French court reaches understanding of al-Dura case that contradicts two ‘NYT’ accounts

Israel/Palestine
on 89 Comments

Here is a measure of how different the European discourse of Palestinian victimization is from what we talk about in the United States.

Yesterday in Paris, a French media analyst who argued that the French TV footage of 12-year-old Mohammed al-Dura being shot at in Gaza in 2000 was staged and that al-Dura was likely still alive was convicted of defaming the network.

But only last month, The New York Times credited a new Israeli government report that makes similar claims: the footage was staged and al-Dura may be still alive. The Times did so twice, in pieces by two Israelis, Isabel Kershner and Shmuel Rosner.

So what is judged false in France is presented as the possible truth by our leading newspaper, publishing Israeli writers. And at the core of the matter is: the credibility of Palestinians, in the American view.

Yesterday’s news, from the Guardian

A French media analyst has been convicted of defamation for accusing a state television network of staging a video that depicted a Palestinian boy being killed in a firefight between Palestinian militants and Israeli forces.

The footage more than a decade ago galvanised anti-Israeli sentiment, and shaped perspectives of the Middle East conflict during the second Palestinian uprising. The al-Dura case has long stirred emotions in Israel, tapping into a larger sense of the Jewish state being victimised in the media.

The footage by France-2 broadcast on 30 September 2000, showed the terrified boy, Mohammed al-Dura, and his father amid a furious exchange of fire in the Gaza Strip. It then cut to the motionless boy slumped in his father’s lap. The report blamed Israeli forces for the death.

In a report issued in 2004, Philippe Karsenty said the footage was orchestrated and there was no proof that the boy had been killed.

France-2 sued for defamation, and after a long legal battle, a Paris court fined Karsenty €7,000 (£5,900). 

The first report in the Times last month, by Isabel Kershner, was titled, “Israeli Report Casting New Doubts on Shooting in Gaza.” The second, by Shmuel Rosner, was titled, “The Skeptic’s Curse” and described Rosner’s doubting the Israeli government at first, and now believing its version. Neither piece quoted a Palestinian, though both mentioned, deep down in the accounts, that the boy’s father had offered to exhume Mohammed’s body so that his wounds could be analyzed.

Kershner:

The Israeli government review suggested, as other critics have, that the France 2 footage might have been staged. It noted anomalies like the apparent lack of blood in appropriate places at the scene, and said that raw footage from the seconds after the boy’s apparent death seem to show him raising his arm. The government review implies that the boy could still be alive today, but does not elaborate on where it thinks he might be.

Rosner:

according to the government report, “in the final scenes the boy is not dead.”

89 Responses

  1. Justpassingby
    June 27, 2013, 10:07 am

    Anyone that have just spend a minute on this case knows that this kid was killed by israeli forces.

    Also, 300 kids killed in Operation Cast Lead were also staged according to the defenders of Israel?

    • Mike_Konrad
      June 27, 2013, 4:18 pm

      Anyone that have just spend a minute on this case knows that this kid was killed by israeli forces.

      If you are honest then watch this video:

      The Second Draft: al-Dura

      German forensic expert

      al-Dura Fraud

      Now maybe the event was NOT staged; but it was clearly manipulated.

      There is something wrong with the Arab version of the story.

      Maybe al-Dura is really dead; but it is not clearly if he was killed by Israel or by Palestinians bullets. I remember when the al-Dura case came out that, within 24 hours, there were pics up saying the Arab version of events was wrong.

      • ToivoS
        June 27, 2013, 8:12 pm

        You guys remind me of those fools that insist that a missile hit the Pentagon on 911. When asked what happened to all of those passengers on the manifest of the “alleged” plane they reply they are still alive somewhere.

        Mike Konrad you are one real hoot.

      • Woody Tanaka
        June 27, 2013, 9:34 pm

        Hoot? No, he’s like one of those pieces of garbage that claim that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz.

      • pabelmont
        June 28, 2013, 5:38 pm

        I liked the missile theory (I know, I know, we’re not supposed to be favorable to such in this space) BUT assuming there are airplane-borne bodies unaccounted for otherwise — are they accounted for by the airplane-struck-Pentagon idea? If there were numerous skeletons or what-not there, have the “missile theorists” failed to deal with them? Or are they supposed to have vaporized. (Forget).

      • talknic
        June 28, 2013, 4:07 am

        Mike_Konrad “If you are honest then watch this video: The Second Draft: al-Dura”

        Uh huh. Watched the videos — Anyone can speculate. But the idiot narrator pushes his wholly holey olde Hasbarrow right off the cliff..

        @02:41 says “two other cameramen caught the scene with Jamal and Mohammed behind the barrel that day”

        NO THEY DIDN’T THEY WERE GONE @ 01:15 or @ 01:58 or @ 02:24 or @ 02:26 or @ 02:34 .. Anyone but the most severely a ziocaine addled propagandist can see there’s only an abandoned tripod there at the time of the shooting!

        The boys leg in the graphic 03:04 is nowhere near the same position as in the video and in the video it is clearly in the line of fire from the IDF and the barrel is almost 20% larger in the graphic than in the video

        @ 05:40 shows the dust from the shot moving away from the Israeli position as described in the Graphic @ 05:63 as coming from the Israeli position.

        The only way they could get the dust to look as though it was coming from the Palestinian position was to stop the video.

        The forensic is hilarous. Injuries cause swelling and a closed mouth is different from a partially opened mouth. WOW!!! AMAZING!! A three week old baby knows that much

        Then there’s that woman talking about her career? What is she on?

      • Falastin Qalbi
        June 28, 2013, 9:52 am

        “The Second Draft: al Dura” was self-produced by Richard Landes, an associate professor at Boston University specializing in Millennialism. His academic background is in medieval history.

        Landes has been involved with a series of pro-Israel, anti-Palestinian/anti-Islam projects. One of them is the concept of “Pallywood,” a term which Landes himself coined, and “The Second Draft: al Dura” is a continuation of that theme.

        In his series of videos, Landes claims that Palestinians inflate the number of people killed and wounded for “propaganda purposes,” and actually stage “fake” events just to make Israel look bad, which are then videotaped and then broadcast as “real” events — as if Palestinians weren’t already suffering ongoing assaults by air and land, assassinations, kidnappings, home invasions, blockades, seizures of property, whole-scale destruction of houses, schools, hospitals, businesses and croplands, and all sorts of other “interruptions” from Israeli occupation forces every single day, and would even have to make them up.

        Landes provides no corroborating evidence for his claims – only his own carefully edited sequences and his own opinions, somberly recited in the voice-over.

        One of Landes’ favorite memes is the claim that Palestinians teach their children “unbridled hatred toward Israelis” – a tired old Zionist talking point which has been debunked over and over.

        He claims that Western journalists, scholars and politicians are “anti-Israel” and misinform the public about the “dangers of Islam,” thus putting “modern democratic culture” at risk. He claims that the mainstream media in the US spends too much time reporting “unfairly against Israel” in regard to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, instead of doing what he thinks they should be doing – worrying about “creeping Islamism” and “Global Jihad.”

        At a British conference on anti-Semitism, Landes insinuated that “every mosque and halal butcher” is part of a global Islamist conspiracy to enslave mankind.

        He finds Jewish people who criticize Israel for any reason to be especially annoying.

        Landes apparently has a lot of time of his hands, as he operates and blogs at a surprising number of websites dedicated to pushing those key themes over and over and over. He was heavily involved in the smear attacks on Richard Goldstone after his report on Israel’s actions in Gaza during Cast Lead – Landes started up yet another website just to rag on Goldstone.

        He follows the Pamela Geller pattern in many ways.

  2. Woody Tanaka
    June 27, 2013, 10:09 am

    Is anyone surprised? The New York Times is the Aparthied State’s propaganda organ here in the states. Too bad the American Communist Party was not able to dictate the content of the American media’s coverage of the Soviet Union, the way that the AIPAC spear catchers and their Christian right cheerleaders in this country are able to dictate the coverage given to the zionist entity. Who knows, the Soviet Union might still be around.

  3. seafoid
    June 27, 2013, 10:11 am

    Wikipedia is still running Zionism 1.0 on this issue .

    The child is still alive in wikiland.
    Well done to everyone at hasbara central.

    link to en.wikipedia.org

    Presumably when Zionism collapses it will still be alive online.

    • Djinn
      June 27, 2013, 11:20 am

      Presumably when Zionism collapses it will still be alive online

      Pure gold.

    • Woody Tanaka
      June 27, 2013, 11:23 am

      What do you expect? Wikipedia is infested with hasbaRATs. Management refuses to fumigate the place and the result in a Black Death of lies and stupidity.

    • Annie Robbins
      June 27, 2013, 11:32 am

      speaking of wiki, so little time so much to do! i forgot to report a major zionist lawfare org’s (forgot the name) media person got busted for sockpuppetry and disinfo infiltration editing wiki stuff on i/p and got banned a week or so ago. i have to get around to reporting it on MW.

      • seafoid
        June 27, 2013, 11:47 am

        Voilà

        link to haaretz.com

        “An employee of NGO Monitor was recently banned from editing articles about the Israeli-Arab conflict for bias and not revealing his place of work.
        By Oded Yaron | Jun.17, 2013 | 11:05 AM

        In the 12 years since its founding, the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia has become one of the most important and influential sources of information on and off the Internet. It has also become a battleground for all conceivable topics, from commercial companies to, of course, the Arab–Israeli conflict.
        Recently, another incident in the editing wars came to light when Arnie Draiman, a social-media employee of NGO Monitor who goes by the username Soosim, edited articles in English about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in an allegedly biased manner. Draiman concealed the facts that he was an employee of NGO Monitor, often described as a right-wing group, and that he was using a second username, which is forbidden under Wikipedia’s rules.

        NGO Monitor asserts that it “provides information and analysis, promotes accountability, and supports discussion on the reports and activities of NGOs (non-governmental organizations) claiming to advance human rights and humanitarian agendas.” Under Aims and Objectives on its About page it states its objective as “to end the practice used by certain self-declared ‘humanitarian NGOs’ of exploiting the label ‘universal human rights values’ to promote politically and ideologically motivated agendas.”

        A discussion of the complaint against NGO Monitor’s employee on Wikipedia shows that he promoted his company’s agenda as much as the organizations he worked against promoted theirs, as journalist and blogger Yossi Gurvitz also wrote.

        According to complaints from editors on Wikipedia, Soosim, who was active for several years, began editing intensively in 2010 after joining NGO Monitor (his LinkedIn page shows that he was working for Israel Advocacy. He is listed on NGO Monitor’s website as working in the communications department). The editors accused him of editing in a biased manner (“POV-pushing” in the site’s language), particularly on his organization’s page and on the pages of organizations that NGO Monitor’s president, Professor Gerald Steinberg, opposes such as B’tselem, the New Israel Fund and Human Rights Watch.

      • asherpat
        June 27, 2013, 6:49 pm

        So Arab anti-Israeli activists do not edit Wikipedia with a bias?

        I once edited the entry for Azmi Bshara (link to en.wikipedia.org). Nothing nasty, just something that he himself said to the camera, all smiling: “There isn’t and there never was “Palestinian people”, it’s a colonial invention. It’s all south of Great Syria!” (link to youtube.com, it’s in Hebrew, but believe me that the translation is correct – yea, I know, Zionists like me (indeed, any Zionist) cant be trusted or believed…).

        Isn’t it relevant for a person that is defined in the opening paragraph as “… a Palestinian intellectual”? It took a few weeks until suddenly, my edit was purged. I hardly edited anything before that, and was overwhelmed by users who knew how to work the system. Initially, the moderator took my side and said that deleting my point was “vandalism”, but quickly it was all over.

        So saying that Wikipedia is biased towards Israel is simply wrong.

      • ritzl
        June 27, 2013, 7:47 pm

        @seafioid Ya gotta love these guys…

        “There is no reason to advertise the fact that we have these group discussions. Anti-Israel editors will seize on anything to try to discredit people who challenge their problematic assertions, and will be all too happy to pretend, and announce, that a ‘Zionist’ cabal…is trying to hijack Wikipedia.

        IOW, “We admit that we organize ourselves into an actual cabal to try to hijack Wikipedia, but if we act like it’s all imaginary we can point out that people that point out our actual cabal are a bunch of Wikipedia hijacking loonies.”

        I’m shocked by this line of reasoning. Shocked, I tell you!

        Thanks seafoid.

        Some of the greatest unsung heroes in the debate on Palestine are those folks that monitor the pages. If anyone hasn’t yet, they should go to the history and discussion pages on any I/P page. There’s a tireless background war being waged there, with the Palestinian side holding its own. Kudos you anonymous heroes!

      • Woody Tanaka
        June 27, 2013, 9:52 pm

        I’ve no doubt that you either lied or misconstrued the statement or took it out of context. But if the reference isn’t in English, it can’t support an assertion on English Wikipedia. What are we supposed to do, trust one of you people? I would look out the window if you claimed the sky was blue. Can’t trust a zio about anything, at any time.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 29, 2013, 2:28 pm

        thank you seafoid!

      • American
        June 27, 2013, 2:03 pm

        This has long been obvious to anyone who uses Wiki on anything re Israel. Why I have constantly told people not to use Wiki as a source on anything related to Israel.
        In fact it’s not wise to use Wiki on anything controversial without also investigating the footnote sources for claims and the affiliations of the authors of those sources.
        Thats just the way it is today…too many agendas and personal ideologies taken for fact just because they’re published somewhere….it’s a disease that has invaded real facts and history.

      • seafoid
        June 27, 2013, 4:29 pm

        I couldn’t agree more, American. That is a big weakness of the wiki model- that groups who are ideologically driven can influence the content to such an extent that it’s not worth reading.

        I wonder if the wiki entry on Scientology is the same.

    • Denis
      June 27, 2013, 2:18 pm

      How should Wiki handle this?

      Report that IDF killed the kid — end of story?

      No, because the story has become as much about the various representations of what happened as about what happened. That seems to me to be what Wiki is reporting.

      Enderlin clearly screwed it during his second-by-second narration when he said: “Another burst of fire. Mohamed is dead and his father seriously wounded.”

      In the subsequent seconds, which were deleted from the France 2 broadcast, Muhammad moves enough to show that he wasn’t dead when Enderlin claimed he was. So that — and Enderlin editing out the boy’s movement — was enough for the Habaristas to jump on . . . and away we go. I admire Enderlin immensely, but he really screwed up here.

      Wiki has an obligation to include these controversies. If you feel the Wiki article is not accurate or is slanted, then, hey, jump in there and edit the article in a way you think reflects the truth. That is what Wiki is all about.

      • seafoid
        June 27, 2013, 4:31 pm

        If he is not dead where is he?

        The Israelis killed him. End of story.

        Reality isn’t the same as the parallel bot universe where there is always an Israeli counter reality based on whatever hasbara central have cooked up.

      • Woody Tanaka
        June 27, 2013, 4:53 pm

        “How should Wiki handle this?”

        Well, for a start, they should acknowledge that they’ve been infected with people spreading hasbara for a long time, with the specific goal of portraying these events in a way that supports the zionist position. They know that they are being used as a propaganda and terror weapon by the zios, but they don’t care.

        “Report that IDF killed the kid — end of story?”

        No, report that the IDF murdered the boy and then point out that when they realized that their murder was filmed, and that the images provided a rallying cry against them, they attempted the most disgusting libel in untold years. That’s the truth. They don’t even have the human decency to state that al Durrah is dead, instead stating that he is merely “reportedly dead.” This is not merely incidental. The Gaza Flotilla Murders and Massacre is portrayed as some benign exercise exercise by the idf terror squad that was interrupted by the people they murdered execution style. (compare that to entries about some anti-israeli incident over the years, and you’ll see them described in the most biased and lurid terms.)

        Jimmy Wales was in israel a few years ago saying how much he loves it. Do you think he’s going to be presenting these things neurally? Doubtful. Wikipedia is a lost cause.

        “I admire Enderlin immensely, but he really screwed up here.”

        Nonsense. The zios were going to come up with some lie or another (they always do), because this murder painted them in an accurate light. The same way they made up some bogus story from when Rachel Corrie was deliberately murdered.

  4. amigo
    June 27, 2013, 10:49 am

    according to the government report, “in the final scenes the boy is not dead.”

    “In the final scenes”. Jesus, give me patience with these heartless morons.
    If this was a Jewish child under fire from Hamas and someone called it staged???.

    OMG ,blood libel/Antisemites/Israel Haters/Pogroms–what did I forget.

    • seafoid
      June 27, 2013, 11:43 am

      Anne Frank is still alive. She lives with Elvis.
      In wikipediastan

      • American
        June 27, 2013, 2:14 pm

        seafoid says:
        June 27, 2013 at 11:43 am

        Anne Frank is still alive. She lives with Elvis.
        In wikipediastan>>>>>

        rotflmao!……too funny!… just made me spray my ice tea all over my keyboard.

      • miriam6
        June 27, 2013, 6:59 pm

        seafoid says;

        Anne Frank is still alive. She lives with Elvis.

        In wikipediastan

        Remember this comment by YOU Seafoid?

        Back then you were convinced she was living in Gaza.

        Well at least this time you didn’t tastelessly drag Ariel Castro’s poor victims into the quagmire of your comment.

        march 25 2013 at 9.40am.

        Anne Frank would be Gazan today.

      • seafoid
        June 28, 2013, 6:00 am

        Miriam, my dear

        Ariel Castro is a sociopath but he’s an individual.
        Zionism is a system that does what Castro did to the palestinians. For far longer.

        And Anne Frank wouldn’t be a bot .

    • Djinn
      June 27, 2013, 11:52 am

      Just like they did 6 years later when they massacred Huda Ghalia’s family and claimed the 10 year old girls gut wrenching anguish was faked for the cameras. They didn’t deny this child had just witnessed her family blown up but presumably the theory went that Palestinians just don’t love their families like the rest of us so her pain couldn’t possibly have been real.

      Had the same been uttered by anyone about an Israeli child I’d be able to hear Foxman screaming ANTISEMITE from halfway across the planet. The hypocrisy, cruelty and sadism displayed when flippantly dismissing the deaths of children as propaganda is off the charts.

      When that makes me mad I listen to Rafeef Ziadah’s Breathe and channel the rage back to productive link to youtube.com

  5. Tzombo
    June 27, 2013, 11:15 am

    And yet even in the article in The Guardian the Israelis get the last word in. “It is improbable, not to say impossible, that the bullets which hit Jamal and Mohammed al-Dura came from the Israeli position,” he said. “Where they did come from remains subject to many hypotheses, though none can be proven.”

    They probably came from Mars, because it is improbable, not to say inconceivable that Israel could be shooting at Palestinians.

  6. Cliff
    June 27, 2013, 12:24 pm

    Classic Zionist blood libel/denial of history and hate.

    The difference between White Nationalists and Zionists is that the latter have a much better PR strategy.

    Support diversity here and fascism in the Jewish State so non-Jews stay marginalized and/or dehumanized.

    • Citizen
      June 27, 2013, 1:31 pm

      It’s really not so much the difference in strategy, but that the negative KKK history and Holocaust history exists, and all Americans are educated in it as children. The Zionists absolutely rely on Americans never getting any factual history of Zionism and the creation and maintenance of modern Israel, especially as to the USA enablement of same, from Truman down to the present, to Kerry chasing his tail in Israel, once again. If you think anything will change, then you must believe that while Obama is visiting Africa, right now, he will make some statement about the 70,000 white farmer family members who’ve been murdered by blacks since 1994.

  7. Ludwig
    June 27, 2013, 3:02 pm

    Al-Durrah is clearly alive at the end of the scene. Just watch the footage. I hope that France 2 could release the full footage.

    • Woody Tanaka
      June 27, 2013, 4:07 pm

      “Al-Durrah is clearly alive at the end of the scene. Just watch the footage. I hope that France 2 could release the full footage.”

      No, his father is clearly still alive. So whether the movement of Mohammed was caused by Jamal’s movements or whether Mohammed had not yet expired at that point is uncertain. What is clear is that he was murdered by the israelis who then proceeded with the ugliest blood libel perhaps in history against the Palestinians, further tormenting this poor father, all to make the world believe a lie. The hasbarats are the lowest of the scum of humanity on this one.

    • seafoid
      June 27, 2013, 4:47 pm

      Sure he is. And the 2 state solution is just resting.

    • talknic
      June 27, 2013, 5:33 pm

      @ Ludwig “Al-Durrah is clearly alive at the end of the scene. Just watch the footage.”

      And that proves he didn’t die? Gun shot wounds are known to lead to death minutes, hours, sometimes days, after they’ve been administered. Or will only the immediate and gory, blood spattered death of a Palestinian child satisfy?

      “I hope that France 2 could release the full footage.”

      Footage of what? Perhaps the ground as the camera man lowered his camera in disgust at what was happening to a child?

  8. American
    June 27, 2013, 3:19 pm

    WOW!….here’s how you do the ‘light unto the nations” thing…..like Ecuador!
    Let’s email all the LatinAmer (already sympathic) gov officals to support Ecuador by switching some of their trade to Ecuador to cover the US trade lose.

    link to bloomberg.com

    Ecuador Cancels Trade Pact Over U.S. ‘Blackmail’ in Snowden Case
    By Nathan Gill – Jun 27, 2013 10:33 AM ET

    QUEUEQ..Ecuador, the South American nation mulling an asylum request from fugitive U.S. intelligence leaker Edward Snowden, renounced its U.S. trade benefits today, saying they were being used as “blackmail.”

    “Ecuador doesn’t accept pressure or threats from anyone,” Communications Secretary Fernando Alvarado said in a statement published in the presidential gazette. “It doesn’t barter its principles or submit to mercantile interests, however important they may be.”

    The announcement comes a day after U.S. Senator Robert Menendez, the New Jersey Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he would lead the effort to block renewal of trade preferences for Ecuador if it granted Snowden asylum. The Andean nation has been lobbying the U.S. congress to renew the preferences, known as ATPDEA, which are due to expire next month.

    “Our government will not reward countries for bad behavior,” Menendez said yesterday in a statement. “If Snowden is granted asylum in Ecuador, I will lead the effort to prevent the renewal of Ecuador’s duty-free access under GSP and will also make sure there is no chance for renewal of the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act. Trade preferences are a privilege granted to nations, not a right.”

    Ecuador would lose at least 40,000 jobs if the trade preferences aren’t renewed, the nation’s Ambassador to the U.S. Nathalie Cely said last year. While most of the $1.01 billion in exports to the U.S. in April were oil, shipments also included more labor intensive products such as cut flowers, broccoli and shrimp. Exports fell from $1.14 billion in April 2012, according to U.S. Census data.

    Alvarado, who called the trade preferences a “new instrument of blackmail,” said Ecuador’s government is offering the U.S. $23 million, an amount similar to what the U.S. provides under the ATPDEA deal, to provide human rights training to combat torture, illegal executions and attacks on peoples’ privacy.

  9. jon s
    June 27, 2013, 3:55 pm

    I remember very well how horrified I was by the unforgettable scene of the terrified child cowering behind the desperate , helpless father. At the time even the IDF spokesperson admitted guilt and expressed regret.
    Over time, however, more and more questions and doubts have emerged regarding those events.
    There are three possibilities:
    (a) Boy killed, father wounded, by IDF fire.
    (b) Boy killed, father wounded, by Palestinian fire.
    (c) Nobody was killed, the scene was staged.

    All the painstaking recreations and research point to the conclusion that (a) is the least likely.
    A few years ago a German TV station produced this documentary:

    • Denis
      June 27, 2013, 9:03 pm

      jon: All the painstaking recreations and research point to the conclusion that (a) is the least likely.

      Yeah, well, that’s really an essential point — the recreations. They were done on paper because the IDF bull-dozed the murder site w/in days, destroying the evidence. That in itself is circumstantial evidence of the IDF’s guilt.

      Have you ever seen a photograph of the kill-site showing it to be free of blood as GoI claims? No. And you never will because the IDF destroyed any evidence that would refute their position. (But then again, I have never seen a photograph of the kill site showing blood on the wall and ground, which you would think the Palestinians would have obtained right away by people on the scene.)

      What can be completely proven — and is proven by the comments here — is that you will see in that video whatever you want to see. If you want to see a murdered Palestinian boy, bingo!, you got it. If you want to see a faked video, bingo!, you got it.

      I must say that of all the arguments flying in both directions in this story, the stupidest one has to be: If the boy is alive, then why haven’t the Israelis produced him? Just imagine a DA making that argument in a murder trial. “Jury, now I ask you: If the defendant didn’t kill his wife, then where is she?”

      Don’t think so.

      • jon s
        June 28, 2013, 4:19 am

        Denis,
        In fact the scene was painstakingly recreated at an IDF base in the Negev. See here :
        link to theatlantic.com

        The Al Dura case is not really like conspiracy theories. It’s more like the cases we hear about, where people convicted of serious crimes are exonerated years later, after having served hard time, based on new, previously unavailable, DNA evidence. In this case it looks like the IDF was “framed”.

      • seafoid
        June 29, 2013, 8:23 am

        I’d like to see a non Jew sharing your opinion, Jon, but this is a Zionist wild goose chase par excellence .

        It has all the hallmarks- raise pointless questions to derail the discussion, insist that what is blatantly obvious is false, litigate, attack in the press via the usual outlets, get 95% approval in hebrew- but at the end of the day it’s just a jumped up version of what Hophmi does on this site day in, day out.

      • talknic
        June 29, 2013, 8:59 am

        Problem …. the footage from the camera behind the Al-Duras show they COULD BE HIT from the IDF position.
        link to talknic.files.wordpress.com

        And from the Israeli propaganda we have this nonsense link to talknic.files.wordpress.com

      • Donald
        June 29, 2013, 8:59 am

        “In fact the scene was painstakingly recreated at an IDF base in the Negev. See here :”

        What’s really creepy about this is that the IDF killed hundreds of minors during the Second Intifada (it might have reached into the 1000 range, but I don’t recall offhand) and hundreds more in the Gaza War, yet they go to all this trouble to exonerate themselves in this one case. Why? The answer is obvious–public relations. This event was allegedly captured on film and Israel received a lot of bad publicity, so they had to refute it. They wouldn’t give a crap if it weren’t for the film.

        Your own attitude exemplifies the problem. You were initially horrified. Sure you were–it was on film. How horrified are you about all the other minors? You talk about the IDF being “framed”. Suppose in this case it was. Now what about all the hundreds of other deaths, thousands of deaths if we include civilians in general? Shouldn’t your horror be only mitigated by a fraction of a percent?

      • Donald
        June 29, 2013, 9:23 am

        Another thing Jon–I read that Atlantic piece when it came out and what jumped out at me then and now is the sheer dishonesty of the framing. Fallows is completely on board with the notion that Israel’s guilt as a human rights violator stands or falls on this one case. Look at this sentence–

        “The harshest version of the al-Dura case from the Arab side is that it proves the ancient “blood libel”—Jews want to kill gentile children—and shows that Americans count Arab life so cheap that they will let the Israelis keep on killing. ”

        Notice what Fallows does. He doesn’t frame the issue as “Is Israel guilty of using indiscriminate violence and killing large numbers of civilians, including minors?” He doesn’t mention human rights groups from overseas who think Israel used excessive force from the very beginning. No, he puts it in terms of extremist Arabs believing the “blood libel” that “Jews want to kill gentile children” and it’s all based on this one case. So this is really about Arab anti-semitism, or that’s what he wants his readers to think.

        I’d forgotten he did that until I went back. So thanks for the link. It’s another illustration in how bias in the media works.

      • William Burns
        June 29, 2013, 10:17 am

        What reason could there possibly be to assume the IDF’s good faith in this “recreation”?

      • tree
        June 29, 2013, 10:51 am

        It’s more like the cases we hear about, where people convicted of serious crimes are exonerated years later, after having served hard time, based on new, previously unavailable, DNA evidence.

        No, jon, its not. And if you weren’t so attached to a particular outcome, you’d understand that your analogy is ludicrous. This was not some impartial outside source comparing DNA samples. This was, in effect, the accused drawing up a “recreation” that favored its desired result. They did not contact any Palestinian, neither the cameraman, nor the father, nor the medical doctors who treated Jamal and pronounced Mohammed dead. That is what an impartial judge of the facts would have done and none of that was done, which is prima facie evidence of a biased investigation. The IDF had long ago destroyed all the physical evidence, and so the “recreation” could not be tested against any physical evidence. No request was ever made to exhume Mohammed Al-Durra’s body, which his father has said he will allow under an impartial investigation, and which would in fact be the real DNA evidence in this case, both in terms of establishing his identity and the identity of the weapon that killed him.

        The holes in the investigation are large while it focuses on minutiae. There are red flags throughout this “investigation”, which is no doubt the reason that the French court upheld Karsenty’s conviction for slander against Enderlin and France 2.

        As for Fallows article, it doesn’t really add anything. It would have been helpful if Fallows himself had talked to the Palestinian camera man, or the medical doctors or others. His report is lacking in the same way on that account. It does provide more information about the IDF’s original mea culpa, which, frankly, given the IDF’s history of “investigations”, means that the IDF commanders only questioned the IDF soldiers involved, who believed that they shot Al-Durra, whether accidentally or not, which means that they were shooting in that direction, and did believe that they shot him. The IDF has never done more than question its own soldiers when “investigating” Palestinian deaths, unless they are forced to do more by outside groups such as Btselem and others.

        Fallows’ talks about the incoherency of the random video footage, explained only later by an off-screen narrative, which “transforms reality”. But Fallows himself seems unaware that the “investigation” is likewise providing an off screen narrative in its own transformation of reality, which he seems to be accepting without question.

        There is nothing there that truly exonerates the IDF. The chance to settle this is there to be had, in the exhumation, and yet Israel chooses not to go that route. That to me is the surest indication that they are not interested in the truth, but rather in smearing a dead Palestinian boy and his father. Sadly, this is not at all out of character for the IDF and Israel.

      • Woody Tanaka
        June 29, 2013, 1:15 pm

        “In fact the scene was painstakingly recreated at an IDF base in the Negev.”

        LMAO. Yeah, after destroying the scene, itself, so as to destroy the evidence of the murder of the boy by the israeli terrorists. The fact that your terror force had to “recreate” the scene is an admission of guilt.

      • Woody Tanaka
        June 29, 2013, 1:23 pm

        “It’s more like the cases we hear about, where people convicted of serious crimes are exonerated years later, after having served hard time, based on new, previously unavailable, DNA evidence. ”

        Nonsense. There was no new evidence and certainly no DNA evidence here, because you zios destroyed the evidence to cover up your murder. All this made up story nonsense is is a clearly and transparently guilty party coming up with something, anything — no matter how racist or nonsensical — to justify the claim, because one of the thousands of children you people have murdered to build your Jewish fantasyland was caught on camera expressing the terror that’s been the main export of your state for decades. You claim you didn’t do it. BFD. Go to any prison in the world and all the rapists and murderers will be spouting the same kind of garbage you’re spouting on behalf of the idf criminals.

        And if you zios were interested in a real investigation, then you should have made all of the idf terrorists on the scene that day available for interrogation by the Palestinians and should not have destroyed all the evidence at the intersection which demonstrated their guilt.

        You insult all the real innocent people who were wrongly convicted by comparing them to the barbaric murderers that kill for your dung heap of a state.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 29, 2013, 2:06 pm

        painstakingly recreated at an IDF base

        the only thing painstaking about it was the tireless effort of concocting a hypothetical circumstance in which the victims become responsible for killing themselves which just so happens to be an overwrought worn tactic in hasbara aimed at justifying the zionist regime’s ever expanding theft of palestinians land via the oppression, suppression, imprisonment and killing off of the indigenous people.

        the desperation of israel/gov/supporters to continually drag up this 10 year old murder, when there have been countless examples of execution like killings (including children) since then for some kind of vindication is nothing short of astounding. apparently nothing is beneath the zionist keyboard warriors to defend this stuff.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 29, 2013, 3:00 pm

        No, he puts it in terms of extremist Arabs believing the “blood libel” that “Jews want to kill gentile children”

        thanks donald, that is the part of the article that jumped out at me yesterday when i read(most of) jon’s link. i actually started a comment about it and then something came up. incidentally i was searching for the alleged ‘painstaking’ part of jon’s assertion in fallows article but never got to the end of it.

        but the funny thing, fallows framing makes it sound as tho this allegation is well-worn or routine. as if everyone is familiar with extremist arabs believing ‘jews want to kill gentile children’.

        all those hordes of marching zionist kids on jerusalem day screaming ‘death to arabs’ aside, (video in our archives… 2011?) characterizing the routine oppression of the occupation as a blood libel is ridiculous. and this boils down to ‘jews don’t want to kill, we just…have to!’

        and the reality is the American government does let Israelis keep on killing palestinians ……so count me in on believing they think palestinian life cheap.

        so fallows juxtaposition, makes it so everything rides on intentions wrt the killings. i think it’s pretty clear israel’s intention is to colonize every inch of palestine. and even the most radical extremist muslim would admit if palestinians just got up and left for good, the israeli government (or fallows use of the term ‘jews’) really has no compelling desire to kill palestinians just for the heck of it, the problem is they have no compunction not to kill them to get the land.

        but that is not part of the equation at all. it’s just this victimhood ‘bloodlibel’ crap we’ve all been conditioned to run away from. but at this point it’s pretty clear why israel kills palestinians. they want the land and they want them gone and nothing seems to stand in their way.

      • Cliff
        June 29, 2013, 4:00 pm

        The IDF was not framed. You have presented no evidence to prove that to be the case.

      • Donald
        June 29, 2013, 4:03 pm

        “it’s just this victimhood ‘bloodlibel’ crap we’ve all been conditioned to run away from”

        Exactly. Fallows is implying that the accusation that Israel has killed civilians is probably a form of vicious anti-semitism by Arabs. And the truth or falsity of the accusation apparently all hinges on the this one particular case. I can’t think of any other country in the world which would get this sort of protection by a liberal American journalist.

      • jon s
        June 29, 2013, 5:24 pm

        1.I tend to agree with seafoid that arguing the al-Dura case is probably futile, it’s a battle that can’t be won after so many years, no matter what the truth is.
        2. I provided the link to the “Atlantic” article mainly for the reference to the recreation, in answer to the comment by Denis that the recreation was on paper.
        3.There’s a valid point that the IDF investigating itself can’t be trusted to be objective. Yet by the same measure allegations coming from the Palestinian side may not be perfectly objective, either.
        4.In my earlier comment I provided a link to a German TV documentary. I saw it with an adequate Hebrew translation. I don’t know whether there’s a version with English subtitles or dubbing ( the youtube “translate subtitles” function is a joke), but it’s worth seeing.
        5. Thanks to Annie for the link to my own comment, and I stand by it: any mistreatment of children is inexcusable. Both sides should regard children as being off-limits in all circumstances.

      • tree
        June 29, 2013, 10:30 pm

        In fact the scene was painstakingly recreated at an IDF base in the Negev.

        And yet their first assumption was GLARINGLY WRONG ! They claimed that because the “barrel” bore a mark from the Israeli Bureau of Standards that indicated its exact standard dimensions. Then they ASSUMED that the “barrel” was not cut short or perhaps buried in the ground so it was smaller or shorter than the 3 feet of height they claimed in their “painstaking” recreation.

        However, its clear from the video that Jamal Al-Dura, in his sitting/crouching position is a good 4 to 6 inches taller than the “barrel”. If it was exactly 36 inches tall, then Al-Dura’s sitting height would have to have been a minimum of 40 to 42 (36 plus 4 to 6) inches tall. Normal human proportions put sitting height ( torso and head length) at roughly half of standing height. That would mean that for a 36 inch high barrel, Al-Dura would have had to be roughly 80 to 84 inches tall (or 6’8″ to 7′ tall).

        Not bloody likely, but I’m sure that the IDF, if they didn’t already know Al-Dura’s height from his required ID, could have easily measured his height, and even his exact sitting height (without much “painstaking” at all, at least on the part of the IDF). That measurement would have told the “recreators” exactly how tall the barrel actually was. But no, they didn’t do that, and that is why, as Talknic pointed out, their “reconstruction” shows the barrel as much taller than it is in the actual video footage. If they can’t get something so elementary as that correct, why do you believe anything else they have posited?

        Seriously, if its beyond the ability of the crack team of “investigators” to properly extrapolate a simple thing like the real dimensions of the ACTUAL barrel, how do you explain your faith in the rest of their “recreation”, jon?

      • Donald
        June 30, 2013, 1:25 pm

        “Thanks to Annie for the link to my own comment, and I stand by it: any mistreatment of children is inexcusable. Both sides should regard children as being off-limits in all circumstances.”

        In the spirit of looking for areas of agreement where they actually exist, good for you. This is exactly right.

        Whatever happened to this particular child (I’m not going to get into it), it’s simply a fact that at different times children have been the victims of indiscriminate violence by both sides. It’s also a fact that far more Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis than vice versa, but it’s inexcusable no matter what the numbers or which side does it. In the US the focus is mostly on the suicide bombers and rocket attacks, which is why most of us commenters at MW get so testy when Israel or one of its defenders raises a question about a particular case where a Palestinian child has died, especially when someone like Fallows does it in such a tendentious way, as though the whole issue of Israeli violence against children stands or falls on this one case, and as though making the accusation that Israel kills children is equivalent to a “blood libel”.

      • William Burns
        June 29, 2013, 10:15 am

        Yes, but if the defense attorney actually believed his client innocent, wouldn’t they make an effort to find the wife? Israel is a state with an excellent intelligence service; the fact that they haven’t made any effort to find the kid indicates that on some level they know the “whole thing was faked” story is bullshit.

    • Woody Tanaka
      June 27, 2013, 10:17 pm

      The “Jewish state” has murdered thousands of kids. And when there is striking video footage of the sheer horror and terror that you people inflict on these children, then not only do you withdraw your admission of guilt, but you spread vicious blood libels that the Palestinians did it or it was staged. What a moral cesspool it is that passes for the soul in you people. Disgusting.

      • Woody Tanaka
        June 29, 2013, 10:39 am

        mods?

      • Annie Robbins
        June 29, 2013, 2:13 pm

        just a little heads up woody. sometimes a post sits until a mod either decides to either delete an otherwise relevant post because it’s prefaced by a fallacy or takes the time to remove the fallacy. the next time a post of yours might sit for a long time try reading it again and figuring out if there is a way to re-frame your comment to better reflect reality.

        and for your information israel does not ‘murder thousands of kids like this all the time’. for example, they did not murder thousands of kids last month, or even last year. but they have murdered thousands of kids and they do continue to murder palestinian youths, a lot of them.

        you’re welcome.

      • Citizen
        June 29, 2013, 3:05 pm

        @ Annie Robbins
        Thanks for attempting to explain the MW censorship policy. What you say makes sense. I agree if a premise of a comment is clearly a fallacy, it’s bait for killing. But, I ask, why not just OK the balance of the comment? And let the commenters debate that?

        There was an article about the monitoring policy of the Times, recently, where the Times explained it. Did you read it?

        Anyway, I appreciate those who monitor comments here; I don’t know if they get any pay, but I’m sure, if they do, it’s not much in terms of $.

        I will also confess, Phil once depended on me to isolate commenters who were clearly flamers, back when MW was young. This entailed him giving me access to his blog’s inner mechanisms, on his old platform, so I could trace changing pen names by their computer address. He never paid me, I never asked for pay. It took up a lot of my time. I was glad to do it, because I beleived in his mission. I still do.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 29, 2013, 6:06 pm

        why not just OK the balance of the comment? And let the commenters debate that?

        because many many more people read these comment sections than the commenters. and they don’t sign up to come on here and offer their ptv, they write to the staff, sometimes horrible emails and often demand we remove the comment and worse. the situation is bad enough as it is, so we have comment sections where debate and argument takes place. but this would be like a down payment on a headache. not your headache because you might not mind reading them. but as you say it is a lot of work and it just makes more sense to spend it on an argument based on the reality. one i believe (my personal opinion) is a sustained effort of ethnic cleansing. and when the demographics appear too threatening they ‘mow the grass’. that’s my theory anyway.

        i am not going to clearing anymore comments about the comment policy on this thread. we have a thread for that: link to mondoweiss.net

        and yes, i noticed your reference to censorship. it just saves us lots of time not to be hosting inflammatory debates that facts do not support.

    • Inanna
      June 27, 2013, 11:12 pm

      Oh bollocks. The reason the IDF accepted responsibility initially is that they knew they did it. The reason why they retracted responsibility later was they knew that this had become an iconic image, one which had widespread emotional appeal and they knew they had to do something to cast doubt on it. As always, Israel likes to blame the victims.

    • tree
      June 28, 2013, 12:37 am

      Really, jon? Its MORE LIKELY that no one was killed than the IDF was responsible for the live fire that killed Al-Durra? Where did al-Durra go? Is he living in Vegas with Elvis? Your statement is ludicrous.

      The IDF never takes the word of a Palestinian when they investigate what their soldiers did. They never even ask a Palestinian what happened. Clearly they apologized because their own soldiers told them they were responsible, as Inanna said.

      • jon s
        June 29, 2013, 7:01 am

        Correct, tree, that’s what I wrote, that’s what I meant.
        If the moderators approve my reply to Denis – there’s another relevant link there.

    • Annie Robbins
      June 29, 2013, 3:12 pm

      I remember very well how horrified I was by the unforgettable scene of the terrified child cowering behind the desperate , helpless father.

      yes, we already know you’re politely ‘horrified’ by any mistreatment of children: link to mondoweiss.net

      as you continue to defend the zionist state day in an day out while dishing out your “bloodthirsty accusation” outrage on those you deem step out of line while speaking agiant the zionism and it’s crimes. somehow you never manage to muster that kind of outrage over the horrendous oppression and death of palestinians tho. just a polite ‘i’m horrified’ to preface your excuses.

      • tree
        June 29, 2013, 4:52 pm

        yes, we already know you’re ‘horrified’ by any mistreatment of children

        And we also know that he’s much more horrified at anyone posting a comment that excoriates Zionism for the mistreatment of children. So there’s an obvious ranking to his horror, and mistreatment of children is somewhere below making a nasty comment about Zionism on his scale.

  10. justicewillprevail
    June 27, 2013, 5:02 pm

    These israeli bots are classic conspiracy theorists, spinning webs of fantasy and deceit around an account verified by the boy’s father, who should know. But there is no depths low enough for the zots. Just imagine if someone pops up to tell us Anne Frank cannot be verified 100% as a real person. It could be a cunning ruse. Oh, the horror. But no different in offensiveness and malice.

    • seafoid
      June 29, 2013, 8:36 am

      And they go nuts when anyone accuses them of war crimes in Gaza. Zionism is a mental illness.

  11. iResistDe4iAm
    June 28, 2013, 12:32 am

    Israel is built on the rubble & ashes of another country, and the corpses, blood & tears of another people.

    Mohammed al-Dura, RIP

  12. DICKERSON3870
    June 28, 2013, 6:05 am

    RE: “So what is judged false in France is presented as the possible truth by our leading newspaper, publishing Israeli writers.” ~ Weiss

    STUART SMALLEY SEZ: Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.”

    P.S. LEGAL DISCLAIMER: Stuart Smalley is a caring nurturer, a member of several 12-step programs, but NOT a licensed therapist. Any observations or suggestions made by Mr. Smalley are strictly intended as entertainment, and should not be considered professional advice or recommendations.
    In the event you should experince mental health issues, please consult a licensed professional of your choosing.
    But, whatever you do, don’t go into a “shame spiral”!

    • DICKERSON3870
      June 28, 2013, 6:22 am

      P.P.S. ALSO REGARDING “DENIAL”, NOTE THIS EXCERPT: “. . . At the climax of the film ["Soaps"], people who have believed for their entire lives that the soaps are made of Jewish fat are confronted with the overwhelming historiographic consensus that they are not. Even when the believers are told that Yad Vashem has declared the soap myth baseless, they stubbornly refuse to change their minds, arguing that the studies which disprove it were paid for by Germans. Israeli poet Yisrael Har, who is interviewed in the film, says the refutations of the soap myth come from Holocaust deniers and Wikipedia.”

      FOR ADDITIONAL CONTEXT, SEE: “New Israeli film debunks myth that Nazis made soap from Jews”, By Roy (Chicky) Arad, Haaretz, 6/04/13
      Legend was spread by guards as psychological torture of Jewish inmates, as director Eyal Ballas’ movie shows.

      [EXCERPTS] “Soaps,” a new film by director Eyal Ballas, searches for the root of the myth that Germans used the bodies of Jews to manufacture soap. Contemporary historians think the Nazis did not produce soap on an industrial scale using dead human bodies, a position shared by Yad Vashem. But the myth continues to hold sway with the big segments of the public.
      The movie shows that in many places in Israel and the world, people light memorial candles beside soaps they believe were created from the bodies of Jews. Chemical analyses show they are actually made of vegetable materials.
      The soap myth dates all the way back to World War I, when Germans were first rumored to be turning bodies into the stuff. During World War II, SS guards often tormented concentration camp prisoners by threatening to turn them into soap.
      At least 10 cemeteries and memorial centers in Israel have graves containing soap either believed to have been made from Jews or used as symbols of Jewish communities ravaged by the Nazis. . . .
      . . . “Soaps” shows that one thing that contributed to the myth was confusion over the markings on some bars of soap. Certain German soaps produced in the Third Reich had the initial “RIF” imprinted on them, which was thought to stand for “Reichs Juden Fett,” which means “State Jewish Fat.” In fact, RIF stands for “Reichsstelle fur industrielle Fettversorgung, or “National Center for Industrial Fat Provisioning,” the German government agency responsible for the wartime production and distribution of soap and washing products. RIF soap contained no fat at all, human or vegetable. The Holocaust Museum in Bat Yam exhibits an RIF soap bar donated by a Holocaust survivor, though the museum’s director, Prof. Yuri Lyakhovitsky, does not claim to be sure it is made from Jewish fat. He says the charismatic personality of Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal influenced the development of the myth. . .
      . . . At the climax of the film, people who have believed for their entire lives that the soaps are made of Jewish fat are confronted with the overwhelming historiographic consensus that they are not. Even when the believers are told that Yad Vashem has declared the soap myth baseless, they stubbornly refuse to change their minds, arguing that the studies which disprove it were paid for by Germans. Israeli poet Yisrael Har, who is interviewed in the film, says the refutations of the soap myth come from Holocaust deniers and Wikipedia.

      SOURCE – link to en.wikipedia.org

      • American
        June 29, 2013, 4:42 pm

        The whole soap thing was irrational when applied to the Nazis anyway…..since their ideas about Jews were that they were diseased and unclean to the point where it was punishable by imprisonment or worse for a German to even touch a Jew except in some violent or punishing manner. Even if they were depraved enough to turn humans into soap I doubt they would have ‘bathed themselves’ with the remains of Jews given their racial ‘purity ‘beliefs.
        I doubt the lampshade thing too but there’s the possibilty that like psycho killers who keep body parts of their victims and etc. -some lone or few psychos could have done that and thats how the story got started.

    • DICKERSON3870
      June 28, 2013, 6:31 am

      P.P.P.S. RE: “Even when the believers [of the soap myth] are told that Yad Vashem has declared the soap myth baseless, they stubbornly refuse to change their minds, arguing that the studies which disprove it were paid for by Germans.” ~ from the Haaretz article by Roy (Chicky) Arad

      SEE: “Injustice Collecting”, By Nando Pelusi, Ph.D., psychologytoday.com, published on November 01, 2006
      You can’t let go of a grudge, says Nando Pelusi, Ph.D., because there are deep-seated emotional payoffs.

      [EXCERPTS] We have a complicated relationship with the grudges we hold. We get obsessed and aggravated by the many slights [not to mention far more grievous victimization - J.L.D.] that befall us, but we’re ever reluctant to bury our pain and move on. Like an illicit affair, our beloved grudges usually end up creating misery for all involved.
      The tendency to itemize every unfair knock we’ve ever suffered is known as injustice collecting. Sometimes the injustices are personal, as in, “My boss unfairly promoted Rick over me.” This kind of self-talk leads to anger. At other times, the catalogued outrages lead to overwrought generalizations, such as, “Nothing ever goes well; this is too unfair.” This type of thinking leads to hopelessness and rage.
      Enough grudge holding and soon you’ll see more iniquity than actually exists. The injustice collector becomes a trigger-happy perceiver. If you walk down the street recounting the affronts you’ve suffered lately, you’ll kick up quite a cloud of dejection.
      Injustice collecting springs from a sensible motive: the monitoring of fairness as a form of self-protection, an impulse that evolved among social creatures who depended on one another. Nursing grudges may have raised our odds of survival and reproduction, however unconsciously. . .
      . . . But injustice collecting is about more than just resentment toward cheaters; just as often, it’s resentment on a mass scale—about anger at the very order of the universe. If a tree falls on a school bus or an earthquake levels our home, we’re stricken by the absolute injustice of it all. Islamist radicals, for example, resent the West’s development, and many are willing to die for their version of justice.
      Self-pity plus religious outrage—a combination that fuels suicide bombers—might also be a cognitive virus, replicating itself because humans are so easily attuned to believing in absolute justice.
      Fairness is a desirable abstraction, and one we’d better reach for, but it is not a concrete measurement, however much we might wish the courts, God, or the Constitution to decree it. . .

      ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to psychologytoday.com

  13. Ecru
    June 28, 2013, 8:02 am

    Just a question. Since all these hasbarites are denying the fact of this murder of a CHILD by the IDF, claiming the whole thing was staged etc, would it now be OK to deny the fact of the Nazi Death Camps and claim all that footage was staged?

    Can’t be any more ridiculous or any less offensive to human beings with a functioning moral compass.

    • Annie Robbins
      June 29, 2013, 6:17 pm

      no, it’s not ok. hasbrats just think it’s ok to do the equivalence (nakba denial) and pretend they are not hypocrites.

      • Ecru
        June 30, 2013, 3:47 am

        Oh come on down off your high horse Annie and read what I wrote again.

        FACT of the Nazi Death Camps

        The use of the word “fact” there should be a bit of a give-away.

        Can’t be any more ridiculous or any less offensive to human beings with a functioning moral compass.

  14. amigo
    June 28, 2013, 8:33 am

    Israel is already denying this vile act of wanton murder.

    “http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/israel-must-fight-back-against-the-al-dura-accusations.premium-1.532367″

    Israel Jewish citizens live in denial.I guess you have to employ desperate measures in desperate situations.

    • yrn
      June 29, 2013, 4:19 pm

      “but at this point it’s pretty clear why israel kills palestinians. they want the land and they want them gone and nothing seems to stand in their way.”

      Do you really think so ?

      • Annie Robbins
        June 29, 2013, 5:35 pm

        the ptb, yes i do yrn. if their goal was peace they would not be facilitating moving hundreds of thousands of their population into more palestinian land using the ‘protection’ of these settlers as an excuse to control via a brutal occupation w/thousands of soldiers. don’t ever listen to their lying words, look at their actions. they are growing, expanding. that is their intention, obviously. they use the fog of violence and war as their excuse to expand. that is the plan, and they will likely not stop at the british mandate borders, they will just use an excuse to capture more and more from jordan/lebanon and syria and our great grandchildren will be dealing with this problem in a hundred years if we don’t stop them now. they need water, they need resources, and they have no compunction about stealing more land to get it.

      • justicewillprevail
        June 29, 2013, 6:04 pm

        Just ask the Bedouin. Look at the way they are brushed aside, as if their existence there long before the current israelis, their culture and society is of absolutely no significance or worth. Treated like a mere inconvenient obstacle which can be demolished and vanished, so that ugly clone suburbs can be built for people who will be subsidised to take their place, people who have no connection to the place or its history. The callousness of Israel towards any indigenous group is beyond belief to such a degree that they use the incredulity of their actions to encourage disbelief in it: they couldn’t possibly be so deliberately cruel…. Oh yes they can, and they are. The ‘accidental’ death of some of these victims, their torture and imprisonment is a matter of utter indifference to them.

      • yrn
        June 30, 2013, 8:41 am

        Well………. as someone who was born here and served in the Army for 30 years.
        You must know better then any other Israeli, what are the PLANS OF THE JEWISH ZIONIST.
        please enlighten my knowledge and send links or other information of the hidden plans of the Zionist Jews “to capture more and more from jordan/lebanon and syria ” ?

      • Annie Robbins
        June 30, 2013, 10:00 am

        You must know better then any other Israeli, what are the PLANS OF THE JEWISH ZIONIST.
        please enlighten my knowledge and send links or other information of the ….plans of the Zionist Jews “to capture more and more from jordan/lebanon and syria ” ?

        does anyone have a geographical description of eretz israel available?

      • yrn
        June 30, 2013, 10:23 am

        According to Jewish religious law (halakha), some laws only apply to Jews living in the Land of Israel and some areas in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria (which are thought to be part of biblical Israel).

      • talknic
        June 29, 2013, 5:49 pm

        yrn “Do you really think so ?”

        Show me something, ANYTHING, that points to the contrary

  15. yrn
    July 1, 2013, 11:17 am

    How many times did Israel Capture Gaza and how many time did Israel Withdraw ?

    • Woody Tanaka
      July 1, 2013, 11:58 am

      The zionist entity never withdrew fully from Gaza. It still operates an illegal blockade against innocent men, women and children.

      • yrn
        July 2, 2013, 6:51 am

        Show one Israeli in Gaza.
        Show me one Israeli Car in Gaza
        Show me any object that belongs to Israel in Gaza

        What nonsense

  16. yrn
    July 1, 2013, 11:21 am

    Same with Part of Syria, Israel captured parts of Syria in October 73 war and withdraw.

    • Woody Tanaka
      July 1, 2013, 11:58 am

      The zionist entity still illegally controls Syrian’s territory in the Golan Heights.

      • yrn
        July 2, 2013, 6:52 am

        Read my comment before you jump
        I mentioned parts of Syria captured in October 73 war and withdraw (Israel got 50 miles from Damascus).

Leave a Reply