While the allegations are credible (off course they are, these are a bunch of violent men brutalizing civilians) they have been far from proven. But what has been pretty much debunked at this point is Hamas using sexual violence as a weapon of war.
We know what using sexual violence as a weapon of war looks like as we have plenty of evidence the Israel army doing exactly that and we have no evidence of Hamas doing it.
> some of that is the New York Times fault for mishandling a story
This is putting it mildly. The NYT propagandized these allegations to support a pro-Israeli narrative. What they did was not only lie about Hamas’ true crimes, but also use a horrible crime—which no doubt some victims of oct. 7 experienced—as a way to justify other horrible crimes, including other sexual violence committed by the IDF in the aftermath.
Nothing about this story has been debunked. Past that, there's no chance we're going to have a useful discussion resolving the issue. The bar we need to clear is simply civility and good faith; the term "debunk", like "misinformation", applied to anything other than things completely discredited, flunks both those tests. When the UN is going out of its way to say that Hamas has and continues to use sexual violence, you may retain the ability to keep debating the issue, but you've lost the use of the word "debunk".
We know what using sexual violence as a weapon of war looks like as we have plenty of evidence the Israel army doing exactly that and we have no evidence of Hamas doing it.
> some of that is the New York Times fault for mishandling a story
This is putting it mildly. The NYT propagandized these allegations to support a pro-Israeli narrative. What they did was not only lie about Hamas’ true crimes, but also use a horrible crime—which no doubt some victims of oct. 7 experienced—as a way to justify other horrible crimes, including other sexual violence committed by the IDF in the aftermath.