TF
TruthOrFake
Fact Check: Israel wants to kill palestinian children.

Fact Check: Israel wants to kill palestinian children.

March 15, 2025•by TruthOrFake
?
VERDICT
Unverified

# Claim Analysis: "Israel wants to kill Palestinian children" ## 1. Introduction The claim that "Israel wants to kill Palestinian children" is a high...

Claim Analysis: "Israel wants to kill Palestinian children"

1. Introduction

The claim that "Israel wants to kill Palestinian children" is a highly charged assertion that reflects the intense and ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine. This statement suggests a deliberate intent by the Israeli state to harm children, a claim that requires careful examination of the context, evidence, and the motivations behind such statements. Given the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is crucial to analyze the claim through a lens of skepticism and to rely on credible sources for verification.

2. What We Know

The situation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has led to significant casualties, including among children. Various reports provide data on the deaths of Palestinian children due to Israeli military actions:

  • According to Human Rights Watch, at least 34 Palestinian children were killed by Israeli forces in the West Bank as of August 2023, marking a notable increase in violence against minors in that region 4.
  • Save the Children reported that 2023 has been the deadliest year on record for children in the occupied West Bank, with at least 38 Palestinian children killed 6.
  • A UNICEF report indicates that over 14,500 children have been killed in Gaza since the start of the recent conflict, highlighting the severe impact of the violence on the youngest population 8.

These statistics indicate a troubling trend of child fatalities in the context of military operations and conflict. However, they do not directly support the assertion of intent to kill children, as they do not provide evidence of a deliberate policy targeting minors.

3. Analysis

The claim's validity hinges on the interpretation of these statistics and the context in which they are presented. Several factors must be considered:

Source Reliability

  • Human Rights Watch and Save the Children are reputable organizations known for their advocacy and reporting on human rights issues, including the rights of children in conflict zones. Their reports are typically based on field investigations and testimonies, lending credibility to their findings 46.
  • UNICEF is a UN agency dedicated to children's rights and welfare, and its reports are generally considered authoritative in matters concerning children's health and safety 8.

Potential Bias

While the aforementioned organizations are credible, it is important to recognize that they may have inherent biases due to their advocacy roles. Their focus on human rights may lead to an emphasis on negative aspects of military actions without providing a comprehensive view of the complexities involved.

Methodological Concerns

The statistics presented do not clarify the circumstances surrounding each child's death. For example, many fatalities may occur in the context of military operations where combatants are present, raising questions about the nature of the conflict and the rules of engagement. Without detailed accounts of each incident, it is difficult to ascertain whether these deaths result from intentional targeting or collateral damage.

Contradicting Perspectives

Contrastingly, some sources argue that the Israeli military conducts operations with the intent of minimizing civilian casualties, including children. The Israeli government often cites the need to combat terrorism and protect its citizens from attacks, particularly from groups like Hamas, which has been accused of using civilian areas for military purposes. This perspective suggests that while civilian casualties are tragic, they are not indicative of a policy aimed at harming children specifically.

4. Conclusion

Verdict: Unverified

The claim that "Israel wants to kill Palestinian children" remains unverified due to the lack of direct evidence supporting the assertion of intent. While credible reports indicate a significant number of child fatalities in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, these statistics do not conclusively demonstrate a deliberate policy targeting children. The evidence primarily reflects the tragic consequences of military actions rather than an explicit intention to harm minors.

It is essential to acknowledge that the complexities of the conflict, including the presence of combatants and the nature of military operations, complicate the interpretation of these fatalities. Furthermore, the potential biases of reporting organizations and the absence of detailed incident accounts limit the ability to draw definitive conclusions about intent.

Readers are encouraged to critically evaluate information regarding this sensitive topic, considering the nuances and varying perspectives that exist within the broader context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

5. Sources

  1. Boukari, Y. "Gaza, armed conflict and child health." PMC. Link
  2. "Updates: Israel kills 2 children in Gaza, West Bank healthcare under..." Al Jazeera. Link
  3. "Statement by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children." UN. Link
  4. "West Bank: Spike in Israeli Killings of Palestinian Children." Human Rights Watch. Link
  5. "Children and armed conflict, Report of the Secretary..." UN. Link
  6. "2023 marks deadliest year on record for children in the occupied West Bank." Save the Children. Link
  7. "UN report on Israel's gender-based violence and genocidal acts against..." Amnesty International. Link
  8. "The conflict in Gaza has been particularly deadly for Palestinian children." UN. Link
  9. "More than a human can bear: Israel's systematic use of sexual..." UN. Link
  10. "Pain & suffering engulfs children in the State of Palestine & Israel." UNICEF. Link

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

đź’ˇ Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
âś“100% Free
âś“No Registration
âś“Instant Results

Comments

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

🔍
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: By quarterbacking Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing era in U.S. history The main reason Israel’s massive attack on Iranian leadership, nuclear facilities, and other targets came as a surprise is that no one believes American presidents when they talk about protecting Americans and advancing our interests—especially when they’re talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, U.S. presidents have wanted an accommodation with Iran—not revenge for holding 52 Americans captive for 444 days, but comity. Ronald Reagan told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but when the Iranians’ Lebanese ally Hezbollah killed 17 Americans at the U.S. embassy in Beirut and 241 at the Marine barracks in 1983, he flinched. Bill Clinton wanted a deal with Iran so badly, he helped hide the Iranians’ sponsorship of the group that killed 19 airmen at Khobar Towers in 1996. George W. Bush turned a blind eye to Tehran’s depredations as Shia militias backed by Iran killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq, while Iran’s Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad chartered buses to transport Sunni fighters from the Damascus airport to the Iraqi border, where they joined the hunt for Americans. Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative was the Iran nuclear deal—designed not, as he promised, to stop Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, but to legalize it and protect it under the umbrella of an international agreement, backed by the United States. That all changed with Donald Trump. At last, an American president kept his word. He was very clear about it even before his second term started: Iran can’t have a bomb. Trump wanted it to go peacefully, but he warned that if the Iranians didn’t agree to dismantle their program entirely, they’d be bombed. Maybe Israel would do it, maybe the United States, maybe both, but in any case, they’d be bombed. Trump gave them 60 days to decide, and on day 61, Israel unleashed Operation Rising Lion. Until this morning, when Trump posted on Truth Social to take credit for the raid, there was some confusion about the administration’s involvement. As the operation began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement claiming that it was solely an Israeli show without any American participation. But even if details about intelligence sharing and other aspects of Israeli-U.S. coordination were hazy, the statement was obviously misleading: The entire operation was keyed to Trump. Without him, the attack wouldn’t have happened as it did, or maybe not at all. Trump spent two months neutralizing the Iranians without them realizing he was drawing them into the briar patch. Iranian diplomats pride themselves on their negotiating skills. Generations of U.S. diplomats have marveled at the Iranians’ ability to wipe the floor with them: It’s a cultural thing—ever try to bargain with a carpet merchant in Tehran? And Trump also praised them repeatedly for their talents—very good negotiators! The Iranians were in their sweet spot and must have imagined they could negotiate until Trump gave in to their demands or left office. But Trump was the trickster. He tied them down for two months, time that he gave to the Israelis to make sure they had everything in order. There’s already lots of talk about Trump’s deception campaign, and in the days and weeks to come, we’ll have more insight into which statements were real and which were faked and which journalists were used, without them knowing it, to print fake news to ensure the operation’s success. One Tablet colleague says it’s the most impressive operational feint since the Normandy invasion. Maybe even more impressive. A few weeks ago, a colleague told me of a brief conversation with a very senior Israeli official who said that Jerusalem and Washington see eye to eye on Gaza and left it at that. As my colleague saw it, and was meant to see it, this was not good news insofar as it suggested a big gap between the two powers on Iran. The deception campaign was so tight, it meant misleading friends casually. It’s now clear that the insanely dense communications environment—including foreign actors like the Iranians themselves, anti-Bibi Israeli journalists, the Gulf states, and the Europeans—served the purpose of the deception campaign. But most significant was the domestic component. Did the Iranians believe reports that the pro-Israel camp was losing influence with Trump and that the “restraintists” were on the rise? Did Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi tell officials in Tehran that his colleagues from the Quincy Institute and other Koch-funded policy experts who were working in the administration had it in the bag? Don’t worry about the neocons—my guys are steering things in a good way. It seems that, like the Iranians, the Koch network got caught in its own echo chamber. Will Rising Lion really split MAGA, as some MAGA influencers are warning? Polls say no. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 84 percent of likely voters believe Iran cannot have a bomb. Only 9 percent disagree. More Americans think it’s OK for men to play in women’s sports, 21 percent, than those who think Iran should have a bomb. According to the Rasmussen poll, 57 percent favor military action to stop Iran from getting nukes—which means there are Kamala Harris voters, 50 percent of them, along with 73 percent of Trump’s base, who are fine with bombing Iran to stop the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. A Harvard/Harris poll shows 60 percent support for Israel “to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” with 78 percent support among Republicans. Who thinks it’s reasonable for Iran to have a bomb? In a lengthy X post attacking Mark Levin and others who think an Iranian bomb is bad for America, Tucker Carlson made the case for the Iranian bomb. Iran, he wrote, “knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran’s leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.” The Iranians definitely want a bomb to defend themselves against the United States—NATO, if you prefer—but that’s hardly America First. The threat that an Iranian bomb poses to the United States isn’t really that the Iranians will launch missiles at U.S. cities—not yet, anyway—but that it gives the regime a nuclear shield. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran closes down the Straits of Hormuz to set the price for global energy markets. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran wages terror attacks on American soil, as it has plotted to kill Trump. An Iranian bomb forces American policymakers, including Trump, to reconfigure policies and priorities to suit the interests of a terror state. It’s fair to argue that your country shouldn’t attack Iran to prevent it from getting a bomb, but reasoning that a terror state that has been killing Americans for nearly half a century needs the bomb to protect itself from the country you live in is nuts. Maybe some Trump supporters are angry and confused because Trump was advertised as the peace candidate. But “no new wars” is a slogan, not a policy. The purpose of U.S. policy is to advance America’s peace and prosperity, and Trump was chosen to change the course of American leadership habituated to confusing U.S. interests with everyone else’s. For years now, the U.S. political establishment has congratulated itself for helping to lift half a billion Chinese peasants out of poverty—in exchange for the impoverishment of the American middle class. George W. Bush wasted young American lives trying to make Iraq and Afghanistan function like America. Obama committed the United States to climate agreements that were designed to make Americans poorer. He legalized Iran’s bomb. So has Operation Rising Lion enhanced America’s peace? If it ends Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, the answer is absolutely yes. Further, when American partners advance U.S. interests, it adds luster to American glory. For instance, in 1982, in what is now popularly known as the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot, Israeli pilots shot down more than 80 Soviet-made Syrian jets and destroyed dozens of Soviet-built surface-to-air missile systems. It was a crucial Cold War exhibition that showed U.S. arms and allies were superior to what Moscow could put in the field. Israel’s attacks on Iran have not only disabled a Russian and Chinese partner but also demonstrated American superiority to those watching in Moscow and Beijing. Plus, virtually all of Iran’s oil exports go to China. With the attack last night, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing and dispiriting era in U.S. history, which began nearly 50 years ago with the hostage crisis. In that time, U.S. leadership has routinely appeased a terror regime sustained only by maniacal hatred of America, while U.S. elites from the worlds of policy and academia, media and culture, have adopted the style and language of perfumed third-world obscurantists. All it took was for an American president to keep his word.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: By quarterbacking Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing era in U.S. history The main reason Israel’s massive attack on Iranian leadership, nuclear facilities, and other targets came as a surprise is that no one believes American presidents when they talk about protecting Americans and advancing our interests—especially when they’re talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, U.S. presidents have wanted an accommodation with Iran—not revenge for holding 52 Americans captive for 444 days, but comity. Ronald Reagan told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but when the Iranians’ Lebanese ally Hezbollah killed 17 Americans at the U.S. embassy in Beirut and 241 at the Marine barracks in 1983, he flinched. Bill Clinton wanted a deal with Iran so badly, he helped hide the Iranians’ sponsorship of the group that killed 19 airmen at Khobar Towers in 1996. George W. Bush turned a blind eye to Tehran’s depredations as Shia militias backed by Iran killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq, while Iran’s Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad chartered buses to transport Sunni fighters from the Damascus airport to the Iraqi border, where they joined the hunt for Americans. Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative was the Iran nuclear deal—designed not, as he promised, to stop Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, but to legalize it and protect it under the umbrella of an international agreement, backed by the United States. That all changed with Donald Trump. At last, an American president kept his word. He was very clear about it even before his second term started: Iran can’t have a bomb. Trump wanted it to go peacefully, but he warned that if the Iranians didn’t agree to dismantle their program entirely, they’d be bombed. Maybe Israel would do it, maybe the United States, maybe both, but in any case, they’d be bombed. Trump gave them 60 days to decide, and on day 61, Israel unleashed Operation Rising Lion. Until this morning, when Trump posted on Truth Social to take credit for the raid, there was some confusion about the administration’s involvement. As the operation began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement claiming that it was solely an Israeli show without any American participation. But even if details about intelligence sharing and other aspects of Israeli-U.S. coordination were hazy, the statement was obviously misleading: The entire operation was keyed to Trump. Without him, the attack wouldn’t have happened as it did, or maybe not at all. Trump spent two months neutralizing the Iranians without them realizing he was drawing them into the briar patch. Iranian diplomats pride themselves on their negotiating skills. Generations of U.S. diplomats have marveled at the Iranians’ ability to wipe the floor with them: It’s a cultural thing—ever try to bargain with a carpet merchant in Tehran? And Trump also praised them repeatedly for their talents—very good negotiators! The Iranians were in their sweet spot and must have imagined they could negotiate until Trump gave in to their demands or left office. But Trump was the trickster. He tied them down for two months, time that he gave to the Israelis to make sure they had everything in order. There’s already lots of talk about Trump’s deception campaign, and in the days and weeks to come, we’ll have more insight into which statements were real and which were faked and which journalists were used, without them knowing it, to print fake news to ensure the operation’s success. One Tablet colleague says it’s the most impressive operational feint since the Normandy invasion. Maybe even more impressive. A few weeks ago, a colleague told me of a brief conversation with a very senior Israeli official who said that Jerusalem and Washington see eye to eye on Gaza and left it at that. As my colleague saw it, and was meant to see it, this was not good news insofar as it suggested a big gap between the two powers on Iran. The deception campaign was so tight, it meant misleading friends casually. It’s now clear that the insanely dense communications environment—including foreign actors like the Iranians themselves, anti-Bibi Israeli journalists, the Gulf states, and the Europeans—served the purpose of the deception campaign. But most significant was the domestic component. Did the Iranians believe reports that the pro-Israel camp was losing influence with Trump and that the “restraintists” were on the rise? Did Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi tell officials in Tehran that his colleagues from the Quincy Institute and other Koch-funded policy experts who were working in the administration had it in the bag? Don’t worry about the neocons—my guys are steering things in a good way. It seems that, like the Iranians, the Koch network got caught in its own echo chamber. Will Rising Lion really split MAGA, as some MAGA influencers are warning? Polls say no. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 84 percent of likely voters believe Iran cannot have a bomb. Only 9 percent disagree. More Americans think it’s OK for men to play in women’s sports, 21 percent, than those who think Iran should have a bomb. According to the Rasmussen poll, 57 percent favor military action to stop Iran from getting nukes—which means there are Kamala Harris voters, 50 percent of them, along with 73 percent of Trump’s base, who are fine with bombing Iran to stop the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. A Harvard/Harris poll shows 60 percent support for Israel “to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” with 78 percent support among Republicans. Who thinks it’s reasonable for Iran to have a bomb? In a lengthy X post attacking Mark Levin and others who think an Iranian bomb is bad for America, Tucker Carlson made the case for the Iranian bomb. Iran, he wrote, “knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran’s leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.” The Iranians definitely want a bomb to defend themselves against the United States—NATO, if you prefer—but that’s hardly America First. The threat that an Iranian bomb poses to the United States isn’t really that the Iranians will launch missiles at U.S. cities—not yet, anyway—but that it gives the regime a nuclear shield. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran closes down the Straits of Hormuz to set the price for global energy markets. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran wages terror attacks on American soil, as it has plotted to kill Trump. An Iranian bomb forces American policymakers, including Trump, to reconfigure policies and priorities to suit the interests of a terror state. It’s fair to argue that your country shouldn’t attack Iran to prevent it from getting a bomb, but reasoning that a terror state that has been killing Americans for nearly half a century needs the bomb to protect itself from the country you live in is nuts. Maybe some Trump supporters are angry and confused because Trump was advertised as the peace candidate. But “no new wars” is a slogan, not a policy. The purpose of U.S. policy is to advance America’s peace and prosperity, and Trump was chosen to change the course of American leadership habituated to confusing U.S. interests with everyone else’s. For years now, the U.S. political establishment has congratulated itself for helping to lift half a billion Chinese peasants out of poverty—in exchange for the impoverishment of the American middle class. George W. Bush wasted young American lives trying to make Iraq and Afghanistan function like America. Obama committed the United States to climate agreements that were designed to make Americans poorer. He legalized Iran’s bomb. So has Operation Rising Lion enhanced America’s peace? If it ends Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, the answer is absolutely yes. Further, when American partners advance U.S. interests, it adds luster to American glory. For instance, in 1982, in what is now popularly known as the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot, Israeli pilots shot down more than 80 Soviet-made Syrian jets and destroyed dozens of Soviet-built surface-to-air missile systems. It was a crucial Cold War exhibition that showed U.S. arms and allies were superior to what Moscow could put in the field. Israel’s attacks on Iran have not only disabled a Russian and Chinese partner but also demonstrated American superiority to those watching in Moscow and Beijing. Plus, virtually all of Iran’s oil exports go to China. With the attack last night, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing and dispiriting era in U.S. history, which began nearly 50 years ago with the hostage crisis. In that time, U.S. leadership has routinely appeased a terror regime sustained only by maniacal hatred of America, while U.S. elites from the worlds of policy and academia, media and culture, have adopted the style and language of perfumed third-world obscurantists. All it took was for an American president to keep his word.

Jun 15, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: President Donald Trump rejected a plan presented by Israel to kill Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in June 2025.
False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: President Donald Trump rejected a plan presented by Israel to kill Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in June 2025.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: President Donald Trump rejected a plan presented by Israel to kill Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in June 2025.

Jun 15, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Iranian media reported that five car bombs exploded in Tehran on Sunday amid ongoing tensions with Israel.
False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Iranian media reported that five car bombs exploded in Tehran on Sunday amid ongoing tensions with Israel.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Iranian media reported that five car bombs exploded in Tehran on Sunday amid ongoing tensions with Israel.

Jun 15, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Kremlin insider Kirill Dmitriev stated that he believed Russia could play a 'key role' in mediations between Iran and Israel, according to Russia's state news agency TASS.
True

Fact Check: Kremlin insider Kirill Dmitriev stated that he believed Russia could play a 'key role' in mediations between Iran and Israel, according to Russia's state news agency TASS.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Kremlin insider Kirill Dmitriev stated that he believed Russia could play a 'key role' in mediations between Iran and Israel, according to Russia's state news agency TASS.

Jun 15, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: President Trump said he remains open to Russian President Vladimir Putin taking a role as a mediator between Israel and Iran, stating, 'He is ready. He called me about it. We had a long talk about it.'
Partially True

Fact Check: President Trump said he remains open to Russian President Vladimir Putin taking a role as a mediator between Israel and Iran, stating, 'He is ready. He called me about it. We had a long talk about it.'

Detailed fact-check analysis of: President Trump said he remains open to Russian President Vladimir Putin taking a role as a mediator between Israel and Iran, stating, 'He is ready. He called me about it. We had a long talk about it.'

Jun 15, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: During an interview with ABC News on the same day, President Trump stated that 'it's possible we could get involved' in the military escalation between Israel and Iran.
True

Fact Check: During an interview with ABC News on the same day, President Trump stated that 'it's possible we could get involved' in the military escalation between Israel and Iran.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: During an interview with ABC News on the same day, President Trump stated that 'it's possible we could get involved' in the military escalation between Israel and Iran.

Jun 15, 2025
Read more →
Explore All Fact Checks
Fact Check: Israel wants to kill palestinian children. | TruthOrFake Blog