe".

Do you think if one of the released hostages had been sexually assaulted Israel would keep that quiet? given their record of fake rape stories by Zaka and beheaded babies etc.

most of the initial media I saw of interviewd hostages didn't allude to any sexual assaults infact Hamas took care of hostages. I think one hostage then changed in future interviews to say they felt like they wanted to assault her...

I think there is over 2m Gazan living in inhumane conditions.

There is, as far as I'm aware, no evidence of this gang rape/mass rape thing. Its also pretty much accepted that Israel shot up a large amount of their own people. If they gave a damn about hostages they would gave negotiated their release, instead they carpet bombed civilian areas. You need to think of Israel as Nazis to understand the evil you are dealing with here.

I have no doubt that Israel wilfully murder and starve Palestinians - it's clear from their actions.

Though hasn't the ICC also accepted that Hamas fighters used sexual violence? I'd imagine they must have seen evidence before stating such.

Maybe they have, they've certainly said Hamas has a case to answer on it. But I've not seen any evidence from reliable sources and in fact some of the initial witnesses stating this were shown to be very unreliable. I would have thought it surely would've been out there for all to see if evidence was available. A bit like the weapons and tunnels in hospitals, none of it ever surfaced.

Israel's exaggerated reports of sexual violence are unbelievable but if the ICC are also citing it in their case agains the leadership of Hamas I'm inclined to think there must have been some level of truth in the original reports of rapes occurring.

The 'human shield' thing Israel use against Hamas I find ridiculous. Israel has never cared about harming civilians so what use are they as any type of shield.

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/icc-has-no-evidence-7-october-rapes-documents-indicate

Sorry but "My office continues to investigate reports of sexual violence committed on Oct 7th' does not mean that it did not occur.  Did Israel tell lies about the scale of it? I would say yes. Did rape occur? I'll wait for the ICC investigation to reach a conclusion on that.

The ICC seems to possess evidence that rape occurred in captivity, however the Electronic Intifada article is very causally dismissive of that:

"But does that mean that Khan possesses enough evidence of rapes and sexual violence against Israelis in captivity to warrant charges against Hamas leaders?

Obviously, we have not seen all the evidence that Khan claims to possess, but despite that we can fairly confidently assess that he does not."

I mean, come on, 'we can fairly confidently assess' - can you? How exactly?

what access to the current hostages does Khan have? there is no access to Gaza for international observers? How would the ICC know is happening to any hostages?

I must have been off school the day the covered the part where the Men of 1916 anally raped the teenagers at a music festival


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna141789

The UN team "was unable to establish the prevalence of sexual violence and concludes that the overall magnitude, scope, and specific attribution of these violations would require a fully-fledged investigation."

the report notes, Israel has consistently refused to cooperate with independent UN investigators.

The investigators were unable to locate a single victim and did not speak to any alleged survivors of sexual violence or rape – despite making a public appeal for such survivors to come forward and speak confidentially and with assurances of safety and privacy.

they spoke to released hostages and no mention of any of these suffering sexual violence.

I have been consistent on this, I don't believe any of the Israeli govt claims, there is one claim that maybe credible but even if it does, it is an isolated incident. In saying that in all combat situation I suspect there is some level of sexual violence.

https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/article-691641

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-07-12/ty-article/.highlight/a-soldier-killed-herself-after-reporting-her-rape-the-army-did-little-to-help-her/00000181-eef2-daef-a79b-fef6754c0000

There is, as far as I'm aware, no evidence of this gang rape/mass rape thing. Its also pretty much accepted that Israel shot up a large amount of their own people. If they gave a damn about hostages they would gave negotiated their release, instead they carpet bombed civilian areas. You need to think of Israel as Nazis to understand the evil you are dealing with here.

I have no doubt that Israel wilfully murder and starve Palestinians - it's clear from their actions.

Though hasn't the ICC also accepted that Hamas fighters used sexual violence? I'd imagine they must have seen evidence before stating such.

Maybe they have, they've certainly said Hamas has a case to answer on it. But I've not seen any evidence from reliable sources and in fact some of the initial witnesses stating this were shown to be very unreliable. I would have thought it surely would've been out there for all to see if evidence was available. A bit like the weapons and tunnels in hospitals, none of it ever surfaced.

Israel's exaggerated reports of sexual violence are unbelievable but if the ICC are also citing it in their case agains the leadership of Hamas I'm inclined to think there must have been some level of truth in the original reports of rapes occurring.

The 'human shield' thing Israel use against Hamas I find ridiculous. Israel has never cared about harming civilians so what use are they as any type of shield.

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/icc-has-no-evidence-7-october-rapes-documents-indicate

And he then took a (taxpayer funded) legal action against the government to avoid deportation

Not your taxes though.

Pretty common right wing trope there

Doesn't make it any less true

your tax dollars spent destabilising most of the countries of the ME and North Africa..

Not at all - 'tis not I engaging in empty rhetoric. Whether you call it plantation, colonisation, large-scale immigration, or massive demographic change, it still amounts to a bad deal for the host society. I actually think you're being deliberately evasive, but whatever.

Padraic Henry Pearse must be turning in his grave.

Good night.

from the poster  who brought us this..

And now you label anyone who wants national borders and sovereignty upheld a fascist? You don't really have a clue what fascism is, do you

?

No, I'm drawing a line between periods of large-scale immigration. Simple as that. You're trying to put words in my mouth. You may want to engage in semantics, but my point was that massive demographic change is not good for the host society in the long run.

its not as simple as that..

semantics? we are not being colonised..That's not semantics. loads of empty rhetoric

Very low would be what we had prior to 1992. Massive demographic change is now.
The plantations were still immigration. You can play with words all you like, but that's what is was - organised immigration. Was it good for the host society? Were the early waves of immigration to the 'new world' good for the host societies? Was the immigration of Jews to the Middle East a good idea?(!) Will the current massive demographic change be good for Ireland?

immigration and colonisation are not the same. Are you suggesting they are and what's happening now is organised immigration/colonisation?

you want to go back the 80s when over 400,000 had to emigrate. the 'massive demographic change' seems to doing alright for the country compared to the 80s.

Ideally, immigration levels would be very low: the problem with massive demographic change is that the host society loses in the long run. Were the plantations of Ireland a good idea?

what's very low? what's massive demographic change?

the plantation was not immigration that was colonisation. are you suggesting we are being colonised?

What a bizarre question.
I am blaming the government for allowing these levels of immigration.
Puh.

what's the problem with immigration? what level is acceptable to you?

Continually letting people into the country when there's nowhere to put them? You couldn't make it up.

so blame the govt... not 'foreigners' and don't burn down hotels/accommodation!!

I am blaming the government.

no you are blaming immigration... if the laws were changed to open borders would you support it as it is then legal? 

Continually letting people into the country when there's nowhere to put them? You couldn't make it up.

so blame the govt... not 'foreigners' and don't burn down hotels/accommodation!!

irelandisfull... that's not a call for national borders and sovereignty to be upheld? I'd be interested about how sovereignty isn't being upheld.

it's fascist and racist to blame everything on 'foreigners' when have little or nothing to do with poor government policy and enforcement over the past decade or 2.