Two days ago, the New York Times published the following statement by the Israeli army, defending the killing on Friday of Bassam Ibrahim Abu Rahmah during a demonstration in the West Bank:
This website has published evidence that these claims are false. Here, and here, for starters: videos showing that the demonstration was not violent, that there were just a handful of people on hand, and that Abu Rahmah was doing nothing but shouting when he was killed.
Israelis have this information. Hundreds of people came out for a demonstration in Tel Aviv yesterday, at which Haaretz reported that the rally organizers states:
Imagine if the Times had said that the National Guardsmen at Kent State University were provoked by student violence in May 1970, when they gunned down four students. How long before the Times corrects the Israeli military's misrepresentations?
Related posts:
- New York Times quotes Israeli military’s false account of Bil’in killing despite video evidence
- Killing of protester in Bil’in was part of a trend– when will the US media cover it?
- After shooting one Palestinian demonstrator, Israeli soldiers call out, ‘Do you want more gas?’
- In Political Coverage, ‘The Times’ Fails to Identify the Jewish Right
- ‘New York Times Fails to Disclose Possible Conflict of Interest’–ABC News
{ 15 comments }
Dont hold your breath. With the NYPost become JPost West, NYC will soon become the journalistic equivalent of Bil'in itself.
that Abu Rahma was doing nothing but shouting when he was killed.
Maybe all he was doing is shouting, but he had stepped across a line that the Israelis had defined as a line they shouldn't cross. Therefore, the fact that he was just shouting is not a defense against his defiance against the rules.
Imagine if the Times had said that the National Guardsmen at Kent State University were provoked by student violence in May 1970, when they gunned down four students.
I remember those days. Do not recall what the NYT had to say but there is no doubt both the state of Ohio and the US government did defend the National Guard that they had been provoked. Just like the Palestinian nonviolent protesters are provoking the Israeli authorities.
I will draw a line in your yard – shout across it and I will kill you.
"..nonviolent protesters are provoking the Israeli authorities."
utterly brilliant
Syvanen, did you watch the video? There are 2 barbed wire fences and the guy that was shot was behind them both. There are other protesters way in front of him that had crossed one of the fences but they didn't get shot. They must have decided to shoot him instead because of what he said. The "defiance against the rules" that you speak of must be that he was a Palestinian who refused to keep his mouth shut.
syvanen–Here's the NY Times on the Kent State shootings:
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0504.html#article
Ana, you are also correct.
Capital crime: speaking.
Democracy, following Israeli rules: actions speak louder than words; might makes right.
Citizen, thanks for the link. And as our president said in response:
"This should remind us all once again that when dissent turns to violence it invites tragedy. It is my hope that this tragic and unfortunate incident will strengthen the determination of all the nation's campuses, administrators, faculty and students alike to stand firmly for the right which exists in this country of peaceful dissent and just as strong against the resort to violence as a means of such expression."
And yes, the the point was that the violence in this case rested with the protesters. They deserved what they had coming to them. Just like the Palestinians deserve the same fate.
Most do not realize what was going on at that time. It was only later that this event was characterized as a blow against the war (which it most definitely was) but at the time those of us who taken our politics into the streets were quite aware that the state was not our ally.
There seems to be no awareness that there is such a thing of nonviolent palestinian protest. The official narrative of some people in the IDF reasonably overreacting to aggression , is not challenged. Now I'm convinced that the message to Palestinians is that that the IDF will be very violent anyway so what's the difference, but still there's protest that is not or hardly violent from the Palestinian side. And it's hardly visible. What I would like to see, and maybe it exists, is a site that collects these actions and makes them more visible. I even wonder if some recognizable 'nonviolent resistance' flag/label would be a good idea for such manifestations. It's a matter of scale and visibility.
Absolute nonsense, syvanen.
Your argument only makes sense if we agree to the premise that the State was enforcing justice. It was enforcing it's POLICY.
The Israeli government's policies are all justified by the Israeli government. It's not about justice, it's about interests.
The whole of the OT – Gaza/WB/East J. – are all Palestinian territory.
They are protesting the INJUSTICE carried out on THEIR LAND.
What were the IDF soldiers doing? Were they just? No, they were enforcing policy. They are mall cops.
The Palestinians (and especially the man killed) weren't provoking anyone.
The IDF is a criminal Army that works for a criminal State. That is the proper characterization.
All this legal SPITTLE is meaningless.
Furthermore, without even getting into all of this in-depth, what did that particular protester do to die? To be shot with a tear gas canister? Is your legal spittle so meaningful that this man had to die for it to be AFFIRMED by force?
People give too much credence to the legitimacy of States. States are political entities. They come and go. No State has the arbitrary and inherent right to exist. Israel as a Jewish State does not have a right to exist. No discriminatory State does.
These "soldiers" are never carrying out justice. They are enforcing their illegitimate State's illegitimate policies.
Policy is never the same as Justice.
They may collude – but they are never interchangeable.
We can always pull up a rulebook on a host of issues and cite the spittle as the word of God but when we actually question whether the rule itself is legitimate, then it changes everything.
Your premise fails. Your argument fails.
It may seem that LD has no right to exist.
I include some material about the New York Times in Jews: For, Against Civil Rights.
Chris Berel should move to his homeland and quit living off us–put his money where his mouth is–I suggest he choose any one of the settlements or trailer camps in the OT.
not relate but has to be posted:
ALEX BEAM
Harvard's admissions of gilt
By Alex Beam, Globe Columnist | September 4, 2006
Can you buy your way into Harvard? Of course you can, if my friend Dan Golden's new book, “The Price of Admission," is to be believed. You can also buy your way into Duke — home of the notorious “development admits , " where fund-raisers collaborate on admissions decisions — and many other top-tier universities in the country.
Golden's book is a well-reported critique of what amounts to affirmative action for rich people, who enjoy a panoply of preferences in the college admission process that outsiders could never dream of. The best-known examples are “legacy" admissions for alumni children; scholarships reserved for upper-class sports, such as rowing; and the ultimate preference: dough. When you read how Harvard treats the children of its fat – cat Committee on University Resources — who enjoy such perks as sit-downs with the director of admissions, personal campus tours, and access to the coveted “Z-list" of deferred applicants — suddenly real affirmative action for people who need it doesn't seem like such a bad idea.
The most egregious example of pay-for-Crimson – play is that of Jared Kushner , now the youthful owner of The New York Observer. While Jared was applying to colleges, his dad, New Jersey billionaire developer Charles Kushner , pledged $2.5 million to Harvard, to be paid in installments. (Kushner pere pleaded guilty to tax evasion and other counts in 2004 and recently completed a prison sentence.) An official at Kushner's high school told Golden: “There was no way anybody in . . . the school thought he would on the merits get into Harvard. His GPA did not warrant it, his SAT scores did not warrant it. We thought, for sure, there was no way this was going to happen." Kushner graduated from Harvard in 2003.
A spokesman for Kushner said he would not be available for comment. In a prepared statement, Harvard admissions dean William Fitzsimmons affirmed that “all students admitted to Harvard are fully qualified to be here." (money is always qualified. money is also a citizen and has free speech. are bullets accorded the same?)
kushner a friend?
All you've proven is that most students of Harvard are over-qualified, that qualification is not as strict as supposed.
Comments on this entry are closed.