In this video Eli Beer (the head of Israeli EMS) tells ostensibly of personally witnessing many very gratuitous and gruesome, cruel war crimes like opening a pregnant woman’s stomach and stabbing the foetus inside before shooting the woman; beheading so many babies that the heads and bodies were no longer mutually identifiable; burning babies in ovens.

These, like reports of mass military rapes of Jewish women by Hamas, are common war propaganda tropes mainly favoured by Israeli media and information warfare units, seemingly rarely if indeed ever, corroborated by credible evidence, while the actually captured hostages upon release seem nearly and perhaps even indeed invariably to speak of their kind, humane treatment by their captors which casts substantial doubt on the incessant charges of gratuitous cruelties like beheading babies.

If this man was a civilian witness then I would expect there to not be much recourse against him for (quite gratuitously and extensively) lying presumably under oath to the U.S. legislature, because one cannot prove a negative, that the things he purported witnessing did not occur.

But he is not a common civilian, he is a uniformed EMS official who presumably visited and witnessed these scenes in the course of his official medical duties. Must there not be rigorous medical paperwork documenting these scenes and photographing the baby corpses, including, likely referrals to the coroners and post mortem examination reports, if only to conclusively identify the dead babies?

If these do not exist then it seems quite clearly to suggest that the man is lying through his teeth. Perhaps there is no political will among the necessary actors to prosecute him for these perjurious lies, but it seems like it would be possible to prove the offence or at least worth investigating.

In any event, what crime is committed by Mr. Beer, in case he can be shown to be lying? And what is the process for initiating proceedings for it?

  • Thanks Jen for informing me, but in this case I object to your edit as it impoverishes all of the nuanced aspects of the question out which invite future answerers to comment on the various aspects of the incident. I wouldn’t presume on their behalf that these aspects can all be so simplified and are not particularly relevant to anything which they might have to say in an answer. Jan 1 at 16:50
  • No, as this is stack law, it was implicitly a reference to the various aspects of the incident from a legal perspective Jan 1 at 17:20
  • Consider paragraph two presumptions or fictional premises then as many questions on here are fictional anyway. I don’t see how as question asker to impart facts that would be legally relevant if subject to judicial scrutiny other than by proffering my own understating of the extant evidence or “my assessment”. I certainly wouldn’t post a question using as premises someone else’s assessment which I don’t believe to be capable of withstanding judicial scrutiny, much less accurate. But the custom here seems Not to question question-askers’ assessments when it comes to questions of fact, as this Jan 1 at 18:03
  • Is law exchange, not fact exchange. Jan 1 at 18:03
  • 4
    It sounds like what’s “truly being asked” is off-topic here.
    – Sneftel
    Jan 1 at 19:24

1 Answer 1


You presume that what occurred was "lying... under oath to the U.S. legislature," and ask about the case where "he can shown to be lying." You ask whether that is an offence.

Yes, that would be an offence, assuming the requisite mens rea can be proven. See

Here some instances of people being prosecuted for these offences, including Michael Cohen (pleaded guilty), Roger Clemens (acquitted), and H.R. Haldeman (found guilty after trial).

These offences are "very difficult to prove." The Department of Justice says, regarding 1621 (and similarly for 1001):

The third element of a perjury offense is proof of specific intent, that is, that the defendant made the false statement with knowledge of its falsity, rather than as a result of confusion, mistake or faulty memory. ... the government must demonstrate the defendant voluntarily made the false statement with knowledge of its falsity. If the defendant believed his or her statement to be true when it was made, even though it was false, this essential element will not have been proven.

The D.C. Circuit approved of the following jury instruction in United States v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31 (D.C. Cir. 1976)

A Defendant may not be found guilty of perjury simply because he gives testimony which is factually incorrect. He may have given incorrect testimony because of surprise, confusion, inadvertence, honest mistake of facts, carelessness or negligence. Also, if a Defendant believed a statement to be true when he made it, you must find that Defendant not guilty, even if it so happens that the statement was, in fact, false.

To initiate proceedings, a federal prosecutor would convene a grand jury and seek issuance of an indictment.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .