NY Mag ‘Intelligencer’: Babies Without Heads May Not Have Been Beheaded

Nicholas Fondacaro
October 23rd, 2023 2:20 PM

Text to Speech

00:00 00:00
Font Size

Despite first-hand accounts from Israel Defense Forces (IDF) who liberated the kibbutz communities that were besieged by Hamas, independent journalists, and from the evidence shared by the (IDF), members of the liberal media (for some reason) still didn’t want to believe that Hamas terrorists had beheaded Jewish children. Over the weekend, one deranged journalist from New York magazine, “intelligencer” Eric Levitz insanely argued that the children discovered without their heads might not have actually been beheaded.

Levitz took issue with a statement from the forensic pathologists who noted that there were bodies without heads, although they were unable to tell in many cases if that was the cause of death or was done post-mortem. Either way, it was confirmed that Hamas had removed heads from many of their victims, including children.

 

 

According to Levitz, on Saturday, it was an “overstatement’ to say that babies were beheaded. He ridiculously argued that even though “the report established that babies were found headless” it only “lends plausibility to claims of beheading, but which does not prove them.”

On Sunday, he whined that people “have misconstrued this tweet as an apology for Hamas.” “It isn't; the tweet immediately follows one in which I highlight the fact that Hamas burned families alive. I recently wrote a piece expressing my moral revulsion at leftwing apologias for Hamas,” he wrote.

He even tried to play games with the definition of beheading:

The verb behead has multiple definitions, and is sometimes used to mean decapitate; the report indicates that Hamas did behead babies in that sense. But the term can also connote a form of execution using a knife, and we do not have confirmation of beheading in this sense.

 

 

To be fair, he pointed out that he has “argued that the fixation of some leftists on whether Hamas cut off the heads of infants was bizarre, since it isn’t any less morally hideous to shoot or burn an infant to death than to cut off their heads.” And provided evidence.

In a thread, Levitz proceeded to argue why he felt the need to nitpick over how Hamas had removed their heads:

Last night, I suggested that the recently published forensic pathologists’ report indicated that Hamas had cut off infants’ heads... But the report actually explicitly stated that the pathologists could not determine whether this happened. Rather, they said that it was possible that the infants had been mutilated by an RPG explosion... Thus, I felt an obligation as a journalist to correct that small point of fact.

He suggested that he felt obliged to frame the beheadings that way to deprive the actual Hamas apologist of “ammunition to those who wish to belittle the October 7th attacks... who could use my error to promote the idea that journalists were lying about the severity of the attack.”

 

 

“So, please understand that my insistence on precision about what exactly befell these murdered innocents is rooted in a mere concern for accurately representing the findings of the forensic pathologists' report,” he requested.

But all the evidence pointed to the fact that Hamas had removed the heads of babies, either killing them outright or mutilating their dead bodies. Quibbling over the timeline of when the heads were removed only served to open another line of attack for Hamas apologists to exploit and deny reality.

 

 

Levitz did make the correct point that “It is not better to burn a baby alive than to behead one. What matters is that irreplaceable lives were destroyed, each death opening a hole in the worlds of all who loved them.” But his actions didn’t help those trying to speak and show the truth to the world.

 

Donor Privacy Policy