Amit Soussana is the first former hostage to publicly say she was sexually abused in captivity. A U.N. report has said it found “clear and convincing information” that some hostages suffered “conflict-related sexual violence.”

Ms. Soussana, 40, is the first Israeli to speak publicly about being sexually assaulted during captivity after the Hamas-led raid on southern Israel. In her interviews with The Times, conducted mostly in English, she provided extensive details of sexual and other violence she suffered during a 55-day ordeal.

Ms. Soussana’s personal account of her experience in captivity is consistent with what she told two doctors and a social worker less than 24 hours after she was freed on Nov. 30. Their reports about her account state the nature of the sexual act; The Times agreed not to disclose the specifics.

. . .

For months, Hamas and its supporters have denied that its members sexually abused people in captivity or during the Oct. 7 terrorist attack. This month, a United Nations report said that there was “clear and convincing information” that some hostages had suffered sexual violence and there were “reasonable grounds” to believe sexual violence occurred during the raid, while acknowledging the “challenges and limitations” of examining the issue.

Archive

  • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
    32·
    8 months ago

    They’re everything you said, and also freedom fighters, at least at the present stage. They have the goal of a Palestine free from Israel occupation and aggression and take real action to make that happen. That’s pretty much what the bar for being a freedom fighter is, and doesn’t preclude them from being bad people otherwise.

    and they expressly wanted active violence to start once more.

    TBF in the case of Palestine active violence is the only realistic path to peace. Not via a military victory, but to gather the international community’s attention and lose Israel international support. The status quo where Israel one-sidedly blockades and airstrikes Gaza isn’t a desirable situation for Palestinians, because it’s become normal. It doesn’t make the news, spread the Palestinian cause or threaten presidents’ reelection campaigns. You’ll see this in the fact that while Gaza tends to take the forefront in news coverage of the conflict, the West Bank usually takes a backseat and even now is covered as an accessory to the situation in Gaza, because the West Bank doesn’t have much active violence.

    What I wanna say is: They want active violence because it works. There’s no path to peace without violence when the other side is a country like Israel. The IRA, ANC and Civil Rights Movement (where what pushed the CRA over the edge was riots following MLK’s death), among others, have thoroughly proven this.

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.worldEnglish
      42·
      8 months ago

      Violence works, but it needs to be correctly directed and well thought out. No group is able to succeed without allies. In all the cases you mentioned, the groups did not succeed because they conquered the ruling authority, but because the situation created a tent of allies, perhaps reluctantly, who also worked towards getting the injustice to stop.

      Peaceful, if annoying, protest against civilians. Violent protest against authority. And if there’s going to be hostages, you treat them as kindly and favorably as you can. Hamas would be in a far superior negotiating position if the released hostages were saying that they were treated kindly and cared for, they just weren’t allowed to leave. It would create a sharp dichotomy among the Israel’s where the government allowed hostages to be taken, but the actual kidnappers treated them better than the government.

      I confess, this topic is a conundrum to me. I’m conflict avoidant when it comes to irl issues, so you can imagine I’m a strong proponent of non confrontational methods and I believe they work. The issue of Palestine and Israel is one that really strains that worldview. Sometimes violence is necessary when an aggressor speaks no other language. But does that mean bystanders have to get hurt too? I really want the answer to be no. Maybe it’s just sad idealism on my part, I don’t know. I don’t want to have to believe that innocent people need to die for a greater good.