The BBC website report is relatively 'sanitised' , I read a report elsewhere which gave horrific details of the evidence. Don't read the details unless you feel you must (to know the truth, to bear witness perhaps?).
What struck me about this report, apart from the sickening facts about the rapes, was the grudging language used:
THE UN ENVOY focusing on sexual violence in conflict has said there are “reasonable grounds” to believe Hamas committed rape.
It took five months to come to this stunning conclusion.
I don't want to repeat some of the evidence that was finally accepted by the UN, but the state of the bodies of the women who were shot as well as raped - in some cases simultaneously - makes it glaringly obvious that this was gang rape.
But according to the UN report:
While this is circumstantial, she said the pattern of undressing and restraining victims “may be indicative of some forms of sexual violence”.
'may be indicative..'???? This is ridiculous to the point of offensiveness.
I've avoided commenting on the Israel-Hamas war, and in this case I'd prefer to think of Women from Group X being raped and killed by Men from Group Y because the wider context seems to colour otherwise sensible people from focusing on this awful crime against women. Yes yes it was terrible but look over there...
And worse still a hint of, Well they belong to Group X who are doing atrocious things to Group Y, so... they were asking for it by being from Group X in the first place?
This report is valuable because it records the facts - well, the ones 'indicative' enough for Pramila Patten - and it is a source that could never be accused of being biased in favour of Group X. Full stop. Nothing else positive to say about it.
Finally, my heart goes out to all victims of the war, whatever group they found themselves born into.