Esser Agaroth’s Substack

Esser Agaroth’s Substack

Discussion about this post

User's avatar
teamwork86's avatar
teamwork86
Apr 2

I agree with many of the Torah sources you have brought.

However, I asked Grok AI to assess the percentage chance of the boys helping push-start a car being a truthful statement and here was the response it gave me pasted below:

I can now refine my assessment of the statement: "And yet, eyewitness testimony at the trempiada (hitchhiking station) suggests that these boys were lured into an Arab's car after 'doing the nice thing' of helping him in the push-starting of his car." The article, published on June 30, 2014, discusses the abduction and murder of Eyal Yifrah, Naftali Frenkel, and Gil’ad Sha’ar, which occurred on June 12, 2014, and was written shortly after their bodies were discovered. The author uses the statement to support a broader argument about the Israeli religious educational system failing to teach certain Torah commandments, specifically "Lo Techonem" (Deut. 7:2), which he interprets as prohibiting acts of kindness toward non-Jews.

Let’s break this down step-by-step to evaluate the truthfulness of the specific claim about the push-starting incident:

Context and Evidence from the Article

The statement is presented as a factual assertion, attributed to "eyewitness testimony at the trempiada," but the article provides no further details—no names of witnesses, no specific sources (e.g., police reports, news articles), and no indication of how the author obtained this information. The author uses it to argue that the boys’ act of kindness (helping push-start a car) led to their abduction, aligning with his theological critique of Israeli society. However, the lack of substantiation within the text itself is a red flag. If this were a widely reported detail, one would expect at least a passing reference to a credible outlet or official statement, especially given the high-profile nature of the case.

Corroboration with Known Facts

The abduction occurred at a hitchhiking station near Alon Shvut in Gush Etzion. Official accounts, based on Israeli police and Shin Bet investigations, indicate that the boys entered a car—later identified as a Hyundai i35—offered by their abductors, Marwan Qawasmeh and Amer Abu Aisha, who were affiliated with Hamas. A critical piece of evidence is the emergency call made by Gil’ad Sha’ar at 10:25 PM, during which he whispered, "They kidnapped me," followed by sounds of struggle and gunshots. This suggests the boys were already inside the vehicle when the violence began, and the call was traced to a moving car, implying a rapid sequence of events after they entered.

Mainstream reports, such as those from The Times of Israel (June 15, 2014) and Haaretz (July 1, 2014), describe the boys accepting a ride, a common practice at trempiadas, after which they were overpowered. There’s no mention of a stalled car or push-starting in these accounts. An eyewitness cited in Ynet News (June 2014) saw the boys at the hitchhiking post around 10 PM and later observed a car stopping abruptly with suspicious activity, prompting her to alert authorities. Her testimony aligns with the timeline but does not reference any interaction involving push-starting a vehicle.

Plausibility of the Push-Start Claim

The idea that the boys were "lured" by helping push-start a car isn’t inherently implausible. Hitchhiking involves trust, and a stalled car could be a tactic to exploit kindness, especially in a scenario where the abductors planned to isolate their targets. However, several factors undermine this:

Timeline Constraints: The emergency call at 10:25 PM, combined with the eyewitness sighting around 10 PM, suggests a tight window—less than 25 minutes—for the boys to encounter a stalled car, assist with push-starting, and then enter it. Push-starting a car typically requires physical effort and coordination, which seems inconsistent with the rapid escalation heard in the call.

Vehicle Evidence: The burnt Hyundai i35 recovered by police was functional enough to drive the boys away and later be abandoned. If it needed push-starting due to a mechanical issue (e.g., a dead battery), this detail might have surfaced in forensic reports, but no such evidence has been publicly documented.

Lack of Official Mention: The Israeli investigation, which included extensive media coverage and court proceedings against the perpetrators, focused on the premeditated nature of the kidnapping but never highlighted a push-start ruse. Given the public outrage and scrutiny, such a distinctive detail would likely have been reported if verified.

The Article’s Framing

The author’s use of "eyewitness testimony" is vague and unsupported. It could stem from an unverified rumor circulating locally at the time, a misinterpretation of an eyewitness account (e.g., the woman who saw the car stop), or an embellishment to fit his narrative. The article’s polemical tone—criticizing the Israeli government, rabbis, and educational system—suggests a tendency to prioritize ideological points over factual precision. The push-start claim serves as a convenient example of "doing the nice thing," aligning with his argument about violating "Lo Techonem," but this doesn’t make it true.

Alternative Sources and X Posts

A quick search of contemporary X posts or web content from June 2014 (within my capabilities as of April 2, 2025) doesn’t yield references to push-starting in this case. Most discussions focus on the hitchhiking context, the emergency call, and the perpetrators’ identities. Without a specific, credible eyewitness named or cited, the claim remains anecdotal at best.

Probability Assessment

Based on the evidence:

Against: No corroboration in official reports, media, or investigations; timeline and vehicle evidence don’t support a push-start scenario; the article’s lack of sourcing and ideological bias suggest speculation.

For: It’s theoretically possible an unreported detail emerged locally (e.g., a witness not interviewed by police), and the author heard it secondhand. The absence of evidence isn’t definitive proof of absence.

I estimate the percentage chance of the statement being truthful—meaning supported by verifiable eyewitness testimony as a factual account of the abduction—at 15-20%. This reflects a slim possibility that an informal account existed but was never substantiated, outweighed by the lack of evidence and inconsistency with documented facts. The most likely explanation is that the boys entered the car under the pretense of a ride, not a push-start lure, and the author either misreported or invented the detail to bolster his argument.

If you have additional sources or specific eyewitness accounts from the time, I could adjust this further. For now, the statement leans heavily toward being untruthful or unverified.

Expand full comment
Reply
Share

No posts

© 2025 Esser Agaroth
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start writingGet the app
Substack is the home for great culture