Noa Argamani, an Israeli woman freed from Hamas captivity in Gaza in June, said on Friday that her injuries were caused by an Israeli air strike during her rescue operation, not by a Hamas attack.

Speaking to diplomats from G7 countries in Tokyo on Wednesday, Argamani detailed her ordeal after she was taken captive by Palestinian armed groups during the 7 October attack. However, two days later, she issued a statement on Instagram, saying that some of her remarks had been misquoted and taken out of context.

Contrary to some Israeli media reports, Argamani clarified that she was not beaten or had her hair shaved by Palestinian fighters.

“[Hamas members] did not hit me while I was in captivity, nor did they cut my hair; I was injured by the collapse of a wall caused by an [Israeli] Air Force pilot,” she added.

  • TallonMetroid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    Clearly, this woman is Hamas. /s

    More seriously though, Hamas not mistreating her beyond the initial act of kidnapping makes sense. The entire purpose of taking hostages is to use the threat of harm as leverage. So there’s incentive to keep them in relatively good condition, because as soon as anything happens to them that leverage is lost. Of course, people don’t always remember that, and the whole thing relies on all parties involved at least pretending to act in good faith.

    • Manifish_Destiny@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      4 months ago

      Any idea why Hamas doesn’t execute hostages? Not to sound callous or anything. Just curious if you know if their religion forbids it or something

      • catloaf@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        4 months ago

        That would defeat the whole point of taking hostages in the first place.

        Seems they didn’t count on Israel being willing to kill hostages.

      • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        If they wanted to kill the hostages, they would have just killed them instead of taking them hostage. The whole point of a hostage is that it increases your power at the negotiating table. It gives you leverage. The hostage is something to trade in exchange for concessions, or the threat of harm to force the opponent’s cooperation. Neither of those work if the hostage has been killed or harmed, because any bargaining power you would have had from holding them goes right out the window as soon as the hostage is killed.

      • TallonMetroid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Keeping in mind that I’m not an expert on Islam by any metric, I don’t think there’s any religious prohibitions, because executing people was something that ISIS was notorious for. I’ll also note that this tendency was one of the reasons everyone else in the region dogpiled them.

        • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          ISIS has nothing to do with Islam. They is the Israel of Islam. Zionism is not Judaism. ISIS is not Islam. Almost everything ISIS does is strictly forbidden in the Quran.