‘Where Is the world?’ can’t apply only when victims of sexual violence are Israeli

Qusai Abu al-Kebash, who was featured in The New York Times article detailing his sexual assault by Israeli settlers.

Noa Epstein writes in Haaretz on 12 May 2026:

Two stories about sexual violence were published one after the other this week.

On Monday, Nicholas Kristof published an investigation in The New York Times detailing harrowing testimonies of rape, sexual torture and sexual humiliation of Palestinian men and women by Israeli security personnel and settlers – and the culture of silence and impunity that leaves such acts with almost no accountability.

On Tuesday, a report on sexual violence during October 7, published by the Civil Commission on October 7 Crimes by Hamas Against Women and Children, concluded that acts of rape, sexual assault and sexual torture during the October 7 attacks and the captivity period were systematic and widespread, and constituted a central component of Hamas’ assault on Israel.

Kristof’s investigation presents readers with an evidentiary foundation they can examine: personal testimonies, some given under full names and openly on camera, corroboration in certain cases, official responses and explicit caveats regarding what could and could not be verified. Not every detail has been conclusively proven, and Kristof himself does not claim otherwise. But he presents serious, meticulous journalistic work.

There should be no need to say this, and yet: on October 7, Palestinian Hamas terrorists and their accomplices committed unspeakably cruel acts against civilians in Israel – men, women and children. Murder, abduction, abuse and humiliation, including sexual assaults and likely acts of rape.

But that does not require us to accept the automatic and predictable reactions among Israelis to the The New York Times investigation: that everyone is antisemitic, that the Times hates Israel, that the whole thing is nonsense and “after all, they also published that photo of the Gazan baby with the genetic disorder.”

It would not be far-fetched to assume that some prominent Israeli journalists and pundits are already hard at work on columns proving “beyond doubt” that The New York Times is motivated by hatred of Israel and that the story is a complete blood libel.

Even if there are reasons to be critical of the Times, and even if there are good reasons to exercise caution with allegations this grave, that does not mean we should not read the investigation itself.

The Civil Commission report, published the day after The New York Times investigation, describes horrific sexual crimes committed on October 7 and while Israeli hostages were held in Gaza. It concludes that sexual violence was “systematic and integral” to Hamas’ assault.

There is no reason to trivialize these claims, but if we are interested in seriously discussing the matter, it must be said that the material available to the reader is limited. The report describes hundreds of testimonies, thousands of videos and photographs, and recurring patterns, but it does not lay out the raw materials, the chain of corroboration or the connection between each case and the broader conclusion to the same extent that the New York Times piece does.

And this is where the main difference lies: The Israeli report is about crimes committed by a terrorist organization against civilians. Kristof’s investigation focuses on allegations of systematic sexual violence carried out by people acting in the name of the state, inside its detention facilities or under the protection of the force it exercises.

The search for accountability, therefore, no longer ends with the individual perpetrator. It should reach commanders, police investigators, prosecutors, ministers and a society that decides whether to regard the perpetrators as criminals or heroes.

The case of Sde Teiman and Unit 100 is where that question ceases to be abstract and becomes practical. Kristof describes a detainee from Gaza who was hospitalized with a tear in his rectum, broken ribs and a punctured lung, as well as the political and public support later extended to the suspects. The Israeli response to the abuse becomes a signal to the abusers about what is permitted, what is forbidden and the repercussions of such violence.

It is a depressing story in which rape becomes a political weapon twice. First, when it is committed, to humiliate, subjugate and instill terror. And then a second time, when speaking about it becomes a ridiculous game in which each side brandishes “our” rape to silence “their” rape.

Instead of reacting with: “This is horrifying, it must be investigated, punished and prevented from happening again,” the prevalent response is now “They are liars,” or “Look what they did to us,” as though this were a football match.

Kristof opened his piece with a point that should be obvious: “Whatever our views of the Middle East conflict, we should be able to unite in condemning rape.” Those who asked the world, “Where are you?” should be able to hear that same question when it is directed back at us. So where are we?

This article is reproduced in its entirety