Washington Post admits to faulty reporting on claim that Israel killed dozens of Gazan civilians at aide site
The Washington Post admitted Tuesday that a claim in its recent report that Israeli soldiers killed dozens of civilians in Gaza could not be verified.
The outlet shared a post on X stating it had updated its Sunday article to reflect that it could not verify that Israeli troops killed around 30 civilians near a U.S. aid site in Gaza. The previous version of the piece reported that the Israeli military had committed the killings.
"The article and headline were updated on Sunday evening making it clear that there was no consensus about who was responsible for the shootings and that there was a dispute over that question," the outlet's social media post read.
Huckabee Slams French-backed Palestinian Statehood Push At Un, Says Us-israel Are 'Inseparably' Linked
At least 26 Palestinians were reportedly killed and some 175 were wounded over the weekend as they made their way to receive food in the Gaza Strip, according to officials from the Hamas-run health ministry and witnesses.
Witnesses said Israeli forces fired on crowds around 1,000 yards away from an aid site run by the Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). A Palestinian journalist told the BBC that thousands of Palestinians had gathered near the aid site near Gaza's southern city of Rafah when Israeli tanks approached and opened fire on the crowd.
Read On The Fox News App
However, the IDF has disputed these allegations, saying they are "currently unaware of injuries caused by IDF fire within the Humanitarian Aid distribution site," adding that "the matter is still under review."
Israel Hostage Deal In Doubt As Hamas Adds Demands, Us Envoy Calls Terms 'Unacceptable'
"It is false and fabricated. All aid was distributed today without incident," the GHF said. "No injuries or fatalities as noted in our daily update sent out earlier. We have heard that these fake reports have been actively fomented by Hamas. They are untrue and fabricated."
However, as an editor's note in the updated Washington Post piece said, The Post had reported on Sunday that "Israeli troops had killed more than 30 people near a U.S. aid site, with the headline attributing the action to 'health officials.'"
"The article failed to make clear if attributing the deaths to Israel was the position of the Gaza health ministry or a fact verified by The Post," the note read.
The body of the updated piece reported the casualties, but this time, did not blame the IDF. It said, "At least 31 people were killed and another 170 wounded, most of them with gunshot wounds to the extremities and upper body, according to local health officials and medics who treated the victims."
Click Here For More Coverage Of Media And Culture
"While three witnesses said the gunfire came from Israeli military positions, the Israel Defense Forces denied the allegations, saying in a statement that an initial inquiry indicated that its soldiers did not fire at civilians while they were near or within the distribution site," the new piece added.
The editor's note confirmed that "The article and headline were updated on Sunday evening and for the print edition on Monday making it clear that there was no consensus about who was responsible for the shooting and that there was a dispute over that question."
It added, "The Post didn't give proper weight to Israel's denial and gave improper certitude about what was known about any Israeli role in the shootings. The early versions fell short of Washington Post standards of fairness and should not have been published in that form."
Reps for The Washington Post did not immediately reply to Fox News Digital's request for additional comment.Original article source: Washington Post admits to faulty reporting on claim that Israel killed dozens of Gazan civilians at aide site
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
22 minutes ago
- Forbes
Fusion Energy May Be The Key To World Hegemony
What would it take for the United States to lose its hegemony to a rising power like China? Right now, America appears to be ahead economically and militarily. However, there is a stark difference between America's national strategy (insofar as one exists) and China's. The US under President Trump calls for regression. It seeks to restore a manufacturing economy that peaked in the 1950s—like an elderly man trying to restore hair where it hasn't grown for decades. It is doubling down on domestic oil, gas and coal. Through tariffs, disparagement of NATO and aggression towards allies like Canada and Denmark, the administration has alienated partners that long supported a US-led world order. China, meanwhile, has a tremendous lead in developing the economy of the future. It has a near monopoly on rare earth minerals, which are needed for electronics, renewable energy systems, defense technologies and more. China leads in solar, wind and batteries, the energy systems growing at the fastest rate. It is ahead in electric vehicles, industrial robotics and drones as well. It probably has achieved parity in artificial intelligence and may surpass the US soon. If China were to take Taiwan, it would control the global market for advanced chip manufacturing. In the background, but probably most importantly, China may be on track to commercialize fusion energy before the US or its disgruntled allies. Unlike the US, China has no domestic energy industry with vocal lobbyists (and purchasable politicians) to slow progress. It is funding fusion as a national strategy while private fusion companies in the West are at the mercy of investors that, for the most part, chase low risk and quick returns. Fusion promises cheap, plentiful, baseload energy without carbon emissions. AI, data centers and industrial robotics powered by fusion would produce goods and services at much lower costs than value chains dependent on fossil-fired electricity. Militaries built on swarms of small, cheap, electronic drones and robots—powered by small, distributed fusion facilities deep underground, safe from attack—would have an edge over competitors using large, expensive, petroleum-powered vehicles with vulnerable supply chains. I cannot overstate the ramifications of China developing fusion first. As an analogy, imagine if Japan and Germany had uncovered vast reserves of oil at home in the 1920s. American and Soviet oil gave the Allies a strategic advantage over the Axis powers. Had the situation been reversed, World War II could have ended differently. While private fusion companies in the West have raised about $8 billion total, China is investing at least $1.5 annually into fusion projects—double what the US government spends. Japanese and German investments in fusion don't even come close. Canada, for the record, has no fusion funding strategy. Moreover, the government of British Columbia, home of industry leader General Fusion, seems not to understand the value of this crown asset.* On all fronts nuclear, China is leaping ahead. In April, its scientists added fresh fuel to an operational thorium molten salt reactor—a first. The thorium reserves found in Inner Mongolia, an autonomous region of China, could theoretically meet Chinese energy demand for thousands of years. The kicker: this reactor design originated in the US. As project lead Xu Hongjie put it, 'The US left its research publicly available, waiting for the right successor. We were that successor." Moreover, in January, China's Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) sustained a fusion reaction for 1,066 seconds, setting a new record. Its Burning Plasma Experimental Superconducting Tokamak (BEST) fusion reactor could come online by 2027 and is expected to produce five times the amount of energy it consumes. When BEST announces this milestone, Western fusion companies may be announcing that they've run out of funding. To China, fusion is not a startup project—it's a matter of national interest and security. Its scientists are patenting more fusion-related technologies than any other single country and graduating more doctorates in fusion-related fields. And because China is the top refiner and exporter of the critical minerals needed in fusion reactors (e.g., for magnets), no external force is going to slow their progress. In the meantime, China has a cheap gas station next door—Russia—supplying all the fossil fuels China could need in exchange for support in its war with Ukraine. That support includes critical minerals needed by Russian arms manufacturers. Is fusion energy, along with other Chinese-dominated technologies, enough to end US hegemony? In 1988, historian Paul Kennedy published The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, a book that tried to explain the relative success (and failure) of powerful states. According to Kennedy, their rise and fall '…shows a very significant correlation over the longer term between productive and revenue-raising capacities on the one hand and military strength on the other.' Essentially, states must balance economic prosperity with strategy. Technological breakthroughs are vital to both. Innovation creates wealth, which enables the state to invest in defense and win wars. While underinvestment in defense leaves the state vulnerable to other powers, overextension and overspending on defense can run an economy into the ground, leaving it unable to sustain a strong military. Now, picture a great power—China—with a military to rival the US and fusion reactors that provide virtually unlimited energy. Imagine the clout China would have in establishing ports, military bases and consumer markets around the world if it could license that fusion technology. A China that exceeds the US in energy, industry, intelligence, mobility and defense is positioned to usurp it. Of course, China could bungle its advantage. Authoritarian regimes have a habit of mismanaging internal dissent, falsifying reality and making preventable mistakes. The rise of China is inevitable, but the self-inflicted decline of the US and its allies isn't. Rather, it's a choice reflecting how societies invest their resources and envision their future. *Disclosure: The author is an investor in General Fusion and sits on its board of directors.
CNN
23 minutes ago
- CNN
Greta Thunberg speaks to CNN on a boat sailing to Gaza
Greta Thunberg, Yasemin Acar and other activists are sailing to Gaza. The activist group they're apart of, The Freedom Flotilla Coalition, is attempting to bring aid and raise international awareness over the ongoing humanitarian crisis. In response, Israel says it is prepared for a "wide range of scenarios."
Newsweek
28 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Trump Changes Top Middle East General For Strong Iran Hawk
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The U.S. has underlined the priority of maritime operations and integrated joint forces in the Middle East with the nomination of a naval officer as the region's top commander ahead of a potential confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program and other threats. President Donald Trump has nominated Vice Admiral Brad Cooper, currently the deputy commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), to be appointed to the rank of admiral and serve as its new commander. He has been a strong critic of Iran and supportive of Israel in the past. Only one Navy officer has previously commanded CENTCOM—Admiral William Fallon in 2007—while the role has traditionally been held by Army and Marine generals. Why It Matters Commanding U.S. operations in the Middle East is one of the military's critical roles amid ongoing tensions with Iran and with a fragile truce with the Yemeni Houthis, after the Iranian-backed group multiply targeted U.S. aircraft carriers in response to Trump's airstrike campaign launched in March. Trump has threatened to use military force against Iran if diplomacy fails to achieve a deal to curb its nuclear program. CENTCOM is further engaged in regional security efforts related to Gaza since the war that erupted following Hamas' 2023 October attack on Israel. Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq remain key theaters for CENTCOM's anti-ISIS operations. What To Know If confirmed, Adm. Cooper will succeed commander General Michael Kurilla, who is due to retire this summer. Kurilla, with an army background, has also been strongly critical of Iran. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has endorsed Cooper over Army General James Mingus, the presumed frontrunner, shifting away from Biden administration preferences, The Washington Post reported in April. A fierce critic of Iran's activities in the Middle East, Cooper has repeatedly identified it as a threats to regional security, navigation, and stability. As commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, he played a central role in Operation Prosperity Guardian, the U.S.-led multinational mission safeguarding Red Sea shipping lanes from Houthi missile and drone attacks from 2023. In 2024, he orchestrated the U.S. military's support for humanitarian aid to Gaza, through the establishment of a maritime corridor that boosted aid delivery without deploying troops on the ground, although it faced security challenges and quickly ended. Cooper had visited Israel in January to discuss U.S.-Israeli defense cooperation, according to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Cooper, a 1989 Naval Academy graduate, holds a master's in strategic Intelligence, studied international relations at Harvard and Tufts, and is a graduate of the Army Command and General Staff College. A recipient of the Admiral Elmo Zumwalt Award, he has led Navy ships and crews across key regions, served on the ground in Afghanistan, commanded U.S. naval forces in the Middle East for nearly three years, and led major Navy groups in the Atlantic, Japan, and Korea, including the USS Russell and USS Gettysburg. What People Are Saying Vice Adm. Brad Cooper said on CBS' 60 Minutes in 2024: "For a decade, the Iranians have been supplying the Houthis. They've been resupplying them. They're resupplying them as we sit here right now, at sea. We know this is happening. They're advising them, and they're providing target information. This is crystal clear." Pentagon's press release on Wednesday: "Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced today that the President has made the following nominations: Navy Vice Adm. Charles B. Cooper II for appointment to the grade of admiral, with assignment as commander, U.S. Central Command." What Happens Next His appointment is pending approval by the Senate Armed Services Committee.
