You Should Know
YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.
All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.
Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:
**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities:
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
Credits
Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!
view the rest of the comments
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.
Strange so why would the UN require a real investigation to draw conclusions on rape?
The report has no investigative mandate. It contains the words of a woman named pramilla patten that desperately tried to help israel push rape propaganda but was not able to find any real evidence to do so. She was specifically invited by israel while israel blocked the UN team with an investigative mandate.
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.
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."
Very contradictory. You'd almost think that she is writing propaganda for israel here. And was specifically invited by israel to write propaganda.
Tell me again, why is israel blocking the actual UN investigation team that wants to investigate?
Consider reading the Finkelstein post again if you're having trouble with the deceiving legalise from Pattens report.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Yes the visit it has nothing to do with all of the NYT, AP, Guardian Reuters and other propaganda repurts being fully debunked and israel needing new ammunition to keep the rape lies alive
It is a sad state of affairs that someone with a degree in legalise is fully unable to read and comprehend anything said in reports. You should consider asking your university for a refund.
Then again, when I debunked the original NYT propaganda piece that everyone now admits is a massive hoax, another lemming told me they had a journallist degree and I should learn some media literacy because "The New York Times does the highest quality objective reporting"
I will end this conversation with a video of the woman you adore so much admitting herself that you are wrong
What? this doesn't seem like a statement that is relevant to our conversation, which is about whether sexual violence occurred on October 7th.
lol, I'll send a letter and see. I'd love for you to illustrate where my reading comprehension is bad, though. I just keep on waiting for you to prove your points, I guess.
Yikes, man. It's absolutely unreal to me that you are just blanket denying that there is any possibility that sexual violence occurred on a day where 1,200 people were murdered and thousands more injured by a decentralized group of combatants, many of whom don't believe that Israelis are real people. It does not do any credit to your argument that you are so vehemently opposed to accepting the possibility members of an armed group that perpetrated horrific acts against unarmed civilians across a wide period of time and space may have also raped people.
I watched the video. Seriously, where the fuck does it say anything about rapes not happening? Honestly, you keep saying this thing, and presenting evidence, but literally nothing you are showing me says what you're saying it says. Every single source you have posted says that that there is evidence of sex crimes. Every single one, including that video. Just saying a source proves your point doesn't mean that the source, yanno, proves your point.