An Open Letter to Writers who are Signatories on the Writers Against the War in Gaza and that Organization’s Current Campaign of Rape Denial

Dear Friend,

Recently, I was made aware that Writers Against the War on Gaza (WAWOG) has again called for the retraction of the NYT story “Screams Without Words.” They do so in a reprehensible Instagram post that engages in rape denial. I was surprised to see that you are a signatory to this effort, and I expect that you lent your name to this organization early in the war and have since stopped paying attention to their campaigns. I’m asking you to pay attention now and decide if you still want to be a signatory.

Why Now, After Two Years?

Romi Gonen, who was held hostage for over 470 days, gave a detailed interview of her experiences while being a captive in Gaza that aired on Israeli TV on December 25th. Here is an excerpt from that hour long interview, which you can view here. But of course, all the trigger warnings. I haven’t been able to watch it for more than a few minutes at a time. It’ll probably be weeks before I’m able to finish it. Here is a brief, relevant clip:

It is not coincidental that WAWOG has re-upped their call for the NYT to retract the story detailing the systemic use of sexual violence by Hamas. It is clearly an attempt to discredit not just that reporting, but the stories of Roni Gonen and other former hostages who have made similar reports.

Is This Really Rape Denial?

Yes. Here are the ways in which this is, on its face, a case of rape denial.

1. The Language of “Atrocity Propaganda”

Cited Language: WAWOG and its signatories frequently refer to Screams Without Words as “atrocity propaganda,” “scurrilously reported,” and “immediately debunked.”

• The Bias: This language engages in absolute dismissal. By labeling the report as “propaganda” rather than “journalism with errors,” the post implies that the entire premise (sexual violence on Oct. 7) was invented solely to manipulate public opinion.

• Why It Is Denial: This framing ignores that the New York Times report was not the sole source of these claims. The UN Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict independently concluded there were “reasonable grounds” to believe rape and gang rape occurred. (And UN Special Reports are not known for being biased toward Israel.) Labeling the NYT story as “debunked propaganda” conveniently erases the UN’s separate, corroborating findings, effectively silencing the victims verified by international investigators.

2. The Accusation of “Manufactured Consent”

Cited Language: The campaign asserts that the article “manufactured consent for genocide” and was used to “launder genocide.”

• The Bias: This is a political deflection tactic. It shifts the focus from whether the violence happened to how the violence is being used politically.

• Why It Is Denial: While it is legitimate to criticize how governments use media narratives, arguing that the story itself is a tool of “manufactured consent” implies the violence was fabricated for that purpose. This contradicts the findings of the Association of Rape Crisis Centers in Israel (ARCCI), which found the sexual violence was “systematic and intentional.” To claim the story is purely a tool for war justification requires denying the verified reality that the violence actually took place.

3. The “Fabrication” Narrative

Cited Language: The posts often claim the story is “questionable, if not fabricated” and demand a full “retraction.”

• The Bias: It suggests that because specific anecdotes in the NYT reporting (like the “Gal Abdush” case) faced scrutiny or inconsistencies, the entire phenomenon of sexual violence is a lie.

• Why It Is Denial: A retraction is reserved for stories that are fundamentally false. Demanding a retraction—rather than a correction or editor’s note—asserts that the central thesis (that sexual violence occurred) is untrue. This directly contradicts the UN report, which found “clear and convincing information” regarding sexual violence against hostages. Treating the entire event as a “fabrication” due to journalistic imperfections is a standard tactic used to discredit survivors.

4. Weaponizing “Forensic Gaps”

Cited Language: The critique heavily focuses on the “lack of forensic evidence” (e.g., rape kits, autopsies) to argue the story is false.

• The Bias: This utilizes the “impossible standards” bias. It demands peacetime standards of evidence (preserved crime scenes, immediate autopsies) in an active war zone where bodies were mutilated, burned, or booby-trapped.

• Why It Is Denial: As noted by legal experts and the ARCCI, the absence of rape kits in a war zone is not evidence that rape didn’t happen; it is evidence of chaos. Framing this expected gap as “proof of deception” is a disingenuous argument designed to invalidate survivor testimony and circumstantial evidence that reputable bodies have accepted.

What am I Asking of You?

This letter does not ask you to abandon your position on the war. It asks you to recognize that the Instagram post in particular, and other social media posts by WAWOG, traffics in rape denial, and it asks you to consider whether or not you really want to be a signatory to rape denial. It implores you to consider what it would mean—for your readers, your colleagues, and for survivors everywhere—if you chose instead to affirm that rape and sexual torture on October 7 did happen, that they are unacceptable no matter who commits them, and that no just cause is advanced by denying or minimizing that truth.

I’m not asking you to tell me whether or not you did remove your name, and I’m not going to go back to check (in part, to be honest, because I suspect WAWOG simply won’t reply and won’t remove your name). I’m not making an ultimatum or a threat.

I’m just asking you to recognize Roni Gonen’s humanity, and the humanity of all the Israeli victims of Hamas’s violence, just as I have all along recognized the humanity of the Palestinians harmed and killed in this war. Welcome to the horrible reality of armed conflict: you cannot stand on any side and walk away unstained by the bloodshed. Denying the violence only makes you dishonest, not clean.