Israeli regime "cruel beyond human understanding"

[originalgagster]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...066604,00.html

The article in the link above was written by Jocelyn Hurndall, the mother of a 22 year old photographer who lies in a UK hospital in a persistent vegitative state after being shot in the head by an Israeli soldier while rescuing Arab children from Israeli sniper fire. Of course it must have been a tragic accident, because as we all know the foot soldiers of the benign Israeli occupation would never deliberately target civilians, now would they?

"Jocelyn Hurndall
Monday October 20, 2003
The Guardian

Last Thursday, I delivered a letter to Mr Blair expressing my despair at the Israeli government's lack of response to our call for a full inquiry into the death of my son, Tom. While working as a photojournalist, Tom was shot in the head by an Israeli commander in Rafah, Gaza. He had been walking down a calm civilian street where 20 children were playing when snipers began shooting at them. He was carrying the children to safety when he was shot, and was wearing a fluorescent human rights jacket. He posed no threat. His brain is severely damaged and he will not recover.

Following our traumatic seven-week stay in Israel as we watched our son on the verge of death, we submitted a report to Israel's judge advocate general through the British Foreign Office, and requested a fully transparent inquiry. We included 13 eyewitness statements and considerable photographic evidence of Tom just before and after he was shot.

It has now been six months since Tom was shot, and three-and-a-half months since his case was handed to the Israeli judge advocate general. As yet, we have heard nothing apart from a collection of unutterably bland excuses. "The complexity and subtleness of the examination process," we are told, "demand due consideration and considerable time"; and "There was another suicide bombing and so he [the judge advocate general] has a lot to deal with."

We note the sense of urgency with which Britain condemned and apologised for the British passport-holding suicide bombers; we note, too, the speed with which America dispatched FBI agents in response to the bombing a week ago which killed three US security personnel at the Erez checkpoint in the Gaza Strip. In Tom's case, as in Rachel Corrie's and others, there has been no urgency at all, and yet the need to ensure that evidence is carefully assessed and gathered is surely no less crucial.

Why should it be for grieving parents to have to arrange interviews with the 13 eyewitnesses to the shooting, or to gather photographic, ballistic, forensic and medical evidence?

The British government ought to have been proactive in collecting and protecting evidence. But while it dragged its feet, the Israeli army demolished the tower from which Tom was shot to move it a few metres down the bor der. This action alone will make it almost impossible to dispute the claim that the sniper who shot Tom had no clear line of vision. Six months on, eyewitnesses have dispersed, some have even found themselves inappropriately detained and then deported.

The tragedy that has befallen Tom and our family is a microcosm of the wide-scale terror felt by thousands of other families in the occupied territories.

I am in ineffable distress after the loss of a son. But I have a regular income, food, running water, electricity, an intact roof over my head, access to a hospital, the knowledge that gunfire is unlikely to endanger my other children on their journey to school and that my sleep is unlikely to be broken by gunfire or the sound of tanks. I have a decent life.

Last week the Israeli army's incursion into Rafah - the largest since the beginning of the intifada three years ago - left 120 houses demolished, 1,500 civilians homeless, eight dead and 60 injured. Afterwards, I received an email from Anees, one of Tom's friends in the city, telling me that his house has been demolished. He and the 26 members of his extended family are among those left homeless and very afraid that theIsraeli army may come back at any moment. It was this young man who, in a state of com plete anguish, lifted Tom from the ground after he was shot.

Why won't Tony Blair represent the interests of his citizens and put significant pressure on Ariel Sharon to conduct a full and transparent inquiry into Tom's death? Polite requests will not do. And why won't he challenge Mr Bush's support ofIsrael, a regime which is cruel beyond human understanding? I have seen it for myself: the demolition of houses, the destruction of olive groves, the process of depriving people of the ability to earn a living, the closure of checkpoints, the destruction of water supplies and electricity, lethally enforced curfews, humiliation, terror. In short, the dehumanisation of a people.

It should not be necessary to experience the terror of Palestinians in order to act. Britain finds it acceptable to indulge in a facade of diplomacy by ab staining from two critical UN security council votes: one condemning Israel's policy decision to assassinate or expel a state leader, Yasser Arafat; and the other seeking to bar Israel from extending a security fence deep into the West Bank. Both these issues have received worldwide condemnation - on what basis can Britain justify being unclear or undecided about its position on these questions?

I can't help recalling Mr Blair's resolve, when deciding to go to war with Iraq, that he did not wish to be accused of inaction or for this to be on his conscience at a later date. Where does his conscience lie now in relation to Britain's inaction over Palestine?"

[Tmy]

Jocelyn Hurndall is an ANTI-SEMITE!!!!!

[Chaos]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy
Jocelyn Hurndall is an ANTI-SEMITE!!!!!

She is a mother mourning for her son. Even if she is not right what she claims, in the state of anguish that she is in, it should be excusable for her to rant against those who shot her son.

She has also raised a few point that should be investigated.

[JamesM]

The excess !s in Tmy's post lead to me think some sort of sarcasm may be being expressed...

[TillEulenspiegel]

So? One more example of the Israeli government/IDF acting extra judicially. I'll see your murders and raise you a Israeli "security " Card , which trumps all regulated, ordinary, acceptable and lawful behavior. (this card also allows blame to be placed on the victim and not the perpetrator.)

[Tmy]

Quote:

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
So? One more example of the Israeli government/IDF acting extra judicially. I'll see your murders and raise you a Israeli "security " Card , which trumps all regulated, ordinary, acceptable and lawful behavior. (this card also allows blame to be placed on the victim and not the perpetrator.)

That bright orange vest made him an easy target! If he wasnt being a human shield for terrorists hed be alive today!!!

[originalgagster]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy


That bright orange vest made him an easy target! If he wasnt being a human shield for terrorists hed be alive today!!!

Yes, that bright orange vest must have made him virtually indistinguishable from a camouflaged gunman! and that small child he was carrying was probably mistaken for an assault rifle!

[Quasi]

Both sides are wrong. I was going home and a bunch of palestinian supporters were at the subway stop asking for money. Forget that- the palestinian leaders would just spend it on themselves and for explosives to kill civilians. But of course, the Israelies are only a hair better- they prefer to relocate palestinians and build condos, and kill when the need arises. I do not see any need to be for or against any side. I oppose them both.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy


That bright orange vest made him an easy target! If he wasnt being a human shield for terrorists hed be alive today!!!

The pattern of IDF behaviour in the occupied territories. Remove all witnesses to what is going on.

According to our esteemed defenders of Israel, it was his own fault for going to a war zone. In fact, he was stupid, and probably a leftie anyway.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Quasi:
Both sides are wrong. I was going home and a bunch of palestinian supporters were at the subway stop asking for money. Forget that- the palestinian leaders would just spend it on themselves and for explosives to kill civilians. But of course, the Israelies are only a hair better- they prefer to relocate palestinians and build condos, and kill when the need arises. I do not see any need to be for or against any side. I oppose them both.

Your attempt to appear evenhanded only makes a mockery of the truth.

"palestinian leaders would just spend it on themselves and for explosives to kill civilians. "

By that statement not only do you link any and all charities dedicated to helping civilians ( altho we know some charities are definably tied to funding terrorists), but also indites the Palestine leadership ( meaning the PLC AND Arafat) for terrorists atrocities by slander. The implicit notion is that anyone in a position of authority is responsible for the action of some looney toon kid who has been taught from infancy to hate Isrealis and guided by even loonier men to become a martyr is self serving at best and a propaganda devise designed to indite the whole of the Palestinian people at worst. Besides we all know that Arafat is living in the lap of luxury in his bombed out hovel.

Whereas:
"the Israelies are only a hair better- they prefer to relocate Palestinians and build condos, and kill when the need arises."

Meaning that the poor IDF being pushed to far finally have to resort to a gentle remonstrance of relocating ( either bulldozing houses or apartment buildings as a form of collective punishment, which is illeagal under the Geneva accords and the UN charter or just taking potshots from an Abrams tank ) and relocating thier occupants to the gully down the street. The final terminal punishment (death ) is only metered out when the "need " arises..the need...man talk about a variable yardstick.

I suggest that if you really want to be evenhanded, look at the record of the past 10 years, in publications that are not beholding to either point of view. I dare say your opinion will be modified.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Just watched the news. Seems 10 more Palestinians were killed by the IDF going after terriorists. Two were evidently attached to some "terrorist" group the other, 8 were civilians including children . Being correct in my judgment to condem Isreal's brutality as a function of a recognized government policey gives me no solice .............I honestly wish I were wrong, honestly. Making debating points that rest on the heads of 8 innocent human beings is anathema to all I believe. I also feel guilt as MY ( and every American's ) tax dollers bought the weapons that commited this crime.

[shuize]

Based on recent polls we've seen batted around on this forum only eight of those ten were legitimate targets.

8 (total number of civilians) X .75 (percentage of palistinians who support terrorist attacks on isreali civilians) = 6

6 + 2 (remaining number identified as having some sort of terrorist connection)

8 it is.

Now let the wailing and gnashing of teeth for the two innocent civilians begin.

(Innocent is italicized because if you're using palistinian math everyone is a legitimate target regardless of their status)

Quote:

Originally posted by originalgagster
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...066604,00.html

The article in the link above was written by Jocelyn Hurndall, the mother of a 22 year old photographer who lies in a UK hospital in a persistent vegitative state after being shot in the head by an Israeli soldier while rescuing Arab children from Israeli sniper fire. Of course it must have been a tragic accident, because as we all know the foot soldiers of the benign Israeli occupation would never deliberately target civilians, now would they?

Sorry to rain in on the Israel bashing parade but where is the evidence that the Israeli soldier was deliberately targeting civilians?

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by shuize
Based on recent polls we've seen batted around on this forum only eight of those ten were legitimate targets.

8 (total number of civilians) X .75 (percentage of palistinians who support terrorist attacks on isreali civilians) = 6

6 + 2 (remaining number identified as having some sort of terrorist connection)

8 it is.

Now let the wailing and gnashing of teeth for the two innocent civilians begin.

(Innocent is italicized because if you're using palistinian math everyone is a legitimate target regardless of their status)

If you think that Palestinian civilians have only just started being killed, you have rocks in your head. Millions of children living and growing to be adults their whole lives under military occupation, (Sharon has acknowledged it is a military occupation), counts as a war crime to me.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by ssibal


Sorry to rain in on the Israel bashing parade but where is the evidence that the Israeli soldier was deliberately targeting civilians?

Snipers hitting a guy wearing a day-glo safety vest?

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Snipers hitting a guy wearing a day-glo safety vest?

How do you know it was a sniper and not a regular soldier?

*EDIT* And if they indeed were snipers they were not very good since by the mother's own accounts they had already fired a few shots without hiting anything. So, it would not be so far-fetched for them to accidentaly hit him.

[shuize]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person


If you think that Palestinian civilians have only just started being killed, you have rocks in your head. Millions of children living and growing to be adults their whole lives under military occupation, (Sharon has acknowledged it is a military occupation), counts as a war crime to me.

Given that between half and three-quarters of all palistinian civilians think it's just fine to blow up isreali civilians in suicide attacks, I think they doth protest too much when the isreali military hits back.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by shuize


Given that between half and three-quarters of all palistinian civilians think it's just fine to blow up isreali civilians in suicide attacks, I think they doth protest too much when the isreali military hits back.

Who is hitting back at who?

[peptoabysmal]

From this article:

Rafah in miniature

It seems that Jocelyn is almost as concerned for her son as she is for the Palestinians. I wonder if she is laboring under the guilt of having helped put her son in harm's way?

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by originalgagster
...He was carrying the children to safety when he was shot, and was wearing a fluorescent human rights jacket...

I'd like to know what a "flourescent human rights jacket" is. Is that some international thing that a US citizen like myself would be unaware of?

The article implies that because he was wearing this thing he should not have been confused with a Palestinian-Arab terrorist. As though it were some sort of badge that says, "I'm neutral, don't shoot me."

Is that really what it is? Or is it just a fluorescent jacket?

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Just watched the news. Seems 10 more Palestinians were killed by the IDF going after terriorists. Two were evidently attached to some "terrorist" group the other, 8 were civilians including children . Being correct in my judgment to condem Isreal's brutality as a function of a recognized government policey gives me no solice .............I honestly wish I were wrong, honestly. Making debating points that rest on the heads of 8 innocent human beings is anathema to all I believe. I also feel guilt as MY ( and every American's ) tax dollers bought the weapons that commited this crime.

It seems your ethics did not survive this opportunity to break them.

[Cain]

Based on recent polls we've seen batted around on this forum only eight of those ten were legitimate targets.

Quote:

8 (total number of civilians) X .75 (percentage of palistinians who support terrorist attacks on isreali civilians) = 6

6 + 2 (remaining number identified as having some sort of terrorist connection)

8 it is.

Now let the wailing and gnashing of teeth for the two innocent civilians begin.

(Innocent is italicized because if you're using palistinian math everyone is a legitimate target regardless of their status)

A monstrous "moral" calculation. Treating human beings like ratios of red and white marbles plucked from a jar; ignoring an entire history of brutal occupation.

[Mycroft]

Interesting picture Cain. Are those the fluorescent jackets that were spoken of? They certainly look like they would stand out, but I'm still curious as to who recognizes them as representing international noncombatants. They appear to be appropriate for construction work.

Quote:

Originally posted by Cain
A monstrous "moral" calculation. Treating human beings like ratios of red and white marbles plucked from a jar; ignoring an entire history of brutal occupation.

Interesting. I wouldn’t expect a moral argument from you.



Tom Hurndall



Picture by Tom Hurndall

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft
Interesting picture Cain. Are those the fluorescent jackets that were spoken of? They certainly look like they would stand out, but I'm still curious as to who recognizes them as representing international noncombatants. They appear to be appropriate for construction work.

That's right, he was stupid.

Also, make sure you don't sit doing any ebroidery.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jewish...s/message/2060
http://www.wworld.org/programs/middleEast.asp?ID=327
http://www.israelblog.org/Articles/I...is_legacy.html

Quote:

Shadan Abu-Hajla was 50 years old when she died on Friday from an Israeli soldier's bullet as she sat embroidering in Rafadiyeh park in Nablus. Her husband, an elderly, well-known doctor, was wounded in the head, and their son got a bullet in the neck. Abu Hajla was the neighborhood coordinator of a Nablus women's organization which, since the intifada, has been providing aid to the needy and preaching non-violent civil disobedience as a form of resistance to the occupation.

Anan Kadri, a nurse, is one of the group's leaders and paid a condolence call on the Abu Hajla family yesterday. She said that even after the terrible murder she and her friends would keep marching toward Israeli tanks, armed only with fresh flowers. No act of Israeli violence will change their minds, which have not been changed by the events of the last two years, that the struggle against the occupation does not justify violence against Israeli civilians.

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person


That's right, he was stupid.

Also, make sure you don't sit doing any ebroidery.

I'm not commenting on his stupidity, I want verification that these jackets actually mean something.

Yes, it's sad when people die in war. Especially when they are good people who seek non-violent solutions to problems.

Quote:

Emphasizing the seemingly intrinsic and obvious connection between the tough measures the IDF is taking in the territories and the institutionalization of the internal criticism of the suicide bombings is not merely patting oneself on the back. The message between the lines is that now is not the time to stop. Let the IDF win a little bit more, and more Palestinians will lay down their weapons. Let Ya'alon "exterminate the terrorist nests in Gaza" and you'll see how they will also understand that violence doesn't pay.

It's encouraging. Let's hope this non-violence takes off.

[Grammatron]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person


That's right, he was stupid.

Also, make sure you don't sit doing any ebroidery.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jewish...s/message/2060
http://www.wworld.org/programs/middleEast.asp?ID=327
http://www.israelblog.org/Articles/I...is_legacy.html

Yes very sad, just like same stories of some Palestinian blowing up 3 generations in a market.

No matter how many posts like this I see, I don't see how Israel is worse than Palestine. Thus I don't see how you can criticize one without equally criticizing the other. What I think people should be doing is praising a side that is moving further to peace.

[originalgagster]

Quote:

Originally posted by ssibal


Sorry to rain in on the Israel bashing parade but where is the evidence that the Israeli soldier was deliberately targeting civilians?

I didn't state explicitly that he was. It looks probable, on the best analysis of the evidence that he was shooting at unarmed civilians, but given that the Israeli regime seem commited to covering up the killing we can't be absolutely positive.

Quote:

Originally posted by shuize Given that between half and three-quarters of all palistinian civilians think it's just fine to blow up isreali civilians in suicide attacks, I think they doth protest too much when the isreali military hits back.

Even if your claim that 50%-75% of Palestinians support suicide bombings is true (do you have a reference?) this still doesn't excuse military action against civilian areas.

By all means hit back against those who are actively involved in violence, but it isn't in order to attack civilian populations - regardless of what opinions they may hold.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft Are those the fluorescent jackets that were spoken of? They certainly look like they would stand out, but I'm still curious as to who recognizes them as representing international noncombatants. They appear to be appropriate for construction work.

Setting aside that it is somewhat improbable that a gunman would be walking around in full view of an Israeli sniper tower wearing an orange fluorescent jacket, what difference would it make if he had been mistaken for a construction worker? Surely it would have been just as wrong to shoot an unarmed man in the head.

Orange flourescent jackets are worn by all members of the international solidarity movement, including the american woman who was run over by an Israeli bulldozer earlier this year, and an American man who was shot in the face from an Israeli APC. The Israeli troops must be used to the sight of the jackets by now, they provide them with excellent target practice.

edit: typo.

[Tmy]

Quote:

Originally posted by shuize
Based on recent polls we've seen batted around on this forum only eight of those ten were legitimate targets.

8 (total number of civilians) X .75 (percentage of palistinians who support terrorist attacks on isreali civilians) = 6

6 + 2 (remaining number identified as having some sort of terrorist connection)

8 it is.

Now let the wailing and gnashing of teeth for the two innocent civilians begin.

(Innocent is italicized because if you're using palistinian math everyone is a legitimate target regardless of their status)

This is silly. Im sure you can say that 75% of Isrealies support Sharon, so therefore its ok if bus blows up cause 75% of the jews inside are not innocent.

Do ya'll think that the Isreali army purposly or at least recklessly kill Pali bystanders to send a message. There military is so great that youd think their strikes could be more precise. OR do they want to hurt innocents as an eye for an eye thing with the bombers.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by ssibal


"Sorry to rain in on the Israel bashing parade but where is the evidence that the Israeli soldier was deliberately targeting civilians? "

I would state that there are only a few possibilities for 1) ricochet, 2) misstargeting 3) deliberate aim.

1) ricochet, For this to occur requires extraordinarly bad luck and a tangential wound and also that there was targeting in Toms general vicinity. The standard issue rifles used by the IDF is the M-16 and elite (sniper forces) use the CAR-15, both use the same types of ammo.The 5.56 ammo tends to disintegrate or tumble upon hitting a solid surface, so for it to hit a wall, bounce and kill Mr. Hurndall is problematic to say the least and must carry the weight of general ( or bad ) targeting of Mr.Hurndall. The fact that he was shot in the back of the head while running in an open space in the street towards two children.The gunman was 300 yds. away . The wound , which went through his head requires a completely linear trajectory, which is inconsistent with this possibility.

2) Misstargeting, This scenario requires that a expert trained marksman ( how do I know this?. The solder responsable for the death was a commander in charge of a sniper unit, a position that requires marksman skills at a high level ) to see a moving target 300 yds. away take aim for a head shot ( the preferred shot for an assassin) and A. have the wrong target ( impossible as there was no one else in even a close proximity) or B. not see the flouresent jacket after Tom had already run to rescue one child from the same place ( fog of war? eh...I really doubt it ) .

3) The most likely

We Americans had our day with Lt W..Calley We did the right thing.
You won't find any such act of conscience from the ADL/JDL types here tho.



PS TMY Word is that the IDF , especially the lifer types who are hard core, tend to see the human rights, humaniterian people as being as bad if not worse then the Palistinians kinda like the Jews down south in the 60's in America. The other poor bastards (conscripts , which in Israel means everyone for 2 years of thier life) when they see whats going on lose heart rather quickly.....wouldn't You?


PPS
I have removed an extrainious and erroneous quote here

[Skeptic]

I am in ineffable distress after the loss of a son. But I have a regular income, food, running water, electricity, an intact roof over my head, access to a hospital, the knowledge that gunfire is unlikely to endanger my other children on their journey to school and that my sleep is unlikely to be broken by gunfire or the sound of tanks. I have a decent life.

The palestinians were offered JUST THAT in 2000 by Barak, after a ten-year (more or less) negotiation period where they were offered in increments more and more, with the understanding, on israel's side, that the eventual goal is a peaceful palestinian state.

The result? A "Death to the Jews!" war of terror and genocide from the palestinians, seeing israeli willingness for peace as proof that "the zionist midget is on its last legs" and it is time for the long-awaited second holocaust.

That, and the 800+ jewish civilians butchered in this war, might have SOMETHING to do with why the israeli tanks are "incrusing" into Rafah and why the residents there suffer from the "sounds of gunfire".

This is not "cruelty beyound human understanding". It's not even "cruelty"--the writer gives no proof whatsoever that her son was deliberately targeted, and not killed by corssfire or a stray bullet. The anti-israeli press, for rather obvious reasons, tends to promote every palestinian casualty to martydom or claim a "massacre"--but that doesn't mean it is so.

(Remember Muhammad Al-Dura, the 12-year old "cruelly targeted by israeli soldiers"? As it turns out, he was not targeted, but--with his father--merely were at the wrong place--in the crossfire between israelis and palestinians in a firefight that, of course, the palestinians started. If anything, there is more evidence to suggest he was killed by a palestinian bullet.)

What this is, essentially, is a war for survival with an enemy which repeatedly claimed its goal is to wipe out the jews. If you REALLY want to see "cruelty beyound human understanding", you need to look at what happens to the "heathens" when the muslims win, as in Sudan, Afghanistan, or Iran.

[aerocontrols]

Quote:

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
!0-02-01 Sharon:

"every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."

You do realize that when you post garbage like this, your credibility vanishes, right?

[JamesM]

The origin of the Sharon quote, according to Camera:

Quote:

The hoax originated from an October 3, 2001 press release from the pro-Hamas group, the Islamic Association for Palestine. It said, “An acrimonious argument erupted during the Israeli cabinet weekly session last week between Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres during which Sharon reportedly yelled at Peres, saying “don’t worry about American pressure, we control America.’” Notably, in the same press release, a direct quotation changed from “we control America” to “we the Jewish people control America.”

IAP writes, “According [to] the Israeli Hebrew radio, Col [sic] Yisrael Wednesday, Peres warned Sharon that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and turn the US against us. At this point, a furious Sharon reportedly turned toward Peres, saying “...I want to tell you something clear, don’t worry about American pressure on Israel, we the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it.’”

According to the IAP press release, the statement was reported on Kol Yisrael. However, CAMERA’s calls to Kol Yisrael confirmed that no such broadcast exists.

[TillEulenspiegel]

You are absoloutly correct . The story is what appeares to be a complete fabrication witch is self-referential and curcular. The reason I tooke it verbatium is because secondary (trusted ) sources quoted it and reported the origional story was reported ( not ) on Kol Yisrael . Guess we have to be extra careful these days. The rest of my post stands , there are no quotes only independantly verifiable facts.
As for the Quote, I was wrong
Mea Culpa
Mea Maxima Culpa

[JamesM]

Quote:

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
As for the Quote, I was wrong
Mea Culpa
Mea Maxima Culpa

That's fair enough. You certainly won't be hearing any more from me about it.

... see how easy it is, Cain?

[Skeptic]

Quote:

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
You are absoloutly correct . The story is what appeares to be a complete fabrication witch is self-referential and curcular. The reason I tooke it verbatium is because secondary (trusted ) sources quoted it and reported the origional story was reported ( not ) on Kol Yisrael . Guess we have to be extra careful these days. The rest of my post stands , there are no quotes only independantly verifiable facts.
As for the Quote, I was wrong
Mea Culpa
Mea Maxima Culpa

Fair enough, I will erase my previous post.

[aerocontrols]

Quote:

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
You are absoloutly correct . The story is what appeares to be a complete fabrication witch is self-referential and curcular. The reason I tooke it verbatium is because secondary (trusted ) sources quoted it and reported the origional story was reported ( not ) on Kol Yisrael . Guess we have to be extra careful these days. The rest of my post stands , there are no quotes only independantly verifiable facts.
As for the Quote, I was wrong
Mea Culpa
Mea Maxima Culpa

I'm somewhat less inclined to remove my previous post, as Skeptic has. I'm troubled that sources you consider to be trustworthy passed it on to you, and that you seem to have believed it. The first time I saw that quote, (which wasn't when you posted it) I immediately suspected that it was a fabrication. How could it not be?

Quite frankly, it doesn't pass the smell test. I merely imagine the outrage that would be present if Sharon had actually said this, and I come to the conclusion that the claim is false. No discussion of Israel's relationship with the US would be able to be found anywhere without a reference to this quote, were it real.

What troubles me most is that I can't see how one can believe that this quote is real, unless one also believes it to be true.

So TillEulenspiegel: You accept that the quote is falsified. What do you think about the false quote's veracity? Do Arial Sharon and the Jews control America to such an extent that he could get away with saying so, without it being widely reported here in the States? Do the Jews control the World to such an extent that the BBC, Le Monde, et. al. could also be intimidated into silence about this outburst for 2 years?

MattJ

[Ziggurat]

Quote:

Originally posted by aerocontrols

What troubles me most is that I can't see how one can believe that this quote is real, unless one also believes it to be true.

Damn good point. Something about the use of the quote was really bugging me too, but I hadn't nailed it down until you phrased it so sucinctly.

[JamesM]

Quote:

Originally posted by aerocontrols
What troubles me most is that I can't see how one can believe that this quote is real, unless one also believes it to be true.

To play devil's advocate for a moment, I can see that one could accept the veracity of the quote, without accepting the model of reality being asserted by the quote.

The impression I got from TE's use of the quote, was not that it was evidence of pro-Israeli control of the media, but evidence of unpleasant rhetoric being used by both sides in the conflict.

Quote:

Do Arial Sharon and the Jews control America to such an extent that he could get away with saying so, without it being widely reported here in the States? Do the Jews control the World to such an extent that the BBC, Le Monde, et. al. could also be intimidated into silence about this outburst for 2 years?

To continue to play devil's advocate, I could venture a couple of possibilities: the fact that it was presumably not originally reported in English, could have led to it being overlooked. Alternatively, it could have been reported, but people had forgotten about it, due to 9/11 or Afghanistan or whatever. And there are lots of more extreme things being said in the Middle East, which only memri is reporting, for example.

I must admit that this quote didn't immediately jump out to me as an obvious falsification, and I'm sure I can be accused of being more sensitive to these sorts of things than others here. So I certainly bow to your heightened sense of sniff, aerocontrols.

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by originalgagster

Setting aside that it is somewhat improbable that a gunman would be walking around in full view of an Israeli sniper tower wearing an orange fluorescent jacket, what difference would it make if he had been mistaken for a construction worker? Surely it would have been just as wrong to shoot an unarmed man in the head.

I agree, I think it is improbable that a gunman would be walking around wearing an orange fluorescent jacket. I also think it’s improbable that a high ranking highly trained soldier would just shoot someone at random, which is exactly what this article implies happened.

Quote:

He was carrying the children to safety when he was shot, and was wearing a fluorescent human rights jacket.

This implies two things:

1) There is something special about this jacket, that it is a recognized code that would tell a soldier (or a Palestinian-Arab militant) that the person who wears the jacket in an international non-combatant and not a legitimate target should hostilities break out.

2) It implies that he was involved in some sort of human rights work. I don’t know what that suggests to you, but in my mind that suggests someone who is non-partisan, non-political. An international observer, or maybe a relief worker interested in getting medical care to the sick and injured or food to the hungry.

Now since I have doubts that Israeli soldiers really behave as serial killers (the Palestinian-Arab death toll would be exponentially higher if this were true) and because I am made just a little uncomfortable that a grieving mother takes time out from her plea for help to push a political cause, I think the facts of the issue deserve a little closer scrutiny.

Quote:

Originally posted by originalgagster
Orange flourescent jackets are worn by all members of the international solidarity movement, including the american woman who was run over by an Israeli bulldozer earlier this year, and an American man who was shot in the face from an Israeli APC. The Israeli troops must be used to the sight of the jackets by now, they provide them with excellent target practice.

Okay, so ISM people wear these fluorescent orange jackets. Who recognizes this code? Is it something they made up? Or is this a real international signal? Is there some international human rights agreement where countries agree to recognize this code? Is this something that a normal soldier would be trained to recognize?

So here in this link you provide (thank you, by the way) we see that the ISM is a very political organization. They are not there to provide humanitarian relief, no medicine or food, but to take sides in a war. While this certainly doesn’t justify this photographer getting shot, it does tell us that there is more to the story than this article lets on. Enough to make me wonder what else don’t we know about these events?

[Cain]

Quote:

Originally posted by JamesM

That's fair enough. You certainly won't be hearing any more from me about it.

... see how easy it is, Cain?

Hilarious. James, I am not one to make a habit of appealing to authority but... the authenticity of my posts, their origin and intent... it's usually pretty clear to me, you know, being the author and all. Weird, huh?