• 0 Posts
  • 13 Comments
Joined 3 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 30th, 2024

help-circle
  • Yes you are right it repeats the “reasonable grounds” thing over and over and then undoes it by saying “lol we don’t actually have an investigative mandate and this report cannot draw conclusions. Our witnesses and evidence and not mentioned trust me bro but also you can’t trust me.

    Doesn’t say they can’t draw conclusions, only that the conclusions they draw do not have the same legal weight as other possible legal instruments. You’re also conflating their mandate and the evidence they collected; they don’t have a mandate sufficient to complete the investigation, but that has nothing to do with the evidence they did collect. Which says, in no uncertain terms, that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that sexual violence occurred. Let me be clear, again: NONE OF THAT MEANS THE UN HAS FOUND ZERO EVIDENCE OF RAPE ON OCTOBER 7TH.

    Very contradictory. You’d almost think that she is writing propaganda for israel here. And was specifically invited by israel to write propaganda.

    I’m sure Israel does want these crimes to be exposed. I’m also sure that the present government of Israel is a bad actor and is doing everything it can to subvert any critique against itself, while maximizing messaging critical of Hamas (and also minimizing any reports of its crimes).

    Tell me again, why is israel blocking the actual UN investigation team that wants to investigate?

    Because the government of Israel sucks, and any intensive investigation would certainly recover even more evidence of the various war crimes it has committed, which obviously amount to a lot more death and destruction than anything that happened on October 7th.

    Consider reading the Finkelstein post again if you’re having trouble with the deceiving legalise from Pattens report.

    Thanks, I have an advanced degree in international affairs, so I was trained by actual subject matter experts on how this stuff works. Dr. Finkelstein is not an expert in international law, which is why some of his critiques fall short, in my view, and explains why you don’t seem to understand that just because a team does not enjoy a robust enough mandate that doesn’t mean they don’t collect evidence. It just means they don’t have the proper mandate to collect all the evidence, and certainly not sufficient authority to make conclusions beyond certain evidentiary standards.

    I’d also remind you that the UN is an intergovernmental organization, and with a few very notable exceptions, no UN entity can operate outside the restrictions that a host country places on it.


  • Because a wider, better resourced, and long term investigation would be better equipped to collect and analyze evidence? Because a better structured and mandated team would likely have more access, credibility, and ability to undertake that assignment? Because, as the report discusses, it often takes years or decades for crimes committed during armed conflict to come to their conclusion, for myriad of reasons?

    Among other statements, here’s what the actual UN report actually said about just this: “As in other conflict-affected contexts, there remains a significant likelihood that the findings of the mission team, in terms of verified violations, only partially reflect the crimes actually committed. A more comprehensive assessment of the occurrence of conflict-related sexual violence in the context of the 7 October attacks would require a fully-fledged investigation by competent bodies with adequate time and capacity.” (Page 15, section C, subsection 56).

    Over and over again this report says that “there are reasonable grounds to believe that sexual violence occurred” on that day, in various settings. I’m not sure why you think that this amounts to “rape definitely did not happen.”

    And, since your counterargument rests on the idea that Pramilla Patten is just “a woman,” I think you should think about who and what she is: a legal expert, practicing lawyer, and judge who has been investigating gender-based violence for more than 20 years, and specifically sexual violence in conflict settings since 2017.


  • What? How does that say anything about what did or did not happen? This is about the mandate of the team, and, as I have been saying, means that there is more investigation needed. Please, highlight for me where the UN says that there is no evidence of rape. I think in this case it might be you who struggles with some of the nuances of legalese.

    Over and over again, it says that there “are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred at several locations across the Gaza periphery, including in the form of rape and gang rape, during the 7 October 2023 attacks. Credible circumstantial information, which may be indicative of some forms of sexual violence, including genital mutilation, sexualized torture, or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, was also gathered.”

    None of this amounts to “there is no evidence of rape.” What this means is that there needs to be more, sustained and explicitly mandated investigation before legal action should take place. This concept, I think, is called due process.






  • I’m not sure what you debunked, but based on our short interaction here you seem to deny that there is any evidence of sexual assault. Which is not true: there’s plenty of evidence, which I have you in another of my responses.

    What is true is that some of the reports of rape were untrue. Read the AP news article I linked, where they interview some of the people who actually made those initial reports and reconsidered them.

    I think it’s ok to acknowledge that both Hamas and the Israeli government have committed atrocities, and keep doing it. I can condemn both.

    Getting back to the point of the OP here, though: there are plenty of examples of Israel being criticized, that have survived moderation.

    I don’t know that I agree with the decision to ban ozma, but it does seem like it was at least openly discussed, and it doesn’t appear as if he was also banned from completely unrelated subs for his actions.

    Which, again, is a huge crux of the OP that you seem to be avoiding.




  • Can you tell me the time of your interaction happened so I can look it up in the mod logs, and the thread itself? Your comment seems fairly innocuous to me, and I would certainly be surprised to see that it is viewed as a hate crime.

    EDIT: I can’t see that return2ozma was actually banned in the mod log.

    Returnoozma posts the same stories over and over again, to as many subs as possible, and with a clear agenda that doesn’t seem to extend much past “Biden is bad.” They have also been called out for it repeatedly by the users there, and I have personally asked them to tone down the reposts. But it’s not as if they have their content constantly removed. It was overwhelming.

    If a community asks a user to ease up on posting the same content over and over, with a clear agenda, which seemed to be the case with oozma, then a ban seems appropriate.