We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Chris Cuomo/Image: Video screenshot

NewsNation host Chris Cuomo fact-checked Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)  over her comments on social media criticizing Israel’s use of exploding pagers to target Hezbollah terrorists. AOC also accused Israel of war crimes she says “unequivocally violates international humanitarian law.”

AOC shared on X, “Israel’s pager attack in Lebanon detonated thousands of handheld devices across of a slew of public spaces, seriously injuring and killing innocent civilians.”

“This attack clearly and unequivocally violates international humanitarian law and undermines US efforts to prevent a wider conflict. Congress needs a full accounting of the attack, including an answer from the State Department as to whether any US assistance went into the development or deployment of this technology.”

Cuomo called AOC out, saying, “She started by accusing Israel of a war crime for what they did to members of Hezbollah in Beirut, and then, asking for an investigation, accused them of a war crime, asked for an investigation.”

“Then she decided to get truthy and show that her claim that the exploding pagers were ‘clearly’ in violation of U.S. policy.”

Cuomo went on to quote AOC’s tweet, “‘This attack clearly unequivocally violates international humanitarian law, undermines U.S. efforts to prevent a wider conflict.’”

“And then she said it violates U.S. policy. Clearly, Israel is not one of the United States, so they don’t follow our laws or rules.”

“Second, if the representative was suggesting by that comparison that the United States should therefore not support Israel, good luck with that. And then, here’s what really bothers me about this salvo: She’s dead wrong. This is why you don’t accuse and then go in search of a crime.”

Cuomo also took issue with AOC quoting a Department of Defense manual on the law of war without adding important context.

“Here’s the part that she left out, oddly, the next section after the one she cited,” he said before reading directly from the manual. ” ‘The use of mines, booby traps, other devices is subject to the same rules and principles that govern the use of other weapons to conduct attacks.’”

“The rules include a prohibition against indiscriminate use of mines, booby traps and other devices. Indiscriminate. What does that mean? It means at all feasible precautions shall be taken to prevent civilians from the effects of mines, bobby traps and other devices, taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations.”

“The war manual even specifies an example of when booby traps are not prohibited. It would not be prohibited to improvise a booby trap, for example, to retard an enemy advance. What does that mean? Could mean a lot of things.”

“One of them certainly is a group of bloodthirsty terrorists coming from you. So, did she not read that part because she’s not a lawyer or not thorough or did intentionally not want to be fair? One is misfeasance, not doing your job well. The other is malfeasance, doing it badly on purpose.”

Watch: