Documenting sexual violence isn’t about taking sides between Israel and Palestine

As a ceasefire and hostage release in the Middle East remains elusive, the United Nations Special Envoy on Sexual Violence in Conflict reported last week that there is “clear and convincing” evidence that Israeli hostages have been subjected to rape and sexualized torture. The report also confirmed that there are “reasonable grounds” to believe that rape and sexual violence occurred during Hamas’s brutal attack on Oct. 7, including but not limited to the Nova music festival grounds. 

The report is not a full U.N. investigation, but it is significant as the first extensive report by an external independent body on the use of rape and sexual violence since Oct. 7. Its publication is crucial for focusing attention on an aspect of the conflict that has been slow to come to light — and which risks continuing while hostages remain in captivity.

Detailed reports of widespread sexual violence emerged shortly after the Hamas attacks, but further investigation and verification has taken months. Israeli leaders criticized the U.N.’s initial silence on the issue, though Israel has been reluctant to allow a full U.N. investigation. The report team also noted the range of challenges in verifying claims, including lack of access, lack of trust from survivors and witnesses, and lack of forensic evidence.

At the same time, an unfortunate discourse of “rape denialism” has emerged in some pro-Palestinian circles, based in part on Hamas’s own rejection of the accusations. Some Palestinian sympathizers have questioned the rape allegations or blamed them on pro-Israel Western media biases. 

The reality is that crimes of rape and sexual violence are notoriously difficult to document or verify, even in non-conflict settings. In the U.K., for example (where I live), of the 70,000 rapes reported in 2021-2022, less than 2 percent resulted in convictions. In the U.S., the felony conviction rate for estimated incidents of rape is less than 1 percent.

In conflict settings, investigations are even more difficult and drawn-out. As was the case in Israel, there is often a lack of forensic evidence. In the immediate aftermath of Oct. 7, emergency workers were focused primarily on saving lives, identifying victims and returning bodies to families for burial. The nature of Hamas’s attack meant that forensic evidence was also limited by many bodies being burned and other victims taken hostage.

Alongside forensic evidence, investigators typically rely on the accounts of victims and witnesses. However, this is also further complicated in conflict settings where many victims are killed during or after the rape, as was reportedly the case in the Hamas attack. Of the surviving victims, while some do share testimonies, many are reluctant to do so due to the severity of the trauma, which can be exacerbated by responses of denial or disbelief.

For these reasons, skeptics are right that not all individual sexual violence claims can be verified. It’s also the case that — during both war and peace — there are occasionally false claims. That’s why preliminary investigations like the U.N. report are necessary — to provide a broader picture of what most likely happened, based on the collective testimonies of multiple victims and witnesses and on the forensic evidence available.

The extent to which sexual violence was premeditated on Oct. 7 is still unknown. There are various motivations for conflict-related sexual violence. In some cases, rape is planned as a strategy or “weapon of war,” to terrorize or control the civilian population. In other conflicts, the lack of sanctions or discipline within particular units enables sexual violence, condoning it even when it is not the adopted strategy by the armed group’s leadership. In other contexts, individual perpetrators use rape as an act of revenge, viewing sexual conquest as a “spoil” of war or an expression of domination.

As for Hamas, we may never know if rape and sexual violence were planned elements of the broader attack, devised by leadership as part of a wider strategy of brutality, or if militants acted spontaneously on the day of the attacks. Systemic or not, however, the U.N. report establishes that rape and sexual violence were likely widespread on and after Oct. 7, and those claims deserve further investigation.

Acknowledging this fact need not be controversial. Some seem to suggest that giving credence to rape claims somehow justifies the war in Gaza, but this is not the case. However one views the Gaza War, or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, rape is not resistance. 

International law can provide a neutral reference point for addressing sexual violence. Rape is always a crime, but in conflict settings, it can also be a war crime and, when carried out systemically, a crime against humanity. International law has provided a necessary and useful framework for valid critiques of Israel’s assault on Gaza. The same corpus should apply to sexual violence.

Moreover, even in the absence of formal justice mechanisms or conviction, gathering testimonies and documenting accounts still matters for the victims, their families and all who have been victims of sexual violence — regardless of their nationality or their side in the conflict.

Julie M. Norman is an associate professor of Politics and International Relations at University College London and a senior associate fellow on the Middle East and International Security at the Royal United Services Institute.