They accurately outline the fact that claim of the NYT is not properly supported by facts. There was almost certainly sexual violence on Oct 7. It hasn't been established in an evidence based way that there was organized premeditated weaponization of sexual violence as a tool of war as is claimed in the article.
If you're going to cite the ICC arrest warrant for Hamas then you have to acknowledge the one they've issued to Netanyahu for using starvation as a weapon.
1 side have been subjugated for over 70 years through control over their land, air and sea - the other is a nation backed by the most powerful nations in the world, filled with a lot of foreigners that lay claim to that place due to something that happened 2,000 years ago.
Guess which side was deemed the baddies because they lashed out?
Was it premeditated weaponization of sexual violence as a tool of war?
The comment you replying to is not denying that it happened.
What if the weaponization accusation is just an embellishment added to suit a political narrative? Establishing its truth does require evidence, separately from the evidence of the violence itself.
That's even if we happened to find the narrative morally prevailing.
I have no idea what difference it makes if the rape was premeditated. The strategy employed by Hamas was to terrorize. You think Gaza should be invaded less harshly because her soldiers decided to rape in the heat of the moment?
Regardless of their initial intentions, I find it difficult to argue that these acts haven't served as a tool of war.
One must also acknowledge these acts were not isolated. I do not have concrete proof, maybe there is some out there, but the fact of the matter is that scale and their psychological effects are undeniable.
