The Press Ombudsman has decided to uphold in part a complaint about an opinion piece published in October 2024 by The Sunday Times under the headline “Victims of Hamas’s sadistic sex attacks must not be forgotten”. The article deplores what it sees as the erasure from public memory of the sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas on women in Israel during its raids on 7 October 2023.
The Press Ombudsman wishes to advise readers of this decision that it contains explicit depictions of acts of sexual violence.
The complainant, Ms Edel Cox, is a member of Mothers Against Genocide and other Palestinian solidarity groups. She states that many of the Principles of the Code of Practice are not upheld by the publication and that specifically the piece breaches Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment), Principle 3 (Fair Procedures and Honesty), Principle 4 (Respect for Rights), Principle 5 (Privacy), and Principle 9 (Children). She calls on the publication to retract the article and issue an apology.
Ms Cox says that the article “is full of lies” and includes “false claims”. She describes as “bizarre and not based in fact” the claim with which the article opens, that “among the essential Hebrew translations found in the pocket of a dead Hamas terrorist after the October 7 attack on Israel was the phrase: “Pull down your pants”. She refers to an account the publication offers of the gang rape of a woman “as she begged to die; only when they were all satisfied did they oblige”, which she states is not backed up by evidence. She also states that there is no evidence to support the article’s claim that “sliced off breasts were tossed about like Frisbees”.
She raises the same objection to the statement that volunteers had to retrieve personal effects from bodies and that “sometimes that meant prising nose rings from faces that no longer had noses”.
She quotes the article’s claim that “the evidence of sadistic sexual violence … was overwhelming” and asks where this evidence is to be found. She states that many of the claims made by the publication were circulated on the internet after the October 7 attacks “and many have since been proven false”. She asks if the publication has assured that sources it cites are credible.
She says that the publication offers no evidence to support a claim that marches marking the anniversary of October 7 were antisemitic, and asserts that the Irish solidarity movement to which she belongs is anti-racist, that it includes the Jews for Palestine Ireland group, and that it does not tolerate antisemitism.
She refers to the publication’s references to a specific victim of the attack on October 7 and asks if the publication took account of the woman or spoke with her family.
She refers to the publication’s depiction of “a mob of baying, armed Hamas savages” and states that this is dehumanising, comparing it with the Nazis’ depiction of Jewish people in the 1930s as “Untermensch or subhuman”. She states that the article contains statements that are racist and could incite hatred. (The complainant attached the report of the UN’s Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict to her complaint.)
The publication denies that it breached the Code of Practice and declined to withdraw the article or apologise for it. It says it would “not shy away from” reporting eyewitness accounts of “unspeakable acts of sexual violence” which had, it notes, recently been confirmed in the report of the UN’s Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict which, it said, found reasonable grounds to believe that sexual violence occurred in multiple locations. It quotes the report’s statement that “the true prevalence of sexual violence during the 7 October attacks and their aftermath may take months or years to emerge and may never be fully known”.
It stresses that this is an opinion piece and is clearly labelled as such, and that it includes accounts of eyewitnesses and volunteers. It says the article did not label any “Irish or legitimate Palestinian solidarity groups antisemitic”. It notes the piece refers to “appalling atrocities” committed by Israel. It denies that the article could incite hatred towards Muslim and Arab populations.
Decision
Ms Cox raises fundamental issues rooted in the history and politics of the longstanding conflict between Israel and Palestine, and she includes in her complaint many serious assertions about issues raised in the article which are not presented in terms of a possible breach of the Code of Practice. The Press Ombudsman cannot adjudicate on the former, and nor can she address issues raised by the complainant that are not presented as a possible breach of the Code of Practice.
The freedom of the press, according to the Preamble to the Code of Practice, includes the right of the press “to publish what it considers to be news, without fear or favour, and the right to comment upon it”. The Press Ombudsman notes at the outset that the publication of strong opinion furiously stated is a matter of editorial discretion.
Principle 2.1 of the Code states that the press is entitled to advocate strongly its own views on topics, and this article does so. However, it is important to note that commentary must have its foundations in the truth insofar as the publication has been able to determine it. Principle 2.2 states that comment, conjecture, rumour and unconfirmed reports shall not be reported as if they are fact. The Press Ombudsman notes that the existence of the note with the translation for “pull down your pants” is reported as a fact. It is not attributed to any source. It is an unconfirmed report and breaches of Principle 2 of the Code of Practice.
The Press Ombudsman accepts the complainant’s assertion regarding the statement that “sliced off breasts were tossed about like Frisbees”. This is reported as a fact. At this point in the article there have been references to two separate sources, one a woman who was preparing bodies for burial – the article does not state to whom she gave her account – and one a witness who is said to have spoken to the publication. However, the statement complained about is not attributed to either of these sources or to any other source. It is a comment, conjecture, rumour or unconfirmed report presented as if it were fact. The Press Ombudsman finds that it breaches Principle 2 of the Code.
The Press Ombudsman makes the same finding in relation to the statement about volunteers “prising nose rings from faces that no longer had noses”. This is presented as a fact, but no evidence is offered and nor is it attributed to a source. It is a comment, conjecture, rumour or unconfirmed report reported as if it were fact, in breach of Principle 2 of the Code.
Principle 4 of the Code states that “everyone has constitutional protection for his or her good name” and that publications “shall not knowingly publish matter based on malicious misrepresentation or unfounded accusations”. The publication states that it does not label Irish solidarity groups as antisemitic. This is true of the article, which refers to “marches overseas”. However, the sub-headline of the piece states that: “The marches marking the anniversary of October 7 were antisemitic routs masquerading as concerned activism”.
The Press Ombudsman finds that the complainant is justified in interpreting this as an accusation which is inclusive of the Irish movement to which she belongs, and which is unfounded. The Press Ombudsman finds that the sub-headline is in breach of Principle 4 of the Code.
Both parties to this complaint support their arguments with reference to the Report of the UN’s Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict. The Press Ombudsman urges all publications to consider that report’s comment, quoted by the Sunday Times, that the full truth about the prevalence of sexual violence on 7 October 2023 “may never be fully known”. She also urges them to heed the report’s warning, quoted by Ms Cox, about “the risks of inflammatory rhetoric and sensationalised headlines escalating tensions, as well as media … compounding trauma and stigmatisation of survivors of sexual violence”.
Other parts of the complaint were not upheld
The Press Ombudsman is unable to consider significant parts of this complaint because they are not presented in terms of breaches of the Code of Practice.
Regarding Principle 1 of the Code of Practice, this requires the press to “strive at all times for truth and accuracy”. In terms of commentary, this means it must have its foundations in the truth insofar as the truth can be known. This presents serious difficulties in a conflict situation. Ms Cox complains about a number of statements in the article, particularly regarding the incidence of sexual violence, referring to them as untrue and inaccurate, or asserting that no evidence was provided and suggesting that it does not exist.
However, the Press Ombudsman notes that the UN report states that it has “reasonable grounds to believe that conflict related sexual violence occurred in multiple locations” and that its mission team found evidence which, while circumstantial, “may be indicative of some forms of sexual violence including sexualised torture, cruel inhuman and degrading treatment”. The report notes that the full truth has not yet emerged and “may never be fully known”. The Press Ombudsman has insufficient evidence to uphold this complaint in respect of Principle 1 of the Code.
The publication states that a list of particular examples of what it describes as “evidence of sadistic sexual violence” was provided by “one woman who helped prepare their bodies for burial”. A description of a gang rape and murder of a woman is said to have been provided by “a witness” who states that she watched these events. Another claim later in the article is attributed to a named volunteer. The publication has therefore in each case attributed this material to a source and has not claimed that the statements made are facts. These statements do not, therefore, breach Principle 2 of the Code.
The complainant refers to “numerous false claims” circulated on the internet and “an attempt by Israel to control the narrative”. She questions whether the publication is sure that its sources are “credible”. While the UN report confirms that there have been such false claims and while readers may be sceptical about the weight given by the publication to single sources, only one of whom is stated to have spoken directly to it, and only one of whom is named, the Code of Practice does not require that publications prove the trustworthiness of their sources.
In relation to the complaint of a breach of Principle 2 in relation to a named person, the Press Ombudsman cannot make a finding as she would need to have the permission of the person concerned to do so.
The Press Ombudsman notes that Principle 3.1 of the Code which states that the press “shall strive … for fair procedures and honesty in the procuring and publishing of news and information” refers to Principles 3.2 and 3.3. These state that material shall not be obtained through misrepresentation, subterfuge or harassment. She finds that the complainant provides no evidence that Principle 3 of the Code was breached.
The Press Ombudsman does not find that the complainant provides any evidence for stating that either Principle 5 or Principle 9 of the Code were breached.
This decision was appealed to the Press Council of Ireland.