The White House was forced to walk back on president Joe Biden’s claim to have seen “confirmed pictures” of “terrorists beheading children” in Israel.
The Israel Defence Force previously claimed that at least 40 babies were killed in the Kfar Aza kibbutz over the weekend when the Hamas militant group launched an attack on Israel.
The army later clarified to Anadolu news agency that there was “no information confirming” allegations that “Hamas beheaded babies”.
I think it’s because there’s a lot of sensitivity about misinformation, which is typical in early war situations. This story is highly emotionally triggering in all the same ways that previously debunked propaganda pieces have been. Specifically, it is reminiscent of the ‘babies getting pulled out of incubators’ story that was instrumental in fomenting popular support the first US war in Iraq. It was later discovered to be complete fiction. That is not to claim that this story is untrue, but considering all the possibilities is very emotionally draining.
Also, the word of head of state holds a certain amount of weight.
When Steve on Twitter claims such a thing, not very credible. But the president of the United States is another level, you’d expect him to have more information thatn Steve on Twitter and to carefully choose his words on critical ongoing issues. That’s why this is a big deal.
And yes, the babies in incubators thing certainly casts another dark shadow on this.
Considering what we know (and can assume, extrapolated from that) about the United States intelligence capabilities (hi NSA analyst!), it’s all the more important for the President to avoid shit like making unverified claims (or at least being upfront about it if they are)
I don’t think any of the last 5 Presidents would have handled this any differently though; which is a fucking shame.
Then again, the state department and up needs to be ultra-Zionist or else, they dug themselves into that hole a long time ago, to the point where they can’t call out obvious genocide just because it’s being done by a close ally.
Just sucks for the civilians who were at this point mostly born into this conflict, indoctrinated by their side, and will be killed for it who probably just wanted to live their lives.
One example I got to know from one of my professors during my Bachelor’s where an author who published a story book about honor crimes in Jordan. Despite the setting, one proposed goal of this book published in 2003 was to make the war on Iraq more palatable for the US public.
It turned out that the entire book was a hoax. Its main goal was to make the middle east look like a terrible place for women thus justifying any invasions to “free” them. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jul/26/books.booksnews
And they thought they needed to lie to convince people of this?
Like honor killings don’t already happen and women aren’t already second class citizens, at best, in more than a few countries?
Yes, honor crimes happen in the Middle East. I grew up in Jordan so I would know.
However when the lives of these women only matters to fuel war, then we have a problem. I hope you understand that the problem was that the book was plagiarized to serve a political purpose. Instead it overshadowed the real suffering of real Jordanien women and victims of honor crimes.
Totally get that, yes. Well put.
So was it plagiarized or was it a hoax?
The correct term would be it was a hoax. People who read it immediately discovered the factually incorrect parts.