Author Archives: Gavin Stollar

Liberal Democrats believe in universal human rights. The response to evidence of sexual violence on 7th October should be straightforward. Yet too often, when the victims are Israelis, the instinct to “believe survivors” suddenly becomes contested.

If rape is used as a weapon of war, liberals should have no difficulty condemning it. That should be true whether the victims are in Bosnia, Ukraine, the Democratic Republic of Congo – or Israel. And yet, in the aftermath of the 7th October attacks, a disturbing double standard has appeared in parts of Western political debate. Evidence that women were sexually assaulted during the massacre has not been met everywhere with solidarity or outrage, but with hesitation, scepticism and, in some cases, outright denial. For those of us who believe in universal human rights, that should be deeply troubling. If recognition of sexual violence depends on the politics of the conflict, the principle itself is hollow.

The attacks carried out by Hamas that day were among the worst terrorist atrocities in modern history. Around 1,200 people were murdered, and hundreds more taken hostage. Alongside the killings, evidence quickly emerged that sexual violence – including rape – had taken place during the assault. Investigators, journalists, first responders and eventually international bodies reported signs that women had been sexually assaulted during the attacks and while in captivity. And this week, the 7th October Parliamentary Commission publishes its second report into the atrocities committed that day. Its work matters because documentation and evidence are the foundation of accountability. Without them, atrocities risk being lost in political argument and misinformation.

For decades, progressives rightly pushed for a cultural shift in how societies respond to allegations of sexual violence. Survivors were too often dismissed, interrogated or disbelieved. Feminist activism taught that survivors should not be met first with scepticism, but with seriousness and compassion. Yet when Israeli women are among the victims, the standards of belief suddenly appear to change. Some who would normally insist on listening now demand levels of proof rarely available after mass atrocities. Where are the police reports, they ask. Where is the forensic evidence? Where are the witnesses willing to testify publicly? Anyone familiar with conflict-related sexual violence knows why those questions are so difficult to answer. Many victims were murdered. Crime scenes were not preserved because emergency workers were focused on saving lives and recovering bodies. Families understandably wish to protect dignity and privacy. These challenges are tragically common in wartime atrocities and precisely why international law has evolved to investigate and prosecute sexual violence in conflict through tribunals and the International Criminal Court. To treat them as evidence that crimes did not occur risks undermining that entire system.

Our Party is committed to liberal internationalism, so the response should be simple. Sexual violence in conflict is a grave violation of humanitarian law. It must be investigated wherever it occurs and whoever commits it. If we demand accountability in some conflicts but dismiss allegations in others because they complicate politics, we erode the credibility of the entire human rights system. The rule of law cannot function on selective outrage. Nor can feminist foreign policy succeed if empathy depends on the identity of the victim. Recognising sexual violence as a weapon of war and supporting survivors wherever it appears is not optional. Anything less is partisanship, not feminism.