The blogosphere has been abuzz about a CNN video (see below) allegedly showing Gaza physicians vainly trying to revive a dying boy, filmed by his brother, Ashraf Mashharawi (who, as it turns out, owns a company that hosts Hamas websites). Sharp-eyed viewers noticed that the doctors were clearly play-acting, and CNN pulled the video with no explanation, though the network left a text story up.
What hasn't gotten attention is that the broader story told by the photographer to the CNN reporter is seemingly rather obviously false propaganda. From the video:
Reporter: "Mahmoud and his 14 year old cousin Ahmed were allowed to play on the roof.... Now they are both dead." Mashharawi: "The Israeli plane targeted them with a small rocket just for them, just for them, and killed both of them."So the allegation is that not only did an Israeli plane purposely target two children playing on a roof, but did so with a special, small rocket that it apparently reserves for killing children on roofs without creating any of the obvious signs of serious damage to the building that a missile would cause. Putting aside the issue of Israel targeting civilians, the idea that a plane came to the building with a special small missile just to kill these two boys seems rather implausible, to say the least. [UPDATE: Is it possible that the "plane," in theory, could have been a drone of the sort used in targeted assassinations? How much damage would a rocket launched from such a drone cause to a roof? OK, I'll reserve judgment on that, in case it's as implausible as I initially thought. FURTHER UPDATE: A reader writes: "As an introduction, I am an attack helicopter pilot with somewhere north of 400 combat missions in geographic areas very similar to Gaza. Your thoughts are correct. Events as described didn’t happen as alleged. The link http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/agm-114.htm has significant info regarding one of the smaller drone armed weapons, the AGM-114 Hellfire. I am very familiar with this weapon as this is the same missile with a different type of warhead that US Attack helicopters are armed with. Bottom line, 100lb missile moving at about 400 M/s is going to cause structural damage to the building even if it was one of the inert warhead types." See also this contribution to the comments. That seems to settle that.]
There are plenty of real human tragedies involving civilians in Gaza. It would do wonders for CNN's credibility if it acknowledged its mistake, took the text story down, and, unless all the indications of the falsity of the story turn out to have an innocent explanation, fire the reporter (Michael Holmes) who either fell for, or actively participated in, a fake one.
Related Posts (on one page):
- CNN Digs Itself in Deeper:
- Fraudulent CNN Video:
That certainly doesn't excuse the video being fake, of course.
I'm more interested in stories like this one. This story is somewhat more credible.
LGF reader “Last Mohican,” a doctor, makes a strong case that this is an obvious fake.
Because of course if you focus one fake, that means that the IDF isn't actually killing any civilians recklessly.
But I do think it is important to point out fake footage when it comes up. We have to hold CNN to account, and cannot excuse a dishonest (or woefully inept) report on the basis that it is a lie that expresses a more general truth.
But, of course, killing them would be wroooooooong!
But that would make it harder for them to control their messages, I guess.
steviededalus:
Bernsein:
So, the part about "rather obviously false propaganda" was just your hyperbole/sarcasm? Got it.
I thought the mental image of a tiny rocket seeking out roof-children was rather entertaining. We're not all totally droll.
Some of us are terrible people.
But until we take out CNN and the enemedia, the truth will never be free.
Why is it that CNN has yet to run a story about Hamas using human shields?
Like this
or this
or this
or this?
Why is it that CNN has yet to run a story about Hamas creating this kind of fake propaganda "news" stories? Debunking phoney stories and reporting on it should be in CNN's self interest. Than they have not speaks volumes.
Israel bars journalists from Gaza border region
The kind of mind that is familiar with CNN "standards."
Good call. All players saw you make your Flush, yet blogger still Bluffs by Calling and Raising.
Israel probably uses Hellfire or Rafael (probably Spike) missiles on modified Hermes 450 UAVs, but has not admitted to it officially.
The Hellfire is a much better fit, being laser guided, rather than wire or infrared.
The idea that Israel would use unguided rockets from a drone is a complete mismatch with every other part of Israeli military doctrine, and can thus be discarded as ludicrous.
Assuming the speaker meant "missile" instead, the idea of targeting two kids on a roof is equally ludicrous; Israel has no desire to waste an expensive Hellfire missile on two kids, even if Israel was as murderous as some commenters want to believe (and as 20 years of experience in putting their troops in harm's way to avoid injuring civilians attest).
Even if we assume Israel to be murderous in intent, it would be far more efficient in terms of killing innocents to simply fire a bunch of mortars, rather than do targeted strikes on 14 year olds with laser-guided missiles.
How unreflective or ignorant does someone have to be to believe any of this?
I know that the IDF kills civilians who refuse to evacuate from militarized targets (indeed, Hamas encourages them not to, since it's "martydom" and makes for great propaganda).
I know that the IDF must sometimes mistake civilians for combatants, despite their militarily-counterproductive (and sadly unrecognized by many of their critics) efforts to avoid it.
But I've never yet seen an instance of the the IDF allegedly "targeting civilians" (qua civilians) that stood up to even a cursory investigation, let alone a real one.
Let's ponder what it would take to restore Bernstein's credibility.
Paging Mary Mapes, please pick up the white courtesy phone...
Just because one e-mail from a deposed African dictator proposing a business transaction is a scam doesn't mean there isn't a million dollar finders fee out there somewhere to be had. Fraud works because the premise is plausible, but plausible isn't enough. The existance of one fraud is enough to taint the story, if not every source in the chain, until proven otherwise.
It is important. But oddly, people like Bernstein are only interested in debunking, downplaying, or minimizing tragedies both real and imagined in this conflict.
I'm guessing most people are not that reflective on the finer points of military technology and strategy when discussing the recent deaths of their family members.
The resuscitation scene seems fake, but the real point of the story is that 2 kids were killed by an Israeli rocket. We don't know that is phony. Given the story linked by Xanthippas above, I wouldn't be surprised if they were killed, but that the family wanted to "re-enact" the scene for the cameras. Mohican's comment about how the kid in the hospital could be true, but he may be another kid "playing" the part of the victim, who really was true. In short, the text story could be true, but the video is a re-enactment.
To what purpose? Why "re-enact" real deaths and pass off the resulting video as a true record of events? Never mind that it boggles the mind that grieving parents would want to see their kids' death scenes re-enacted within a matter of hours on the grounds that the real thing didn't provide sufficiently gripping video. Doesn't anyone grasp that faking like this only gives ammunition to the people who think real Israeli atrocities are so scarce that the Palestinians have been obliged to create them? Jeez, things are bad enough without fakery (of which this is far from the only instance; we've seen ceremoniously displayed Palestinian "corpses" who fell off their biers get up and run away, and the like).
I find it very hard to believe that the parents of a dead child would agree to anything like this. It looks more like theater orchestrated by Hamas regardless of parents' wishes.
I'm guessing most parents who have lost kids wouldn't be in the mood to go along with propagandists. From which I further guess it's all a fake.
The difference between weapons, as the Apache pilot explains, is the difference between it happened and it didn't happen. IOW, the parents don't have to know anything about weapons to know it didn't happen.
No available weapon could do what was supposedly done. So knowing the difference between weapons, or not knowing, means what, exactly?
The Palestinian citizens killed when the IDF deliberately targeted them are an imagined tragedy and Bernstein is absolutely right to debunk it. It never happened: a reporter who works for Hamas lied to CNN, CNN then knowingly passed that lie on to you and you are now lying to yourself.
Perhaps Dr. Sanjay Gupta could review the clip for them?
It's just my point of view, but I think the Palestinians have done a lot better in the court of world opinion by virtue of their rather clumsy propaganda than they would have without it.
And, we don't know that the story is true, either. That's only one problem with Dan Rather School of Journalism standards (you remember Dan -- our evidence is completely bogus but our story must be true, so why should we have been expected to vet our "facts"?).
That only makes sense if you neither understood nor read what I wrote. Let me blunt: it is infuriating that people like Bernstein want to sit here and stoke themselves into righteous indignation over propaganda footage that runs for about 1 hour, while completely ignoring, downplaying, minimizing or questioning the authenticity of reports of very real tragedies presently taking place in Gaza. The fact that somebody from Hamas managed to get CNN to show a clip of their cartoonish propaganda, does not change the fact that Israel is recklessly, or deliberately, targeting civilians in Gaza.
I don't understand. Gaza is an "ethnic minority district"? In what context?
That's just it: I haven't seen any evidence that Israel is recklessly or deliberately targeting civilians. I see evidence that Israel is doing what it can to minimize civilian casualties. Perhaps it could do more to minimize casualties, but that is not evidence of reckless or deliberate targeting of casualties.
Let me blunt: it is infuriating that people like Bernstein want to sit here and stoke themselves into righteous indignation over propaganda footage that runs for about 1 hour, while completely ignoring, downplaying, minimizing or questioning the authenticity of reports of very real tragedies presently taking place in Gaza.
But, see, this is just what I'm talking about. If you fake up "propaganda footage" (and, worse yet, get formerly respected news organizations to swallow it whole as pure, guaranteed, 100% authentic atrocity, straight from the horse's mouth!), you inevitably set people to wondering what else might be, not real evidence, but just another production of the Not-Quite-Ready-For-Prime-Time Players, Gaza division.
It's horrible to joke about this stuff, but then it's horrible to produce it. In a real war, with many and real casualties, the worst possible thing you can do is make sh*t up, because it suggests to even the dumbest observer that reality must not be terrible enough for your purposes. And we both know that's not the case, so how can you possibly defend slurring over stunts like this?
I say that DB, and the guy at LGF who said the "chest compression" here was bull, and everyone else who's caught ambulatory "corpses," "friendly fire" deaths disguised as Israeli killings, PhotoShopped-in smoke plumes when explosions were insufficiently impressive, &c. are doing the Palestinians an enormous and necessary service. Because as long as they keep pulling such propaganda stunts, no one will believe the worst of what they really have suffered.
Like firing at a shelter.
That may or may not be justified, but "minimizing civilian casualties" would involve not shooting at a shelter.
Gaza is an Israeli ethnic minority district defined in part by the following: Israel conserved Gaza for ethnic minority by ejecting Jews therefrom and permitting Palestinians to remain; Israel permits Palestinians to elect a government for Gaza, but Israel alone governs and regulates Gaza's border; thus Gaza's relation to Israel is similar to that between client and king, province and empire, district and nation.
Care to venture a guess as to how reflective members of Hamas are when it comes to acknowledging the pervasive enculturation of death and hate?
Care to venture a guess as to how often Hamas and other factions use "voluntary" human shields in Gaza, southern Lebanon and elsewhere?
Care to venture a guess as to how reflective they are when it comes to acknowledging the finer points of propaganda and deceit, as a primary aspect of their media-driven strategy?
Care to venture a guess as to how "useful fools" have naively or more willingly played their part in the ideological wars of the last hundred years, along with the global instability and the myriads of hecatombs that have resulted?
The guesses one is willing to venture vs. the guesses one is not willing to venture can be telling, no?
And was wrong for letting the Gazans have self government.
Not true. Israel regulates its own borders (as does any other sovereign state), including its border with Gaza. It does no regulate Gaza's border with Egypt. And Gaza has (and has exercised) the power to determine which Israeli civilians and which foreginers can enter Gaza, whether from Israel or Egypt.
Yeah, well, the testimony Xanthippas linked to does not sound credible either.
The story of the 2 boys killed on the roof was also reported by NPR.
That version also was obviously a fake -- the relator said the boys were unable to play in the street, so they were sent to play on the roof.
Yeah, right.
Why assume the parents are part of the fake hospital scene of doctor's trying to save the boy? Also, why wouldn't relatives want to go along with those who want to dramatize the event and inflame public opinion against the state that killed their relative? Wouldn't you be mad at the people who killed your son? And if you wanted to do anything about it, the most effective means of Palestian resistance and to prevent similar killings is through world public opinion.
Also, why fake the deaths? It's undisputed that the Israeli attacks have killed scores, if not hundreds, of children. Palestinian boys killed by Israelis is a dime a dozen story.
There's lots of weapons that could have caused the damage. whether it was a rocket or missile or artillery shell or tank shell or mortar round and whether it was a direct hit on the top of the building or near miss or whatever. It may not have happened as described (small rocket from a plane). In fact, it's obviously speculation that the boys were "targeted" since there's no way for the person making the statement to know that. I agree that it doesn't make any sense for the IDF to target children. But, it seems kind of silly to criticize a family member for not getting the precise details correct. I've taken lots depositions of witnesses to fatality accidents and invariably people guess, misremember, and otherwise unintentionally get details wrong. But, the accidents did happen and people did die.
You confuse a motive Vengeance with an act Extermination. Jews have cause to confuse Vengeance in Gaza with Extermination at Auschwitz, and your excitation illustrates my exposition.
The precise issue is that the Israelis did not do this. The weapons available to them could not have done what was, if true, done. If it has been an Israeli weapon, much more material damage would have been done.
Therefore, even if it were true that the two boys were killed--and here we recall faked deaths--that the Israelis did it is impossible.
So, knowing which weapons do what is irrelevant. And giving the parents the benefit of the doubt is equally irrelevant.
Living in Gaza, the likelihood of blaming the Israelis when in the presence of Hamas operatives is pretty high.
An earlier poster reminds us of Newton's law, that what comes up generally comes down and Hamas likes to shoot a lot of stuff off.
But this is all irrelevant to the proposition that some would like to make follow from this that the IDF goes out of its way to kill civilians for no purpose whatsoever.
If you were taking a deposition and the bereaved parents couldn't recall how many shots were fired, and the death was a matter of falling out of a tree, what would be the use of saying the parents can't be expected to know about shooting and guns and stuff?
You would have it be important that the parents couldn't tell the difference between a Hellfire and a five-inch rocket, or a Rafael missile. That would all be meaningless if the result were similar to that from one or another of those three. But since the result is not similar to that of the impact of any of them, the question of which is meaningless, as well.
Not when that is precisely where the terrorists are storing and launching deadly weapons, taking human shields as hostages, and perpetuating for years on end warfare that has resulted in thousands of civilian casualties and deaths.
Same goes for schools, places of worship, and hospitals. When those are precisely the places that terrorists have commandeered in order to indefinitely perpetuate their terrorism, striking them is the only way to minimize civilian casualties that the terrorists have demanded and continued to create.
The video is faked. We have a history of reports of Israeli "war crimes" that never happened.
AND we have a number of protesters who respond with: Oh, yeah? Well they are killing OTHER children! And anyway it's Israel's fault for not allowing the media (Who perpetrate this sort of thing) into Gaza.
There's no reasoning with some people.
Indeed. The Jewish population of Gaza was liquidated, and the majority Islamic population did not protest. And how ironic that now the little arab Eichmanns are being punished in response.
What goes around comes around. The United States is not the only society that has to worry about roosting chickens.
Karma's a bitch.
"It would do wonders for CNN's credibility..."
Let's ponder what it would take to restore Bernstein's credibility.
A large dose of Stelazine, administered to his critics on these boards(?).
Prof. Churchill?
after all, it's "fake but accurate"
to the left, truth is a metanarrative after all (rolls eyes)
What, precisely, do you know about Israeli law?
It would also involved Hamas not setting up base in a shelter.
Churchill teaches that decisions people make don't happen in a vacuum. The stockbrokers and businessmen who worked at the World Trade Center made a decision to be part of the neoliberal economic world order. Their decisions had direct impacts on the lives of other people. Their decisions sometimes hurt people. People who wanted Justice.
So Churchill teaches that the people killed on 9/11 were not innocent - but little Eichmann's who rightfully suffered the consequences of their decisions.
Roosting chickens, he called it. (That's where Rev. Wright got the expression.)
Churchill's largely right.
And rich stockbrokers are not the only people who raise chickens.
Arabs are human beings too. And they are also responsible for their decisions.
And just like the decisions of stockbrokers have consequences - and victims - Arab policy decisions have consequences - and victims.
Arabs supported Adolph Hitler. Arabs supported Stalin. Arabs supported Yasir Arafat. Arabs supported the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. Arabs support Hamas. Those were very evil policy decisions.
And now the Arab's chickens are come home to roost. The little arab Eichmanns ought to do some seriously soul-searching into the root causes of Israeli rage.
Right. I think I get it.
Let's first decide the meme we want to promote.
Then let's ask if we KNOW that it's false.
Finally, if we dont know for sure that the story is false, let's run a tape of a simulation of the story we want to believe. We don't know for sure that it's a simulation of a lie, after all.
Did I understand your point?
As CNN just proved, they are not interested in truth. In fact, CNN is proving to be pro-Hamas, just like it was pro-Saddam.
Of course the journalists can always go to Egypt. Egypt has a border with Gaza. Egypt will let them in.
Just like Egypt is helping its Moslem brethren in Gaza.
Perhaps it actually is the case that Israeli atrocities are rare or non-existent? That the civilian deaths either are accidental, are incurred in the context of legitimate combat operations, or are accidental (there have been several Israeli military deaths from friendly fire)?
Maybe Hamas actually does have to fabricate stroies if it wants to convince people there are atrocities.
Give us Churchill's writings and speeches in the context of his words. Not a sanitized version of his words. If you like, I can provide some.
The stockbrokers and businessmen who worked at the World Trade Center made a decision to be part of the neoliberal economic world order. Their decisions had direct impacts on the lives of other people. Their decisions sometimes hurt people. People who wanted Justice.
So Churchill teaches that the people killed on 9/11 were not innocent - but little Eichmann's who rightfully suffered the consequences of their decisions.
And the Asian and Latin immigrants waiting tables on the 107th floor? The kids in the daycare?
My pastor's niece who was a stewardess, until the "roosting chickens" decided to incinerate her?
Your post is perhaps the most morally repugnant that I have ever read on this board. Congratulations.
Sure, that is something Hamas could do to minimize civilian casualties.
But the assertion was about Israel, not Hamas -- that Israel is "doing what it can to minimize civilian casualties." I generally accept that this is one of the considerations affecting Israeli actions (unlike Hamas), but at the same time, firing at a shelter is not "doing what you can" to minimize casualties.
"Doing what you can" would be not shooting at a shelter filled with civilians even if Hamas is firing a mortar from there, even if the laws of war allow you to do it, because doing so will kill a bunch of people who aren't shooting at you.
Israel has plenty of weapons that are capable of causing the reported damage. Their arsenal is hardly limited to only extremely powerful explosives (which I imagine even these could produce damage similar to that reported in the story but that did not destroy the building, depending upon proximity and intervening structures). I do agree with you that it is possible the entire story is faked--the, to my untained eyes, fake video of the doctors certainly gives this some support. I also agree that it is possible that the boys were killed by Palestian arms; it's happened before. But, those possibilities hardly mean that the story cannot be true since Palestian children being killed by Israeli forces is hardly a new phenomanom either.
Fair point. "Doing what you can" is ambiguous. But I suspect the connotation is closer to "Doing everything in your power" than to "Making great effort."
So is this formulation acceptable?: Israel is making great effort to minimize civilian casualties.
Something that might be true is not a news story.
[/sarcasm]
Israel, Hamas, et al. Sure.
But the news media is the issue here. You are now trying to shrug that off with "everybody does it". That dog won't hunt.
I've seen Israel lambasted for withdrawing unilaterally from Gaza before, but never before have I seen your argument, that Irael "conserved" Gaza as an "ethnic-minority" district in withdrawing the very settlers that people had insisted for decades that they withdraw as a minimum condition for peace. Assuming that you're determined already to consider Gaza part of Israel for these purposes, I don't think the removal of 7,500 Jews from among an Arab population of 1.4 million and rising makes much difference. Roughly half a percent, yes?
Does anyone other than the remnant of that ejected settler population actually want Gaza to be part of Israel? Does anyone other than the people still living there want Gaza, period? I doubt Egypt would have it as a gift. And so far as I can see, all Israel wants is for it to go away, or at least stop bloody shooting at it.
Your math doesn't add up.
Agreed. But, the fact that we cannot tell whether the story is true or false on its face, does not mean that the news agency doesn't have good reason to believe the story is true, even if those reasons fall below metaphysical certainty.
But of course!
Chomsky. Finkelstein. John "Call me Juan" Cole. Most of my colleagues.
Et al.
It would make their job easier. 'Cause it looks pretty bad to blame the current crisis on "The Occupation." Since there isn't one. (How do you think they can keep it up?)
This is such a surprise because we all know there is no such thing as war-time propaganda. Nobody lies to save their image in war-time. Nobody lies to make the enemy look bad. Not the Israelis, not the Palestinians, not Hamas, nobody.
What Hoosier said. We have to accept the existence of wartime propaganda, up to and including faked bodies, faked last-ditch medical rescue attempts, faked explosions, and "weapons parade" accidents re-purposed as atrocity footage. We do not have to put up with supposedly independent news organizations and supposedly honorable journalists reporting this stuff as truth, and then (as in this last case) withdrawing the footage without apology or explanation when called out on it.
As long as Israel continues to control Gaza's borders, blockade access to the sea, impose economic sanctions, and, every year or two, bomb the shit out of the place killing hundreds?
And don't forget, maintain official control of Gaza's airspace.....
You've confused many matters and used incorrectly many words, thus I can't extract your main argument or respond coherently; but I'll state here that Israel and the US cannot use vengeance as a base for administering a district. That Jews above have compared Arabs to "Nazis" or "Eichman" indisputably shows Jews' distorted vision of the world: like Elie Wiesel, Jews never left the Death Camps, and they see the whole world complete as a Death Camp with Jews driven by vengeance as the Camp Guards.
As for your observations, Israel conserved Gaza as an ethnic minority district much like US' conservation of Dakotas for American aborigines, and also like Gaza US permits aborigines to elect district government (tribal councils) while regulating and governing borders; Yankev argues that Egypt governs Egypt-Gaza border, but both Israel's unilateral occupation of Gaza as well as its closing of Egypt border shows indisputably Israel's sole governance of Gaza's borders; whether Jews want to live in Gaza (settlers showed their want violently) doesn't pertain to the matter of Gaza as district: English didn't "want" to live in Ireland or Scotland, but England governed both districts as colonies of the british empire.
There is one esception: Israel does control Gaza's seaports and airspace. While Israel does not generally directly control the Rafah crossings, given the control over airspace, they do have some de facto control with that.
My gosh, cognitis, that's some of the worst reasoning I've ever seen on this board. I believe exactly one Jew (probably) said anything about Nazis or Eichman. Clearly he speaks for Jews as a group.
And, given the large proportion of neocons who comment here, you're getting a biased sample too.
Personally, I'm a Jew who is frequently frustrated by the victimology which many Jews revel in, and I find your comments the attitude pervasive among some Jews basically correct. None of that changes that what you've said above is racism in its rawest form.
You, sir, are a man of great integrity. Thanks for sharing.
Steve h - that kind of policy is suicidal. People like you really piss me off, telling Israel what to do from the safety and comfort of your home which you will never know the terror of incoming missiles.
But, to answer questions as to why someone who do a video reenactment of a killing, if the killing itself did occur, I should think that is obvious: a picture is worth a thousand words. There is plenty of incentive to make a video "reenactment" and pass it off as genuine live capturing of events in the hospital, because the video is a more graphic depiction of the child's death. The parents, presumably, would go along with it because they are mad at Israel.
There is one other point, though, that I neglected to mention. Even if the kids were killed by Israelis, the part of the story that makes it have emotional pull is the the kid is dying in the hospital and his own brother happens to film the death. That seems fact, so the story doesn't have nearly as much impact.
I will defend CNN's lack of response, so far. First, no one here knows what sources Mike Holmes had for his story. Second, CNN needs time to check out his sources, and maybe do a follow up, if the original story is inaccurate. Certainly, we can't fault them for wanting to get the story right the second time around.
So, I think it presumptuous of David to say the CNN should fire the reporter. They should pull the text version of the story, though, until they look into the discrepancies further.
Try arguing from a position of logic and analyze how much sense it makes for an unmanned drone armed with small munitions to attack moving targets on a rooftop that could easily be explained away as "suspected snipers". Then reassess whether or not you should hastily post such an ignorant analysis of such an event in the future.
Specifically, the CPR looks bizarre. Even allowing for 14-16 year old, the cardiac massage looks too fast, and there is no ventiliation, so even if effective they're just pushing hypoxic blood around the body.
My guess is that the boy is already dead, and the large doctor on the right was hamming it up for the camera; the Scandinavian doctor on the left, you will note looks rather disinterested because he's triaging - no point in trying to resuscitate a corpse when there are other wounded.
So, a personal tragedy, enhanced for the media propaganda war.
FWIW, I grieve for the people killed, but believe Hamas must take responsibility for the disaster they have brought on. Equally, I do not believe there is any reason for Israel to occupy beyond the 67 boundaries.
Both need a slap. Why does the UN not guarantee Israel's safety behind the 1967 borders with a peacekeeping force - if ever, anywhere deserved that, it seems this region.
No, but we can fault them for not getting it right the first time. Given the Al Durra video and the faked photos from the Lebanon war, it's reasonable to expect more fakes. It's also reasonable to ask if the news companies are exercising editorial control in examining what they receive and broadcast.
Oh and by the way, I come from a medical family and I am an emergency responder and that is not CPR that they are performing. It is a fake and a sham. Why use a stand in to show what is going on? Where are the photos of his real chidren? And how do we know that this is his kid? Just because he says so? I personnally believe that the cameramen kids are probably okay and living somewhere safe. IMHO
Yet you are okay to judge what the Palestinians do, from the safety and comfort of your own home, from which you will never know the indignity and frustration and poverty of a forty-year occupation.
If Israel's military decides that it is justified to kill a whole mess of civilians to try to take out one gun or one mortar, that's their decision. Like I have said, maybe it's justified in a particular case, maybe it's not.
But I don't think Israel can simultaneously (1) make that decision, and (2) claim that Israel is doing "all it can to avoid civilian casualties."
I'm not necessarily saying that Israel is right or wrong in attacking Gaza, in dropping bombs, or in bringing in the army. But I am willing to point out the absurdity, illogic, and downright frightening implications of the statements being thrown around by those who, in their slavish devotion, feel compelled not only to defend Israel's actions at any given time, but also to accuse people who simply ask a few questions as being in favor of Israel's destruction.
I usually tune into CNN. But I am appalled that this article came out. Do they believe we are this stupid??? If it down right insulting. No thanks CNN. You can find me at MSNBC from now on. You should be ashamed.
Of course Israel has weapons which can kill two children with minimal material damage. Hell, I could do it with my hands. Problem for you is to tell us which of those weapons (a pistol, maybe? hovering over the rooftop and dropping a hand grenade? something else improbable and stupid?) can be fired from an aircraft?
Plutonium Q 26 Space Modulator?
Dr Mathews: Can provide some Valium for J. Smaili? Thanks!
Let me break it down for you: In his grief, Mashharawi states that the rocket was, "...just for them". He wasn't stating this as fact; to him, it seemed like the rocket was just for them. Your strawman argument that the Israeli military constructs small rockets to kill boys on roofs is pathetic and indicative of a weak logical reasoning ability.
How about the fact that the roof shows no sign of having been hit by a rocket? How would you assess your own reasoning in light of that evidence?
It's only a matter of time before the leftist crazies start demanding the West start bombing Israel for "war crimes". Just watch."
Max Boot has targeted every other middle eastern country so it may be just a matter of time before he gets there.
Disgusting animal.
FWIW, I grieve for the people killed, but believe Hamas must take responsibility for the disaster they have brought on. Equally, I do not believe there is any reason for Israel to occupy beyond the 67 boundaries.
Why does the UN not guarantee Israel's safety behind the 1967 borders with a peacekeeping force - if ever, anywhere deserved that, it seems this region.
Thank you for your thoughts and comments, Dr Mathews, which I think are generally worthwhile, but the last bit quoted above seems dangerously naive. A UN guarantee of “Israel's safety behind the 1967 borders with a peacekeeping force” would not be acceptable to Israel or its thoughtful friends because few such could seriously imagine that the UN — were the crunch time to occur — would act to defend Israel's existence, even as effectively as the peacekeeper guarantors of the civilian population of Srebrenica who barely a dozen years back simply abandoned their charges to slaughter.
In my view it's likely that even a NATO guarantee of Israel's safety would not be fully trustable in this regard.
CNN is standing by the video's authenticity.
For those who said that CNN would have done better if they'd been given a chance by Israel... well I hope you feel like fools. You've certainly been played for such.
In sum, CNN is essentially saying "trust me" - without substantiating why they should be trusted - while others are arguing against the "trust me" assumption and additionally are substantiating their arguments.
Given the equipment, however, you would ventilate. And compressions need to be deep enough to really cause the heart to compress. You compress the chest in order to compress the heart. Must be deep, relative to the person's size, of course. That's why they never do the real thing in movies. They have to.....fake it.
1) Risk to troops is no excuse for categorical failure to protect non-combatants (see conviction of Karl Doenitz at Nuremberg for the Laconia Order).
2) Non-state entities are protected (see complaint against Milosevic)
3) UN is calling for a war crimes probe against the IDF. This is the first time I can remember this specific action being taken.
You mean the U.N. didn't call for war crimes probes against Hamas, Hezbollah or their sponsors, foremostly Iran and Syria, during all those years when they were specifically targeting civilian populations in Israel, continuing to this day?
Shocking, given the now habituated manner in which the U.N. allows itself to be coopted by all manner of rogue regimes and non-state actors - about as shocking as watching the sun rise in the east.
Congratulations, einhverfr, you remain among the vanguard, the vanguard of myopic and willfully incurious spectators, fascinated with a thoroughly de-moralized and coopted United Nations.
(The link is to a brief youTube titled 15 Seconds in Sderot, because once a Hamas rocket has been fired from Gaza, the civilian population in Israel has approximately 15 seconds to take cover in one of their bomb shelters.)
I have been consistent in asking for war-crimes probes on both sides since at least the early days of the Second Intifada. My feeling is that if the leadership had their necks on the line, we would have a lot less in the way of bus bombings, etc. I also think that if we were to start investigating Hizbullah war crimes, we would have less of a threat on Northern Israel from them.
BTW, the UN is only calling for an investigation into possible war crimes, not actual charges at this point.
My main purpose for the post is to show that nobody who does not have a big stake in believing otherwise really believes that war crime indictments would not be enforcible in the Gaza conflict. We already have clear precedents knocking away the most substantive arguments to the contrary (the Milosevic and Doenitz precedents are most clear on these areas). Gaza is part of a territory that is as much a state as Kosovo was. If Milosevic can be charged without a lack of statehood being an issue, so can Olmert (provided that specific war crimes allegations are brought forward).
The UN call for a probe is significant in that it shows that nobody outside of those with an axe to grind believe that jus ad bellum doesn't apply.
Care to venture a guess as to how reflective members of Hamas are when it comes to acknowledging the pervasive enculturation of death and hate?
Care to venture a guess as to how often Hamas and other factions use "voluntary" human shields in Gaza, southern Lebanon and elsewhere?
Care to venture a guess as to how reflective they are when it comes to acknowledging the finer points of propaganda and deceit, as a primary aspect of their media-driven strategy?
But let me guess, guys like yourself and Mike 'Ralph' Smith prefer not to venture such guesses. Instead, you prefer to remain incurious, resolved to refrain from taking such inconvenient information into your calculus.
What is "Categorical failure", as opposed to the inability to defend oneself against a foe who hides among civilians and how do the IDF's actions fall into that category while the Hamas'do not?
Bullshit.
If that were the case they'd have called for similar investigations a long time ago, against Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and others.
The UN doesn't matter.
That hardly seems like the anti-Israel ravings that some seem to be assuming comes from the UN. They are asking for an investigation, and also stating that the Hamas rocket fire is similarly problematic.
Furthermore, it is NOT TRUE that international organizations have not condemned the terrorist attacks as violations of international humanitarian law. The ICRC has repeatedly made statements to the effect that any attack against the Israeli civilian population is unacceptable.
With minimal effort I can find many more statements by the ICRC on the illegality of terrorist attacks against Israel. Is anyone interested in a list?
GazaIsrael, no civilian is safe. As long as violence continues, civilians will be injured and killed," she said."It's despicable that the UN is waiting for me to correct its position statement. The correction should have been made many years ago.
Do you disagree that a war crimes probe should occur?
Bear in mind that under every interpretation of International Law I have come across, Israel has the first obligation to perform such an investigation, not an international body. I think such an investigation should occur after every major accident in which a substantial number of civilians are killed. Unfortunately, as in the case of Durnhull's killing in 2003, the IDF has been slow to investigate such things.
That's what SHE said!
Oh. On a less significant note: Whatever one thinks of the UN's credibility in the Israel/Palestein dispute, there is no reason that Israel should think the UN is credible. Just have a look at the UN General Assembly Resolutions. How many have condemned Israel? Around 350?
I don't know how many have condemned Hamas. But I have a rough estimate in mind.
When you think about it, the whole thing smells so bad that it is difficult to think anybody could buy the CPR schtick.
The point is not to compress the chest. The point is to compress the heart. You have to really move the chest wall to get a heart compression of sufficient volume. On a kid that size, one to two inches of compression is required. Otherwise, you're doing squat.And busting on somebody whose heart is not stopped is a good way to mess him up. Really mess him up.
Who doesn't know this?
Nobody.
Who pretends not to know this?
Gee. Well, starting with CNN....
Any UN war crimes probes must first investigate and prosecute Hamas's use of schools, hospitals, ambulances, mosques, and human shields as cover for their insistent terrorist attacks against unarmed Israeli civilians. Once that war crimes probe is complete, come back to me and we'll talk about Israel's response to those attacks.
Never happen.
Given repeated past instances of fake claims, photos, and videos being issued by the Palestinians, CNN was not being "gullible": It was on full notice that careful vetting was required. It nonetheless refused journalistic scrutiny necessary to authenticate the video before running it.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.