South Africa launches case at UN court accusing Israel of genocide - Page 17 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15306316
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, the UN should have considered the fact that the Israeli government and the IDF would have shut off the flow of humanitarian aid.


Actually, that it may be difficult to hand out aid in zones in active combat or under Hamas' control.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since they control the rest of the occupied territory. all the airspace, all the borders, all the trucks, the visas of humanitarian aid workers, this is quibbling.


This is not quibbling, furthermore, this is exactly where the main bottleneck seems to be. Hence the airdrops.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Neither the Israeli government nor the IDF are making airdrops.


I agree they should do them too. Yet it is true they aren't obstructing those and indeed they are done in coordination with the IDF.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So when you claimed the battalion was there and there were tunnels and materiel, you did not know?

Then all of that was an argument from ignorance.

Or you think these things were there and therefore the killing of children is justified.


Tunnels are one such example of the infrastructure used by Hamas. What we do know, because there's no disagreement about it, is that Hamas operates within the camp and that one of its battalions is based there.

If you believe there was no indication at all that they operated from the market, it's up to you to explain why.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Because the IDF and Israeli government are implementing policies based on settler colonialism and settler colonialism is a lot easier if the indigenous population is dead.


If so, why hasn't Israel just killed them? Again, it can do so without much trouble.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You have

No. The link explains how the Israeli government and the IDF are preventing the import of food to Gaza.


:roll:

The sources are largely based on information from before October 7, I want to know how is Israel blocking humanitarian aid from traveling within Gaza and specially within Rafah.

Pants-of-dog wrote:It is a fact that you feel this.


It is a fact that Oxfam opposes airdrops solely for political reasons. They said as much.
#15306326
@wat0n

In paragraph 74 of the Order, the ICJ held that “there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights found by the Court to be plausible.”

Signatories to the Genocide Convention - The US signed the Convention in 1988 - are obligated not to aid and assist in violating the Convention.


:)
#15306332
wat0n wrote:Actually, that it may be difficult to hand out aid in zones in active combat or under Hamas' control.


Again, the IDF and the Israeli government are controlling almost all the territory and goods and people.

This is not quibbling, furthermore, this is exactly where the main bottleneck seems to be. Hence the airdrops.


Provide evidence for this claim.

I agree they should do them too. Yet it is true they aren't obstructing those and indeed they are done in coordination with the IDF.


Again, this is irrelevant since the IDF are not doing them and the amount is not significant compared to what is needed to avert famine,

Tunnels are one such example of the infrastructure used by Hamas. What we do know, because there's no disagreement about it, is that Hamas operates within the camp and that one of its battalions is based there.

If you believe there was no indication at all that they operated from the market, it's up to you to explain why.


No, we do not know that and you were unable to show any evidence at all for that claim, so you are claiming that killing children is perfectly justified even when there is no evidence for military objectives.

If so, why hasn't Israel just killed them? Again, it can do so without much trouble.


They are killing them. By the tens of thousands.

The sources are largely based on information from before October 7, I want to know how is Israel blocking humanitarian aid from traveling within Gaza and specially within Rafah.


So we agree that the IdF and Israeli government are blocking food in all the same ways as before the war. And we also can see clearly that they literally control almost all the rest of the land at literal gunpoint.

It is a fact that Oxfam opposes airdrops solely for political reasons. They said as much.


Again, this is how you feel, and is therefore irrelevant.
#15306335
Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, the IDF and the Israeli government are controlling almost all the territory and goods and people.


Not where it matters most, Rafah (where most of the population is in). And also not where there's active combat, which is out of anyone's full control by definition.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Provide evidence for this claim.


Even you have done so.

Or you disagree that, for example, most Gazan civilians are right now in Rafah?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, this is irrelevant since the IDF are not doing them and the amount is not significant compared to what is needed to avert famine,


It is not irrelevant that Israel is participating by coordinating such airdrops.

The amount of airdropped aid is likely to increase.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, we do not know that and you were unable to show any evidence at all for that claim, so you are claiming that killing children is perfectly justified even when there is no evidence for military objectives.


Yes, we do know that. We know because it is mentioned even in Al Qassam's website that there's a battalion based in the refugee camp.

As such, there is indication of the existence of such military objectives in the camp.

Pants-of-dog wrote:They are killing them. By the tens of thousands.


This is not "80% of Gaza's population".

Pants-of-dog wrote:So we agree that the IdF and Israeli government are blocking food in all the same ways as before the war. And we also can see clearly that they literally control almost all the rest of the land at literal gunpoint.


No, we don't agree with that. Even worse, the available stats show that the amount of food, medicine and other key humanitarian imports are back to the pre-war levels and in any event Israel did not control Gaza to be able to limit transportation of such imports within Gaza.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, this is how you feel, and is therefore irrelevant.


This isn't about feelings, it's just what Oxfam said.

@ingliz that's still not an order for other countries to stop selling Israel arms or anything of that kind.
#15306338
wat0n wrote:Not where it matters most, Rafah (where most of the population is in). And also not where there's active combat, which is out of anyone's full control by definition.

Even you have done so.

Or you disagree that, for example, most Gazan civilians are right now in Rafah?


Provide evidence that 500 trucks a day are reaching Rafah.

If not, then the IDF and the Israeli government are not allowing enough food to arrive.

It is not irrelevant that Israel is participating by coordinating such airdrops.

The amount of airdropped aid is likely to increase.


The hope that it will increase is an implicit agreement that the current amount is not enough.

And it is relevant that Israel refuses to make any airdrops.

Yes, we do know that. We know because it is mentioned even in Al Qassam's website that there's a battalion based in the refugee camp.

As such, there is indication of the existence of such military objectives in the camp.


No, you quoted the text and we saw that it does not say that.

But you are now using it as a justification for killing children.

This is not "80% of Gaza's population".


That is correct.

Just like it is correct to say that the IDF and Israeli government are killing Palestinians by the tens of thousands, as logically prescribed by settler colonialism.

No, we don't agree with that. Even worse, the available stats show that the amount of food, medicine and other key humanitarian imports are back to the pre-war levels and in any event Israel did not control Gaza to be able to limit transportation of such imports within Gaza.


No, you were unable to show that as well since the OCHA data you provided for food security and other humanitarian indicators only covers last year.

This isn't about feelings, it's just what Oxfam said.


Your subjective feelings, to be precise.
#15306339
Pants-of-dog wrote:Provide evidence that 500 trucks a day are reaching Rafah.

If not, then the IDF and the Israeli government are not allowing enough food to arrive.


I don't need to.

We already went through this, too.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The hope that it will increase is an implicit agreement that the current amount is not enough.


Sure, because the airdrops are just beginning.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And it is relevant that Israel refuses to make any airdrops.


Not as much as you imply.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, you quoted the text and we saw that it does not say that.

But you are now using it as a justification for killing children.


It does say that, you're the only one in denial here. But I don't find it surprising, you need to keep justifying mass rape.

Pants-of-dog wrote:That is correct.

Just like it is correct to say that the IDF and Israeli government are killing Palestinians by the tens of thousands, as logically prescribed by settler colonialism.


It is correct to say that 80% of Gaza's population has not been killed.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, you were unable to show that as well since the OCHA data you provided for food security and other humanitarian indicators only covers last year.


No, the data I provided is of food imports. Those are back to the pre war levels.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Your subjective feelings, to be precise.


No, a clear fact.
#15306343
wat0n wrote:I don't need to.

We already went through this, too.


So we see that the IDF and the Israeli government are not providing enough humanitarian aid, as required by the ICJ interim measures.

since this is the case, this strengthens the case of genocide against the IDF and the Israeli government.

Sure, because the airdrops are just beginning.


No, that is also incorrect since neither the IDF nor the Israeli government have done any air drops. There has been no beginning.

Not as much as you imply.


So you agree that the IDF and the Israeli government are not making any airdrops at all.

It does say that, you're the only one in denial here. But I don't find it surprising, you need to keep justifying mass rape.


Your errors in justifying the bombing are irrelevant. The point, that you do not refute, is that you think killing children is justifiable.

It is correct to say that 80% of Gaza's population has not been killed.


That is why it is not correct to argue that only 100 food trucks are needed daily.

It does not refute the claim that the IDF and the Israeli government are killing Palestinians by the tens of thousands, and that the majority of these people are civilians.

No, the data I provided is of food imports. Those are back to the pre war levels.


This seems incorrect.

No, a clear fact.


This entire bit is all about how you want everyone else to get mad at this guy. Feels.
#15306345
Pants-of-dog wrote:So we see that the IDF and the Israeli government are not providing enough humanitarian aid, as required by the ICJ interim measures.

since this is the case, this strengthens the case of genocide against the IDF and the Israeli government.


Unless you forget about the UN's initial estimates, that is. Since delivering more aid by trucks is hard, given the situation on the ground, this is why airdropping is being used.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, that is also incorrect since neither the IDF nor the Israeli government have done any air drops. There has been no beginning.


Allied governments have, you're acting as if this didn't matter even though it clearly does.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So you agree that the IDF and the Israeli government are not making any airdrops at all.


Sure, and I think they should. Anything to alleviate the humanitarian situation, while not reaching Hamas and making sure it cannot rearm, is good in my book.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Your errors in justifying the bombing are irrelevant. The point, that you do not refute, is that you think killing children is justifiable.


Weak response, as per usual.

There are no errors, this is what even Hamas' websites admit.

Killing civilians (be they children or otherwise) as collateral damage is a tragedy, but it's not the same as doing so while targeting them. It's not "OK" yet I can understand why, and I understand Hamas is the main responsible for it.

This is contrast with you given you justify October 7th, including the mass rapes of that day, and refuse any efforts to hold Hamas accountable.

Pants-of-dog wrote:That is why it is not correct to argue that only 100 food trucks are needed daily.


Wrong again, given how 100 trucks was the pre-war level of food imports.

Pants-of-dog wrote:It does not refute the claim that the IDF and the Israeli government are killing Palestinians by the tens of thousands, and that the majority of these people are civilians.


It does however refute that they correspond to 80% of Gaza's population, and they have not been the target. One can tell that because Israel could have killed far more since October 7th.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This seems incorrect.


It's not, you can check it yourself. I provided you with the source.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This entire bit is all about how you want everyone else to get mad at this guy. Feels.


No, it's about how aid organizations do have political aims and how they put them above helping the civilian populations.
#15306348
wat0n wrote:Unless you forget about the UN's initial estimates, that is. Since delivering more aid by trucks is hard, given the situation on the ground, this is why airdropping is being used.

Allied governments have, you're acting as if this didn't matter even though it clearly does.

Sure, and I think they should. Anything to alleviate the humanitarian situation, while not reaching Hamas and making sure it cannot rearm, is good in my book.

Weak response, as per usual.

There are no errors, this is what even Hamas' websites admit.

Killing civilians (be they children or otherwise) as collateral damage is a tragedy, but it's not the same as doing so while targeting them. It's not "OK" yet I can understand why, and I understand Hamas is the main responsible for it.

This is contrast with you given you justify October 7th, including the mass rapes of that day, and refuse any efforts to hold Hamas accountable.

Wrong again, given how 100 trucks was the pre-war level of food imports.

It does however refute that they correspond to 80% of Gaza's population, and they have not been the target. One can tell that because Israel could have killed far more since October 7th.

It's not, you can check it yourself. I provided you with the source.

No, it's about how aid organizations do have political aims and how they put them above helping the civilian populations.


1. The IDF and the Israeli government are not making air drops at all. The air drops there are, are being done by other countries and are so few as to be insignificant when it comes to avoiding famine. They are, at best, media opportunities.

Telling everyone how much you hope they increase is an implicit agreement that the current levels are insufficient.

2. When it comes to discussing the thread topic, discussion of possible attacks on kids by Hamas is a whataboutism. What is relevant is that the IDF and the Israeli government are targeting and killing civilians of all ages by the tens of thousands.

3. 500 trucks of humanitarian aid was the pre-war level. This has already been shown by a direct quote from a source. Since every agency reports about a fifth of that, it is incorrect to say that delivery of such goods has risen to pre-war levels. Even if it had, it would still not be enough, since the pre-war levels were also not enough to begin with, and the number of people who require such aid has increased dramatically.

4. The IDF and the Israeli government are deliberately targeting and killing civilians. This is true even if they have yet to kill more than 35 000 people.
#15306350
Pants-of-dog wrote:1. The IDF and the Israeli government are not making air drops at all. The air drops there are, are being done by other countries and are so few as to be insignificant when it comes to avoiding famine. They are, at best, media opportunities.

Telling everyone how much you hope they increase is an implicit agreement that the current levels are insufficient.


You're talking as if hundreds of thousands of meals could have been airdropped overnight, without any previous runs. That's definitely not how it works.

If the airdrops don't scale up, I'll agree with you but there's no indication that there is no desire to do as much. On the contrary, those countries participating have an interest in doing so (and Israel has one too, but Netanyahu is not acting in Israel's interests).

Pants-of-dog wrote:2. When it comes to discussing the thread topic, discussion of possible attacks on kids by Hamas is a whataboutism. What is relevant is that the IDF and the Israeli government are targeting and killing civilians of all ages by the tens of thousands.


Pants-of-dog wrote:4. The IDF and the Israeli government are deliberately targeting and killing civilians. This is true even if they have yet to kill more than 35 000 people.


It is not whataboutism to say Hamas operates from civilian areas hoping to discourage Israeli attacks or make them politically costly due to civilian casualties.

It is thus not accurate to say those civilians are the target when this is the case.

And, if Israel was set out to target civilians, it would not warn or allow them to evacuate before attacking.

Pants-of-dog wrote:3. 500 trucks of humanitarian aid was the pre-war level. This has already been shown by a direct quote from a source. Since every agency reports about a fifth of that, it is incorrect to say that delivery of such goods has risen to pre-war levels. Even if it had, it would still not be enough, since the pre-war levels were also not enough to begin with, and the number of people who require such aid has increased dramatically.


500 trucks/day was the total imports (91% being commercial, not humanitarian), and the majority of the transported material was construction material. Again, I already provided you with the data. This is not under discussion.
#15306354
wat0n wrote:You're talking as if hundreds of thousands of meals could have been airdropped overnight, without any previous runs. That's definitely not how it works.

If the airdrops don't scale up, I'll agree with you but there's no indication that there is no desire to do as much. On the contrary, those countries participating have an interest in doing so (and Israel has one too, but Netanyahu is not acting in Israel's interests).


I never argued that the air drops should be the way to go. You did. So yes, this is why the air drops are not making a significant impact. Thanks for providing the information that explains why the airdrops are not making any real change when it comes to avoiding famine.

It is not whataboutism to say Hamas operates from civilian areas hoping to discourage Israeli attacks or make them politically costly due to civilian casualties.

It is thus not accurate to say those civilians are the target when this is the case.

And, if Israel was set out to target civilians, it would not warn or allow them to evacuate before attacking.


If the claim is that Hamas is using civilians as a shield, and the IDF shoots at the civilians anyway in order to kill Hamas, then the IDF is deliberately targeting and killing civilians.

500 trucks/day was the total imports (91% being commercial, not humanitarian), and the majority of the transported material was construction material. Again, I already provided you with the data. This is not under discussion.


Again, the data does not show the relevant time.

If you go to
https://www.ochaopt.org/data/crossings

and then get it to look solely at human food for 2023 and 2024, you will note that 2024 only goes up to January.

The many humanitarian aid agencies are discussing what happened in February.
#15306364
Pants-of-dog wrote:I never argued that the air drops should be the way to go. You did. So yes, this is why the air drops are not making a significant impact. Thanks for providing the information that explains why the airdrops are not making any real change when it comes to avoiding famine.


...Because they are just starting, and scaling them up takes time, none of this is surprising.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If the claim is that Hamas is using civilians as a shield, and the IDF shoots at the civilians anyway in order to kill Hamas, then the IDF is deliberately targeting and killing civilians.


That's a weird definition of "targeting".


tar·get
/ˈtärɡət/
verb
gerund or present participle: targeting
select as an object of attention or attack.
"two men were targeted by the attackers"

Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, the data does not show the relevant time.

If you go to
https://www.ochaopt.org/data/crossings

and then get it to look solely at human food for 2023 and 2024, you will note that 2024 only goes up to January.

The many humanitarian aid agencies are discussing what happened in February.


UNRWA's figure of 98 trucks/day means that February entries were ~2,800 trucks. That is very much in line with the February 2023 levels of human food + medicine + hygiene products + non-edible consumables (I chose those because 1) they are likely necessary for the survival of the civilian population and therefore what is being prioritized to the point that they represent >99% of entries, 2) the entries of those has recovered, with the entries of medicines being a lot higher than before the war for obvious reasons).

We need to wait for the figures to know much more. It is true, though, that this would be a drop from January's 140 truckloads/day of these elements (which is >99% of the total entries last month), yet again it seems fighting north of Gaza has intensified as Hamas' remaining men in the area seem to have become more active over there than last month. And the unit of measure (truckloads vs trucks) isn't really the same, yet we can only work with what we have.
#15306367
Pants-of-dog wrote:...So you have no disagreement that US support for the Israeli government and IDF is the same as support for war crimes, nor do you disagree that a handful of air drops will not change this.

wat0n feels like he's on the winning side because none of the rich Western nations will do anything to stop this genocide from taking place.

All of our leaders have been bribed or extorted to "go along" with this genocide.

And a few hundred years ago, it was fur-trading companies, gold-seeking elites and railroads that were bribing and extorting (and killing, occasionally) in order to buy support for genocides in the Americas. And these genocides happened, and everyone is happy now.
#15306376
wat0n wrote:...Because they are just starting, and scaling them up takes time, none of this is surprising.

That's a weird definition of "targeting".
tar·get
/ˈtärɡət/
verb
gerund or present participle: targeting
select as an object of attention or attack.
"two men were targeted by the attackers"


The IDF is deliberately pointing its guns at Palestinians and shooting, knowing these civilians will die.

Targeting seems like a useful word.

UNRWA's figure of 98 trucks/day means that February entries were ~2,800 trucks. That is very much in line with the February 2023 levels of human food + medicine + hygiene products + non-edible consumables (I chose those because 1) they are likely necessary for the survival of the civilian population and therefore what is being prioritized to the point that they represent >99% of entries, 2) the entries of those has recovered, with the entries of medicines being a lot higher than before the war for obvious reasons).

We need to wait for the figures to know much more. It is true, though, that this would be a drop from January's 140 truckloads/day of these elements (which is >99% of the total entries last month), yet again it seems fighting north of Gaza has intensified as Hamas' remaining men in the area seem to have become more active over there than last month. And the unit of measure (truckloads vs trucks) isn't really the same, yet we can only work with what we have.


Prove that UNRWA gave this figure.
#15306383
wat0n wrote: you need to keep justifying mass rape.


wat0n and his rape fantasies where there were none. He is doing that old Nazi trick of thinking repeating a lie makes it true - it doesn't.

The Intercept destroyed these Zionist lies that were featured in the New York Times. Even Israeli family members of victims of Oct 7. have called out the NYT lies about rape where there were none.

wat0n will continue spreading his lies like a good little neonazi who learned well from previous nazis. Because this is one way for Zionists to defend the indefensible (genocide). Lucky for us, their self-awareness is entirely lacking and Israel is increasingly a pariah state, even amongst Zionists who thought they were liberals..

“Between the Hammer and the Anvil” - The Story Behind the New York Times October 7 Exposé
Anat Schwartz had a problem. The Israeli filmmaker and former air force intelligence official had been assigned by the New York Times to work with her partner’s nephew Adam Sella and veteran Times reporter Jeffrey Gettleman on an investigation into sexual violence by Hamas on October 7 that could reshape the way the world understood Israel’s ongoing war in the Gaza Strip. By November, global opposition was mounting against Israel’s military campaign, which had already killed thousands of children, women, and the elderly. On her social media feed, which the Times has since said it is reviewing, Schwartz liked a tweet saying that Israel needed to “turn the strip into a slaughterhouse.”

“Violate any norm, on the way to victory,” read the post. “Those in front of us are human animals who do not hesitate to violate minimal rules.”

The New York Times, however, does have rules and norms. Schwartz had no prior reporting experience. Her reporting partner Gettleman explained the basics to her, Schwartz said in a podcast interview on January 3, produced by Israel’s Channel 12 and conducted in Hebrew.

Gettleman, she said, was concerned they “get at least two sources for every detail we put into the article, cross-check information. Do we have forensic evidence? Do we have visual evidence? Apart from telling our reader ‘this happened,’ what can we say? Can we tell what happened to whom?”

Schwartz said she was initially reluctant to take the assignment because she did not want to look at visual images of potential assaults and because she lacked the expertise to conduct such an investigation.

“Victims of sexual assault are women who have experienced something, and then to come and sit in front of such a woman — who am I anyway?” she said. “I have no qualifications.”

Nonetheless, she began working with Gettleman on the story, she explained in the podcast interview. Gettleman, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, is an international correspondent, and when he is sent to a bureau, he works with news assistants and freelancers on stories. In this case, several newsroom sources familiar with the process said, Schwartz and Sella did the vast majority of the ground reporting, while Gettleman focused on the framing and writing.

The resulting report, published in late December, was headlined “‘Screams Without Words’: How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on Oct. 7.” It was a bombshell and galvanized the Israeli war effort at a time when even some of Israel’s allies were expressing concern over its large-scale killing of civilians in Gaza. Inside the newsroom, the article was met with praise from editorial leaders but skepticism from other Times journalists. The paper’s flagship podcast “The Daily” attempted to turn the article into an episode, but it didn’t manage to get through a fact check, as The Intercept previously reported. (In a statement received after publication, a Times spokesperson said, “No Daily episode was killed due to fact checking failures.”)

The fear among Times staffers who have been critical of the paper’s Gaza coverage is that Schwartz will become a scapegoat for what is a much deeper failure. She may harbor animosity toward Palestinians, lack the experience with investigative journalism, and feel conflicting pressures between being a supporter of Israel’s war effort and a Times reporter, but Schwartz did not commission herself and Sella to report one of the most consequential stories of the war. Senior leadership at the New York Times did.

Schwartz said as much in an interview with Israeli Army Radio on December 31. “The New York Times said, ‘Let’s do an investigation into sexual violence’ — it was more a case of them having to convince me,” she said. Her host cut her off: “It was a proposal of The New York Times, the entire thing?”

“Unequivocally. Unequivocally. Obviously. Of course,” she said. “The paper stood behind us 200 percent and gave us the time, the investment, the resources to go in-depth with this investigation as much as needed.”

Shortly after the war broke out, some editors and reporters complained that Times standards barred them from referring to Hamas as “terrorists.” The rationale from the standards department, run for 14 years by Philip Corbett, had long been that Hamas was the de facto administrator of a specific territory, rather than a stateless terror group. Deliberately killing civilians, went the argument, was not enough to label a group terrorists, as that label could apply quite broadly.

Corbett, after October 7, defended the policy in the face of pressure, newsroom sources said, but he lost. On October 19, an email went out on behalf of Executive Editor Joe Kahn saying that Corbett had asked to step back from his position. “After 14 years as the embodiment of Times standards, Phil Corbett has told us he’d like to step back a bit and let someone else take the leading role in this crucial effort,” Times leadership explained. Three newsroom sources said the move was tied to the pressure he was under to soften coverage in Israel’s favor. One of the social media posts that Schwartz liked, triggering the Times review, made the case that, for Israeli propaganda purposes, Hamas should be likened at all times to the Islamic State. A Times spokesperson told The Intercept, “Your understanding about Phil Corbett is flatly untrue.” In a statement received after publication, “Phil had asked to change roles before Joe Kahn even became executive editor in June 2022. And it had absolutely nothing to do with a dispute over coverage.”

Since the revelations regarding Schwartz’s recent social media activity, her byline has not appeared in the paper and she has not attended editorial meetings. The paper said that a review into her social media “likes” is ongoing. “Those ‘likes’’ are unacceptable violations of our company policy,” said a Times spokesperson.

The bigger scandal may be the reporting itself, the process that allowed it into print, and the life-altering impact the reporting had for thousands of Palestinians whose deaths were justified by the alleged systematic sexual violence orchestrated by Hamas the paper claimed to have exposed.

Another frustrated Times reporter who has also worked as an editor there said, “A lot of focus will understandably, rightfully, be directed at Schwartz but this is most clearly poor editorial decision making that undermines all the other great work being tirelessly done across the paper — both related and completely unrelated to the war — that manages to challenge our readers and meet our standards.”

The Channel 12 podcast interview with Schwartz, which The Intercept translated from Hebrew, opens a window into the reporting process on the controversial story and suggests that The New York Times’s mission was to bolster a predetermined narrative.

In a response to The Intercept’s questions about Schwartz’s podcast interview, a spokesperson for the New York Times walked back the blockbuster article’s framing that evidence shows Hamas had weaponized sexual violence to a softer claim that “there may have been systematic use of sexual assault.”

Times International editor Phil Pan said in a statement that he stands by the work. “Ms. Schwartz was part of a rigorous reporting and editing process,” he said. “She made valuable contributions and we saw no evidence of bias in her work. We remain confident in the accuracy of our reporting and stand by the team’s investigation. But as we have said, her ‘likes’ of offensive and opinionated social media posts, predating her work with us, are unacceptable.”

After this story was published, Schwartz, who did not respond to a request for comment, tweeted to thank the Times for “standing behind the important stories we have published.” She added, “The recent attacks against me will not deter me from continuing my work.” Addressing her social media activity, Schwartz said, “I understand why people who do not know me were offended by the inadvertent ‘like’ I pressed on 10/7 and I apologize for that.” At least three of her “likes” have been the subject of public scrutiny.

In the podcast interview, Schwartz details her extensive efforts to get confirmation from Israeli hospitals, rape crisis centers, trauma recovery facilities, and sex assault hotlines in Israel, as well as her inability to get a single confirmation from any of them. “She was told there had been no complaints made of sexual assaults,” the Times spokesperson acknowledged after The Intercept brought the Channel 12 podcast episode to the paper’s attention. “This however was just the very first step of her research. She then describes the unfolding of evidence, testimonies, and eventual evidence that there may have been systematic use of sexual assault,” the spokesperson asserted. “She details her research steps and emphasizes the Times’s strict standards to corroborate evidence, and meetings with reporters and editors to discuss probing questions and think critically about the story.”

The question has never been whether individual acts of sexual assault may have occurred on October 7. Rape is not uncommon in war, and there were also several hundred civilians who poured into Israel from Gaza that day in a “second wave,” contributing to and participating in the mayhem and violence. The central issue is whether the New York Times presented solid evidence to support its claim that there were newly reported details “establishing that the attacks against women were not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence on Oct. 7” — a claim stated in the headline that Hamas deliberately deployed sexual violence as a weapon of war.

Schwartz began her work on the violence of October 7 where one would expect, by calling around to the designated “Room 4” facilities in 11 Israeli hospitals that examine and treat potential victims of sexual violence, including rape. “First thing I called them all, and they told me, ‘No, no complaint of sexual assault was received,’” she recalled in the podcast interview. “I had a lot of interviews which didn’t lead anywhere. Like, I would go to all kinds of psychiatric hospitals, sit in front of the staff, all of them are fully committed to the mission and no one had met a victim of sexual assault.”

The next step was to call the manager of the sexual assault hotline in Israel’s south, which proved equally fruitless. The manager told her they had no reports of sexual violence. She described the call as a “crazy in-depth conversation” where she pressed for specific cases. “Did anyone call you? Did you hear anything?” she recalled asking. “How could it be that you didn’t?”

As Schwartz began her own efforts to find evidence of sexual assault, the first specific allegations of rape began to emerge. A person identified in anonymous media interviews as a paramedic from the Israeli Air Force medical unit 669 claimed he saw evidence that two teenage girls at Kibbutz Nahal Oz had been raped and murdered in their bedroom. The man made other outrageous claims, however, that called his report into question. He claimed another rescuer “pulled out of the garbage” a baby who’d been stabbed multiple times. He also said he had seen “Arabic sentences that were written on entrances to houses … with the blood of the people that were living in the houses.” No such messages exist, and the story of the baby in the trash can has been debunked. The bigger problem was that no two girls at the kibbutz fit the source’s description. In future interviews, he changed the location to Kibbutz Be’eri. But no victims killed there matched the description either, as Mondoweiss reported.

After seeing these interviews, Schwartz started calling people at Kibbutz Be’eri and other kibbutzim that were targeted on October 7 in an effort to track down the story. “Nothing. There was nothing,” she said. “No one saw or heard anything.” She then reached the unit 669 paramedic who relayed to Schwartz the same story he had told other media outlets, which she says convinced her there was a systematic nature to the sexual violence. “I say, ‘OK, so it happened, one person saw it happen in Be’eri, so it can’t be just one person, because it’s two girls. It’s sisters. It’s in the room. Something about it is systematic, something about it feels to me that it’s not random,” Schwartz concluded on the podcast.

Schwartz said she then began a series of extensive conversations with Israeli officials from Zaka, a private ultra-Orthodox rescue organization that has been documented to have mishandled evidence and spread multiple false stories about the events of October 7, including debunked allegations of Hamas operatives beheading babies and cutting the fetus from a pregnant woman’s body. Its workers are not trained forensic scientists or crime scene experts. “When we go into a house, we use our imagination,” said Yossi Landau, a senior Zaka official, describing the group’s work at the October 7 attack sites. “The bodies were telling us what happened, that’s what happened.” Landau is featured in the Times report, though no mention is made of his well-documented track record of disseminating sensational stories of atrocities that were later proven false. Schwartz said that in her initial interviews, Zaka members did not make any specific allegations of rape, but described the general condition of bodies they said they saw. “They told me, ‘Yes, we saw naked women,’ or ‘We saw a woman without underwear.’ Both naked without underwear, and tied with zip ties. And sometimes not zip ties, sometimes a rope or a string of a hoodie.”

Schwartz continued to look for evidence at various sites of attack and found no witnesses to corroborate stories of rape. “And so I searched a lot in the kibbutzim, and apart from this testimony of [the Israeli military paramedic] and additionally, here and there, Zaka people — the stories, like, didn’t emerge from there,” she said.

As she continued to work the phones with rescue officials, Schwartz then saw interviews that international news channels began airing with Shari Mendes, an American architect who serves in a rabbinical unit of the Israel Defense Forces. Mendes, who was deployed to a morgue to prepare bodies for burial after the October 7 attacks, claimed to have seen voluminous evidence of sexual assaults.

“We saw evidence of rape,” Mendes stated in one interview. “Pelvises were broken, and it probably takes a lot to break a pelvis … and this was also among grandmothers down to small children. This is not just something we saw on the internet, we saw these bodies with our own eyes.” Mendes has been a ubiquitous figure in the Israeli government and major media narratives on sexual violence on October 7, despite the fact that she has no medical or forensic credentials to legally determine rape. She had also spoken about other violence on October 7, telling the Daily Mail in October, “A baby was cut out of a pregnant woman and beheaded and then the mother was beheaded.” No pregnant woman died that day, according to the official Israeli list of those killed in the attacks, and the independent research collective October 7 Fact Check said Mendes’s story was false.

After Schwartz saw interviews with Mendes, she was further convinced that the systematic rape narrative was true. “I’m like — wow, what is this?” she recalled. “And it feels to me like it’s starting to approach a plurality, even if you don’t know which numbers to put on it yet.”

At the same time, Schwartz said that she felt conflicted at times, wondering if she was becoming convinced of the truth of the overarching story precisely because she was looking for evidence to support the claim. “I kept wondering all the time, whether if I just hear about rape and see rape and think about it, whether that’s just because I’m leading toward that,” she said. She pushed those doubts aside. By the time Schwartz interviewed Mendes, the IDF reservist’s story had ricocheted around the world and been conclusively debunked: No baby was cut from a mother and beheaded. Yet Schwartz and the New York Times would go on to rely on Mendes’s testimony, as well as those of other witnesses with track records of making unreliable claims and lacking forensic credentials. No mention was made of questions about Mendes’s credibility.

How Schwartz landed in such an extraordinary position at a crucial moment in the war is not entirely clear. Prior to joining the Times as a stringer last fall, Sella was a freelance journalist covering stories on issues ranging from “food, photography, and culture to peace efforts, economics, and the occupation,” according to his LinkedIn profile. Sella’s first collaboration with Gettleman, published on October 14, was a look at the trauma experienced by students at a university in southern Israel. For Schwartz, her first byline landed on November 14.

“Israeli police officials shared more evidence on Tuesday of atrocities committed during the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attacks, saying they had collected testimonies from more than a thousand witnesses and survivors about sexual violence and other abuses,” Schwartz reported. The story went on to quote Israel’s police chief, Kobi Shabtai, explaining a litany of evidence of gruesome killings and sexual assaults on October 7.

“This is the most extensive investigation the State of Israel has ever known,” Shabtai said in the Schwartz article, promising ample evidence would soon be provided.

When the Times later produced its definitive “Screams Without Words” investigation, however, Schwartz and her partners reported that, contrary to Shabtai’s claim, forensic evidence of sexual violence was non-existent. Without acknowledging the past statements by Shabtai in the Times, the paper reported that quick funerals in accordance with Jewish tradition meant evidence was not preserved. Experts told the Times that sexual violence in wars often leaves “limited forensic evidence.”

On the podcast, Schwartz said her next step was to go to a new holistic therapy facility established to address the trauma of October 7 victims, particularly those who endured the carnage at the Nova music festival. Opened a week after the attacks, the facility began welcoming hundreds of survivors where they could seek counseling, do yoga, and receive alternative medicine, as well as acupuncture, sound healing, and reflexology treatments. They called it Merhav Marpe, or Healing Space.

In multiple visits to Merhav Marpe, Schwartz again said in the podcast interview that she found no direct evidence of rapes or sexual violence. She expressed frustration with the therapists and counselors at the facility, saying they engaged in “a conspiracy of silence.” “Everyone, even those who heard these kinds of things from people, they felt very committed to their patients, or even just to people who assisted their patients, not to reveal things,” she said.

In the end, Schwartz came away with only innuendo and general statements from the therapists about how people process trauma, including sexual violence and rape. She said potential victims might be ashamed to speak out, experiencing survivors’ guilt, or were still in shock. “Perhaps also because Israeli society is conservative, there was some inclination to keep silent about this issue of sexual abuse,” Schwartz speculated. “On top of this, there is probably the added dimension of the religious-national aspect, that this was done by a terrorist, by someone from Hamas,” she added. “There were lots and lots of layers that made it so that they didn’t speak.”

According to the published Times article, “Two therapists said they were working with a woman who was gang raped at the rave and was in no condition to talk to investigators or reporters.”

Schwartz said she had focused on the kibbutzim because she had initially determined it was unlikely sexual assaults had occurred at the Nova music festival. “I was very skeptical that it happened at the area of the party, because everyone I spoke to among the survivors told me about a chase, a race, like, about moving from place to place,” she recalled. “How would they [have had the time] to mess with a woman, like — it is impossible. Either you hide, or you — or you die. Also it’s public, the Nova … such an open space.”

Schwartz watched interviews given to international media outlets by Raz Cohen, who attended the Nova festival. A veteran of Israel’s special forces, Cohen did multiple interviews about a rape he claimed to have witnessed. A few days after the attacks, he told PBS NewsHour that he had witnessed multiple rapes. “The terrorists, people from Gaza, raped girls. And after they raped them, they killed them, murdered them with knives, or the opposite, killed — and after they raped, they — they did that,” he said. At an appearance on CNN on January 4, he described seeing one rape and said the assailants were “five guys — five civilians from Gaza, normal guys, not soldiers, not Nukhba,” referring to Hamas’s elite commando force. “It was regular people from Gaza with normal clothes.”

In Cohen’s interview with Schwartz for the Times:

He said he then saw five men, wearing civilian clothes, all carrying knives and one carrying a hammer, dragging a woman across the ground. She was young, naked and screaming.

‘They all gather around her,’ Mr. Cohen said. ‘She’s standing up. They start raping her. I saw the men standing in a half circle around her. One penetrates her. She screams. I still remember her voice, screams without words.”

“Then one of them raises a knife,” he said, “and they just slaughtered her.”


It was this interview that gave the Times its title: “‘Screams Without Words’: How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on Oct. 7.” That Cohen had described alleged assailants as not being members of Hamas undermines the headline, but it remains unchanged. The Times did not address Cohen’s earlier claims that he witnessed multiple rapes.

Schwartz said in the podcast interview that, since the Times insisted on at least two sources, she asked Cohen to give her the contact information of the other people he was hiding with in the bush, so she could corroborate his story of the rape. She recalled, “Raz hides. In the bush next to him lies his friend Shoam. They get to this bush. There are two other people on the other side looking to the other direction, and another, fifth, person. Five people in the same bush. Only Raz sees all the things he sees, everyone else is looking in a different direction.”

Despite saying on the podcast that only Cohen witnessed the event and the others were looking in different directions, in the Times story Shoam Gueta is presented as a corroborating witness to the rape: “He said he saw at least four men step out of the van and attack the woman, who ended up ‘between their legs.’ He said that they were ‘talking, giggling and shouting,’ and that one of them stabbed her with a knife repeatedly, ‘literally butchering her.’” Gueta did not mention witnessing a rape in an interview he did with NBC News on October 8, a day after the attack, but he did describe seeing a woman murdered with a knife. “We saw terrorists killing people, burning cars, shouting everywhere,” Gueta told NBC. “If you just say something, if you make any noise, you’ll be murdered.” Gueta subsequently deployed to Gaza with the IDF and has posted many videos on TikTok of himself rummaging through Palestinian homes. Cohen and Gueta did not respond to requests for comment.

The independent site October 7 Fact Check, Mondoweiss, and journalists Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada and Max Blumenthal of The Grayzone have flagged numerous inconsistencies and contradictions in the stories told in the Times report, including the account of Cohen, who had initially said “he chose not to look, but he could hear them laughing constantly.”

Under pressure internally to defend the veracity of the story, the Times reassigned Gettleman, Schwartz, and Sella to effectively re-report the story, resulting in an article published on January 29. Cohen declined to speak to them, they reported: “Asked this month why he had not mentioned rape at first, Mr. Cohen cited the stress of his experience, and said in a text message that he had not realized then that he was one of the few surviving witnesses. He declined to be interviewed again, saying he was working to recover from the trauma he suffered.”

In addition to Cohen’s testimony, Schwartz said on the Channel 12 podcast that she also watched video of an interrogation of a Palestinian prisoner taken by the IDF whom she said described “girls” being dragged by Palestinian attackers into the woods near the Nova festival. She was also moved, she said, by a clip of an interview she watched in November at a press conference hosted by Israeli officials, the one that became the focus of her first Times article.

An accountant named Sapir described a lurid scene of rape and mutilation, and Schwartz said she became fully convinced there was a systematic program of sexual violence by Hamas. “Her testimony is crazy, and hair-raising, and huge, and barbaric,” Schwartz said. “And it’s not just rape — it’s rape, and amputation, and … and I realize it’s a bigger story than I imagined, [with] many locations, and then the picture starts to emerge, What is going on here?”

The Times report states they interviewed Sapir for two hours at a cafe in southern Israel, and she described witnessing multiple rapes, including an incident where one attacker rapes a woman as another cuts off her breast with a box cutter.

At the press conference in November, Israeli authorities said they were collecting and examining forensic materials that would confirm Sapir’s specifically detailed accounts. “Police say they are still gathering evidence (DNA etc) from rape victims in addition to eyewitnesses to build the strongest case possible,” said a correspondent who covered the press event. Such a scene would produce significant amounts of physical evidence, yet Israeli officials have, to date, been unable to provide it. “I have circumstantial evidence, but in the end, it’s my duty to find supporting evidence for her story and discover the victims’ identities,” said Superintendent Adi Edri, the Israeli official leading the investigation into sexual violence on October 7, a week after the Times report went online. “At this stage, I have no specific bodies.”

In the Channel 12 podcast, Schwartz is asked if firsthand testimonies of women who survived rape on October 7 exist. “I can’t really speak about this, but the vast majority of women who have been sexually assaulted on October 7 were shot immediately after, and that’s [where] the big numbers [are],” she replied. “The majority are corpses. Some women managed to escape and survive.” She added, “I do know that there is a very significant element of dissociation when it comes to sexual assault. So a lot of times they don’t remember. They don’t remember everything. They remember fragments of the events, and they can’t always describe how they ended up on the road and [how they were] rescued.”

In early December, Israeli officials launched an intensive public campaign, accusing the international community and specifically feminist leaders of standing silent in the face of the widespread, systemic sexual violence of Hamas’s October 7 attack. The PR effort was rolled out at the United Nations on December 4, with an event hosted by the Israeli ambassador and the former Meta executive Sheryl Sandberg. The feminist organizations targeted by the pro-Israel figures were caught flat-footed, as charges of sexual violence had not yet circulated widely.

Sandberg was also quoted attacking women’s rights organizations in a December 4 New York Times article, headlined “What We Know About Sexual Violence During the Oct. 7 Attacks on Israel” and whose publication coincided with the launch of the PR campaign at the U.N. The article, also reported by Gettleman, Schwartz, and Sella, relied on claims made by Israeli officials and acknowledged the Times had not yet been able to corroborate the allegations. A revealing correction was subsequently appended to the story: “An earlier version of this article misstated the kind of evidence Israeli police have gathered in investigating accusations of sexual violence committed on Oct. 7 in the attack by Hamas against Israel. The police are relying mainly on witness testimony, not on autopsies or forensic evidence.”

Israel promised it had extraordinary amounts of eyewitness testimony.
“Investigators have gathered ‘tens of thousands’ of testimonies of sexual violence committed by Hamas on Oct. 7, according to the Israeli police, including at the site of a music festival that was attacked,” Schwartz, Gettleman, and Stella reported on December 4. Those testimonies never materialized.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hammered on the theme in a December 5 speech in Tel Aviv. “I say to the women’s rights organizations, to the human rights organizations, you’ve heard of the rape of Israeli women, horrible atrocities, sexual mutilation? Where the hell are you?” The same day, President Joe Biden gave a speech in which he said, “The world can’t just look away — what’s going on. It’s on all of us — the government, international organizations, civil society, individual citizens — to forcefully condemn the sexual violence of Hamas terrorists without equivocation — without equivocation, without exception.”

The two-month-long Times investigation was still being edited and revised, Schwartz said in the podcast, when she started to feel concerned about the timing. “So I said, ‘We’re missing momentum. Maybe the U.N. isn’t addressing sexual assault because no [media outlet] will come out with a declaration about what happened there.’” If the Times story doesn’t publish soon, she said, “it may no longer be interesting.” Schwartz said the delay was explained to her internally as, “We don’t want to make people sad before Christmas.”

She also said that Israeli police sources were pressuring her to move quickly to publish. She said they asked her, “What, does the New York Times not believe there were sexual assaults here?” Schwartz felt like she was in the middle.

“I’m also in this place, I’m also an Israeli, but I also work for New York Times,” she said. “So all the time I’m like in this place between the hammer and the anvil.”

The December 28 article “Screams Without Words” opened with the story of Gal Abdush, described by the Times as “the woman in the black dress.” Video of her charred body appeared to show her bottomless. “Israeli police officials said they believed that Ms. Abdush was raped,” the Times reported. The article labeled Abdush “a symbol of the horrors visited upon Israeli women and girls during the October 7 attacks.” The Times report mentions WhatsApp messages from Abdush and her husband to their family, but doesn’t mention that some family members believe that the crucial messages make the Israeli officials’ claims implausible. As Mondoweiss later reported, Abdush texted the family at 6:51 a.m., saying they were in trouble at the border. At 7:00, her husband messaged to say she’d been killed. Her family said the charring came from a grenade.

“It doesn’t make any sense,”said Abdush’s sister, that in a short timespan “they raped her, slaughtered her, and burned her?” Speaking about the rape allegation, her brother-in-law said: “The media invented it.”

Another relative suggested the family was pressured, under false pretenses, to speak with the reporters. Abdush’s sister wrote on Instagram that the Times reporters “mentioned they want to write a report in memory of Gal, and that’s it. If we knew that the title would be about rape and butchery, we’d never accept that.” In its follow-up story, the Times sought to discredit her initial comment, quoting Abdush’s sister as saying she “had been ‘confused about what happened’ and was trying to ‘protect my sister.’”

The woman who filmed Abdush on October 7 told the Israeli site YNet that Schwartz and Sella had pressured her into giving the paper access to her photos and videos for the purposes of serving Israeli propaganda. “They called me again and again and explained how important it is to Israeli hasbara,” she recalled, using the term for public diplomacy, which in practice refers to Israeli propaganda efforts directed at international audiences.

At every turn, when the New York Times reporters ran into obstacles confirming tips, they turned to anonymous Israeli officials or witnesses who’d already been interviewed repeatedly in the press. Months after setting off on their assignment, the reporters found themselves exactly where they had begun, relying overwhelmingly on the word of Israeli officials, soldiers, and Zaka workers to substantiate their claim that more than 30 bodies of women and girls were discovered with signs of sexual abuse. On the Channel 12 podcast, Schwartz said the last remaining piece she needed for the story was a solid number from the Israeli authorities about any possible survivors of sexual violence. “We have four and we can stand behind that number,” she said she was told by the Ministry of Welfare and Social Affairs. No details were provided. The Times story ultimately reported there were “at least three women and one man who were sexually assaulted and survived.”

When the story was finally published on December 28 Schwartz described the flood of emotions and reactions online and in Israel. “First of all, in the paper, we gave it a very, very prominent place, which is, apropos all my fears — there is no greater show of confidence than being put on the front page,” she said. “In Israel, the reactions are amazing. Here I think I was given closure, seeing that all the media treat the article and treat it as something of [a] thank you for putting a number on it. Thank you for saying there were many cases, that it was a pattern. Thank you for giving it a title which suggests that maybe there is some organizing logic behind it, that this is not some isolated act of some person acting on his own initiative.”

Times staffers who spoke to The Intercept on the condition of anonymity for fear of professional reprisal described the “Screams Without Words” article as the product of the same mistakes that led to the disastrous editor’s note and retraction on Rukmini Callimachi’s podcast “Caliphate” and print series on the Islamic State group. Kahn, the current executive editor, was widely known as a promoter and protector of Callimachi. The reporting, which the Times determined in an internal review was not subjected to sufficient scrutiny by top editors and fell short of the paper’s standards on ensuring accuracy, had been a finalist for a 2019 Pulitzer Prize. That honor, along with other prestigious awards, was rescinded in the wake of the scandal.

Margaret Sullivan, the last public editor for the New York Times to serve a full term before the paper discarded the position in 2017, said that she hopes such an investigation will be launched into the “Screams Without Words” story. “I sometimes joke ‘it’s another good day not to be the New York Times public editor’ but the organization could *really* use one right now to investigate on behalf of the readers,” she wrote.

At some story meetings, Schwartz said on the Channel 12 podcast, editors with Middle East expertise were there to offer probing questions. “We had a weekly meeting, and you bring out the status of your work on your project,” she said. “And Times writers and editors who are concerned with Middle Eastern affairs coming from all kinds of places in the world, they ask you questions that challenge you, and it’s excellent that they do that, because you yourself, all the time, like — you don’t believe yourself for a moment.”

Those questions were challenging to answer, she said: “One of the questions you get asked — and it’s the hardest ones to not be able to answer — if this has happened in so many places, how can it be that there is no forensic evidence? How can it be that there is no documentation? How can it be that there are no records? A report? An Excel spreadsheet? You are telling me about Shari [Mendes]? That’s someone who saw with her own eyes, and is now speaking to you — is there no [written] report to make what she’s saying authoritative?”

The host interjected. “And you went at that stage to those official Israeli authorities, and asked that they give you — something, anything. And how did they respond?”

“‘There is nothing,’” Schwartz said she was told. “‘There was no collection of evidence from the scene.’”


But broadly, she said, the editors were fully behind the project. “There was no skepticism on their part, ever,” she claimed. “It still doesn’t mean I had [the story], because I didn’t have a ‘second source’ for many things.”

A Times spokesperson pointed to this portion of the interview as evidence of the paper’s rigorous process: “We have reviewed the wider transcript and it’s clear you’re persisting in taking quotes out of context. In the portion of the interview you refer to, Anat describes being encouraged by editors to corroborate evidence and sources before we’d publish the investigation. Later, she discusses regular meetings with editors where they would ask ‘hard’ and ‘challenging’ questions, and the time it took to undertake the second and third stages of sourcing. This is all part of a rigorous reporting process and one which we continue to stand behind.”

In her interview with the Channel 12 podcast, Schwartz said she began working with Gettleman soon after October 7. “My job was to help him. He had all kinds of thoughts about things, about articles he wanted to do,” she recalled. “On the first day, there were already three things on [his] lineup, and then I saw that at number three was ‘Sexual Violence.’” Schwartz said that in the initial aftermath of the October 7 attacks, there was not much focus on sexual assaults, but by the time she began working for Gettleman, rumors began spreading that such acts had taken place, most of it based on the commentary of Zaka workers and IDF officials and soldiers.

After the article was published, Gettleman was invited to speak on a panel about sexual violence at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. His efforts were lauded by the panel and its host, Sandberg, the former Facebook executive. Instead of doubling down on reporting that helped win the New York Times a prestigious Polk Award, Gettleman dismissed the need for reporters to provide “evidence.”

“What we found — I don’t want to even use the word ‘evidence,’ because evidence is almost like a legal term that suggests you’re trying to prove an allegation or prove a case in court,” Gettleman told Sandberg. “That’s not my role. We all have our roles. And my role is to document, is to present information, is to give people a voice. And we found information along the entire chain of violence, so of sexual violence.”

Gettleman said his mission was to move people. “It’s really difficult to get this information and then to shape it,” he said. “That’s our job as journalists: to get the information and to share the story in a way that makes people care. Not just to inform, but to move people. And that’s what I’ve been doing for a long time.”

One Times reporter said colleagues are wondering what a balanced approach might look like: “I am waiting to see if the paper will report in depth, deploying the same kind of resources and means, on the United Nations’ report that documented the horrors committed against Palestinian women.”
https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new ... october-7/


The above is discussed here:
Last edited by skinster on 04 Mar 2024 18:11, edited 1 time in total.
#15306384
skinster wrote:wat0n and his rape fantasies where there were none. He is doing that old Nazi trick of thinking repeating a lie makes it true - it doesn't.

The Intercept destroyed these Zionist lies that were featured in the New York Times. Even Israeli family members of victims of Oct 7. have called out the NYT lies about rape where there were none.

wat0n will continue spreading his lies like a good little neonazi who learned well from previous nazis. Because this is one way for Zionists to defend the indefensible (genocide). Lucky for us, their self-awareness is entirely lacking and Israel is increasingly a pariah state, even amongst Zionists who thought they were liberals..




The above is discussed here:


Just because you love mass rapes of women (but only if they're Jewish) it doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist.

I will reiterate this has also been claimed publicly by former hostages.

When will you stop advocating for rape?
#15306386
I am no fan of rape or mass rapes. If you read the report above, the people you trust on these rape fantasy stories ADMIT no evidence exists. So do Israeli rape shelters, police, hospitals, etc. I've bolded some of these parts of the report for people like you who are lazy and pretend to care. But mainly it's for the non-Zionists in the room to see what lies Zionists like you spread, in your poor attempt to defend genocide.

No hostages have admitted to being raped. One hostage, Mia Schem, claimed she was raped by her captor's "eyes" after reporting upon release that she was "treated very good". She's gone on to do big media shows that are clearly paying her a bunch, and today, was showing off a new nose job that she bought with those media gigs. She bought a fake nose to match the fake state she shills for..


The other hostage, Ogam Goldstein, only claimed other hostages were raped two months after initially reporting that her captors' "treat women like queens", that they refused to touch them with bare hands when they would arm-wrestle because their religion forbids them to touch non-family members. Her story changed after billionaire AIPAC tool Sheryl Sandberg offered her $$$$$$ to be in her film about made-up rapes.

If the rapes were happening all over the place and the above clutching at straws is all you have, maybe you should give up this nonsense? Stop with your rape fantasies...Zionists already are odious, do you have to add this shit to the mix too?

Yes. The answer is yes, you do. Because this is Zionism, the ideology of the most depraved that walk amongst us today..
  • 1
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 46

The only people creating an unsafe situation on c[…]

It very much is, since it's why there's a war in t[…]

Well here is how this is going to work Skinster. […]

Right..my unscientific claims like genes are actu[…]