ByCATHERINE PEREZ-SHAKDAM

JUNE 20, 2026 08:02

There exist atrocities so intentional they appear to stem from another era or even another kind of being. The deliberate deployment of sexual violence to exert political dominance stands among them.

History remains direct in its lessons. It demonstrates repeatedly that such acts form part of a deliberate strategy rather than random occurrences.

For an extended period Western observers preferred a straightforward narrative. Wartime rape was viewed as an unfortunate byproduct of disorder, arising when order breaks down and norms are briefly ignored. This view proved more palatable since it suggested accident over intent.

Evidence points elsewhere.

Bosnia did not drift into the establishment of rape camps. Rwanda did not witness widespread assaults on Tutsi women due to simultaneous loss of restraint among thousands. ISIS did not build a structured system of exploitation involving Yazidi women through oversight.

In every instance the violence served clear objectives. It shamed targets, forced displacement, spread terror, and dismantled social structures. The focus extended beyond physical harm to include cultural memory, group identity, and interpersonal connections.

Global legal frameworks eventually adapted. Courts in Arusha and The Hague acknowledged that rape can constitute elements of genocide and crimes against humanity. The United Nations recognized sexual violence as a possible strategy in armed conflict.

These recognitions arose not from abstract ideas but from accounts of those affected, scientific analysis of evidence, and recurring patterns that could not be overlooked.

Personal involvement with these topics proved deeply troubling.

Over years spent engaging with networks tied to the Islamic Republic of Iran, discussions emerged that exposed a detached view of authority. Force was considered not solely through losses or land gains but through its capacity to transform internal social dynamics. The approach prioritized mental effects ahead of battlefield outcomes.

The reasoning proved starkly practical.

Undermine sufficient confidence and groups start to divide.

Impose adequate disgrace and those harmed cease to communicate.

Leave individuals burdened with hidden injuries and they grow simpler to control compared to groups sustained by assurance and unity.

No explicit blueprint was required for the purpose to become evident. Suffering itself functioned as an instrument.

This concept challenges open societies because their tendencies lean toward rules and tangible assets.

They tally projectiles, financial resources, units, and movement across frontiers. They assess power through hardware and combat. Regimes of control frequently evaluate alternate factors: dread, degradation, reliance, and quiet.

Under this framework the human form serves as a vehicle instead of a destination.

This explains why communities recovering from organized sexual violence often appear marked in manners difficult for outsiders to grasp. Infrastructure can be restored. Votes can proceed. Money can stabilize. Yet households remain divided, young people carry unvoiced sorrow, and groups bear loads no treaty can easily remove.

Suffering endures across time.

It embeds in daily routines. It alters conversations at home, levels of trust, and which realities stay hidden.

The assault on the Yazidis offers one of the most evident recent cases. ISIS did not simply allow sexual enslavement. It documented, controlled, and justified it through doctrine. Administration and cruelty advanced in tandem.

Political Convenience

The same perspective applies when reviewing the Hamas-led assaults of October 7, 2023.

The United Nations Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict later concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe conflict-related sexual violence had occurred during the attacks and against hostages.

The core question no longer centers on whether these violations happened. It concerns why numerous bodies delayed acknowledgment and what such delays indicate about readiness to address brutality when it conflicts with political interests.

What allows a group to reach a stage where such behavior appears acceptable?

Extreme actions seldom arise alone. They develop where devaluing others becomes normal and aggression receives approval instead of limits. Gradually ideological influence can erode ethical limits until former impossibilities begin to seem allowable.

This differs from assigning blame to entire populations. Whole societies cannot be equated with the deeds of armed groups. Individuals keep choice even amid oppression. Yet ideas remain relevant. Frameworks that encourage animosity and glorify cruelty influence the ethical setting for decisions.

The difficult reality may lie in our own uneven approach.

The democratic sphere often addresses sexual violence with directness until political factors intervene. Certainty then fades. Certain victims receive immediate acceptance. Others face requirements that their pain meet some doctrinal standard to register.

The violation remains identical. Only the surrounding account shifts.

Such selectivity represents an ethical shortcoming.

Those responsible count on quiet, delay, discomfort, and rejection. They anticipate that open societies will find the topic too disturbing to examine openly. They depend on reporters, officials, and scholars concluding that select facts are better avoided.

We ought to frustrate those expectations.

The calculated application of sexual violence merits equivalent attention to digital attacks, financial pressure, or propaganda efforts. It aims to achieve outcomes bombs frequently fail to deliver: weaken a society internally until confidence yields to anxiety and disgrace.

An additional motive exists to address this matter directly.

When rape during conflict is viewed merely as stray lawbreaking the underlying structure of the act goes unnoticed. The actual objective often escapes attention. Frequently it targets not solely the person but the household that unravels later, the group that grows mute, and future generations that receive unexamined pain.

Society prefers to view its main accomplishments as structures, legal documents, or discoveries.

They may prove more basic.

The choice not to reduce another person to a tool.

The demand that respect outlasts doctrine.

And the firm conviction that certain deeds so damage our common humanity they require exposure, legal action, remembrance, and never dismissal as mere side effects of conflict.

The writer is the chief policy adviser of Stop The Hate UK.