According to documents, the ICC has no evidence of rape on October 7th

There are many troubling aspects to International Criminal Court Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan’s announcement on Monday that he is seeking arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and three leaders of the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas.

That he should accuse the leaders of legitimate resistance to the military occupation and equate them with the leaders of a criminal regime committing genocide is questionable enough – a topic that Justin Podur covers in an excellent commentary on the charges on his YouTube channel The Anti-Empire Project.

It is particularly bizarre that Khan would indict Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’s politburo chief and a civilian political leader who almost certainly played no role at all in planning the October 7 resistance operation.

This can only be aimed at delegitimizing Hamas in line with the political imperatives of the West. This could undermine Haniyeh’s constructive role as an interlocutor and mediator in efforts to negotiate a ceasefire, which Hamas is attempting to do in the face of ongoing US-backed Israeli opposition.

But that Khan accused Haniyeh, along with Yayha Sinwar, Hamas’ Gaza leader, and his military commander Muhammad Deif of sexual violence and rape, is absurd.

Even if it is only an allegation, the fact that the ICC prosecutor is making a formal charge will give the allegations more weight and credibility and will therefore fuel the idea that there is a factual basis for Israel’s completely debunked atrocity propaganda Hamas uses rape and sexual violence as a weapon of war.

What does Khan say?

Indeed, both Khan’s announcement and a report from an advisory panel of international law experts convened by the chief prosecutor indicate that as of October 7, Khan found no evidence of such attacks on which to base any allegations.

Khan’s charges against the Hamas leaders include “rape and other acts of sexual violence as crimes against humanity, contrary to Article 7(1)(g) (the founding document of the Roman State) of the ICC, and as war crimes under Article 8(2)(). e)(vi) in the context of captivity.”

Pay close attention to the words I have highlighted in the texts I have quoted.

Later in his announcement, Khan claimed that “there are reasonable grounds to believe that hostages abducted from Israel were held in inhumane conditions and that some were victims of sexual violence, including rape.” while he is held captive. We reached this conclusion based on medical records, contemporary video and documentary evidence, and interviews with victims and survivors.”

Khan then adds: “My office also continues to investigate reports of sexual violence on October 7th.”

That’s all he says about rape and sexual violence.

The ICC expert panel report contains a paragraph that mentions rape and sexual violence and contains very similar language.

The report states, regarding the three Hamas leaders:

“(S) seeks to charge them with war crimes such as rape and other forms of sexual violence, torture, cruel treatment and violations of personal dignity, as well as crimes against humanity such as rape and other forms of sexual violence, torture and other inhumane acts.” Acts for actions against Israeli hostages while they were in captivity. The panel takes note of the public prosecutor’s statement His investigation is ongoing, including with regard to evidence of sexual violence on October 7th itself.”

No evidence related to October 7th

What is remarkable here?

First, the allegations relate to rape and sexual violence only that such alleged crimes occur after October 7th against persons in captivity and not on October 7 as part of a systematic plan.

Second, Khan’s assertion that his office “continues to investigate reports of sexual violence committed on October 7” may be an acknowledgment that such investigations have not yet produced evidence that he deems capable of supporting the allegations.

But does this mean that Khan has enough evidence of rape and sexual violence against Israelis? in prison To justify charges against Hamas leaders?

Obviously we haven’t seen all the evidence Khan claims to have, but we can still assume with some certainty that this isn’t the case.

For seven months, Israel has waged an all-out propaganda campaign to enforce its October 7 rape allegations. Not only has it failed to identify a single credible victim or eyewitness to the October 7 rapes, but all of its atrocity claims of sexual violence that day have collapsed under scrutiny.

Even Physicians for Human Rights-Israel had to retract the false claims they had helped Israel spread – an attempt by a once-respected human rights group to restore credibility it had potentially fatally damaged by spreading atrocity propaganda.

Shift the focus to prisoners

With the October 7 rape allegations in tatters, Israeli propagandists have had to refocus on allegations that rape and sexual violence occurred in captivity.

For example, Israel’s UN Ambassador Gilad Erdan recently criticized the world body, claiming that “the Security Council and the UN have done nothing to free the hostages, who are subjected to rape and torture.”

And that became the central theme of the latest propaganda film Scream in front of the silence This was said by billionaire former Facebook manager Sheryl Sandberg.

We took a close look at the film and demonstrated in a recent episode of the live stream “The Electronic Intifada” that it is a fraud.

In our article, we also looked at the only concrete allegation that someone was sexually abused in captivity – that of former Israeli prisoner Amit Soussana. Her allegations are discussed in detail in the Sandberg film.

In his Monday statement, ICC prosecutor Khan did not mention Soussana or any other victim by name, but since she is the only person identified as a victim of an alleged sexual assault, it is reasonable to assume that her case is part of his file.

The only suspected victim so far

Starting in late March, Soussana’s story was heavily promoted The New York Times and the Israeli government’s propaganda apparatus in a seemingly coordinated campaign to reframe and revive the discredited narrative of sexual violence.

In the Sandberg film, Soussana describes a harrowing experience that she told him Just around March.

Soussana does not claim she was sexually assaulted on October 7th. She claims that during her detention in Gaza, one of her guards, whose name she gives as Muhammad, once forced her to perform an unspecified sexual act.

Soussana made this report public only months after her return from Gaza and as part of a media campaign Justthe Sandberg film and the Israeli government.

When Soussana first spoke to the media in January, she did not mention sexual violence. No other Israeli released from Gaza has claimed to have been attacked in a similar way.

Soussana does not claim that there are witnesses to what she allegedly experienced in Gaza, so it is impossible to verify or completely reject her claim – nor is it necessary to do so to judge Khan’s allegations against Hamas leaders.

The crucial point is this even if we consider Soussana’s report to be completely trueIt does not support the thesis that Hamas leaders ordered or carried out “rape and other acts of sexual violence as crimes against humanity” and “also as war crimes.”

Soussana describes how an individual, in an isolated situation and on a single occasion, exploits his power over her.

Nothing in their report supports, even if it is considered entirely true, the allegation that mass rape occurred on October 7 or against Israelis held captive thereafter.

Of course, as noted, it is possible that Khan has other evidence, but if such evidence existed, Israel would undoubtedly have already published it as part of its propaganda campaign. So far, the Soussana story is the most compelling case and remains the only case where the identity of a victim is said to be known.

Meanwhile, Khan has so far completely ignored the growing evidence of systematic sexual violence against Palestinians by Israel, including first-hand accounts from victims.

All of this underscores the political nature of Khan’s accusations against the Palestinian resistance leaders, accusations apparently aimed at blunting and diluting the impact of his necessary but belated and far from adequate accusations against Netanyahu and Gallant.

Keywords