Well think about it for a moment. What I mean is that they already know that they will be accused of lying regardless, so why bother “fabricating” an ambiguous account when they could just as easily lie and claim that they found a giant Hamas command center?
In other words, they have no incentive to lie about the attack having achieved ambiguous results unless they are actually telling the truth. If you are going to lie, and if you know you won’t be believed regardless, why not go whole hog?
Again, they have no incentive to half-ass it unless they’re simply stating the truth.
If they don’t have something believable then the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement will cut off their Western support and see them on trial in the Hague.
Getting the lie right or persuading the world they really really did believe this has literal existential consequences for the politicians and generals.
Well think about it for a moment. What I mean is that they already know that they will be accused of lying regardless, so why bother “fabricating” an ambiguous account when they could just as easily lie and claim that they found a giant Hamas command center?
In other words, they have no incentive to lie about the attack having achieved ambiguous results unless they are actually telling the truth. If you are going to lie, and if you know you won’t be believed regardless, why not go whole hog?
Again, they have no incentive to half-ass it unless they’re simply stating the truth.
If they don’t have something believable then the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement will cut off their Western support and see them on trial in the Hague.
Getting the lie right or persuading the world they really really did believe this has literal existential consequences for the politicians and generals.
Historians call that the Criterion of Embarrassment.