Israeli troops shoot peace activist

[Darranar]

Israeli occupation soldiers have invaded the Balata refugee camp near Nablus and fired rubber bullets at international peace activists and also injured six children.


A Swedish peace activist told Aljazeera.net that she was hit by a rubber bullet as she stood by the side of a road recording the activities of the army.

Ulrika Andersson, 25, said that she had been speaking to a soldier a few minutes before being shot.

''I walked up to the military jeep because I wanted to tell the soldier to stop shooting. It was obvious that the soldier wasn't interested in talking to me, so I walked back and stood at the side of the road where I was joined by some children.''

Al Jazeera

[Darranar]

1. This could well be innaccurate...

I just did a Google news search on this event, and the only other hit was this, which appears to have come from a ISM press release.

[Jackie97]

68. Always have to watch your sources.

The first thing I thought about this when I read the title though was "Again?".

[JohnLocke]

84. Al Jazeera inaccurate? Who would have thunk it?

By the wat, you subject line is misleading. "Shoot" should be "injure," because it was a rubber bullet.

[Saudade]

2. Obvious

This is a clear campaign that began at about the time of the Rachel Corrie murder. It gets absolutely no press in America.

[Resistance]

63. Don't you love how the press covers for Israel every time?

They even cover for them when Israel murders our own citizens.

[Jackie97]

69. Don't forget that those citizens of ours considered to be betraying us.

Flag burning types like Rachel Corrie and others who go to the West Bank and Gaza strip to be peace activists are not considered to be good enough to be American anymore. Going against Israel is going against the nationalistic message that our government is trying to send us about how we and Israel are good and the same after all.

[Resistance]

70. which speaks volumes

on what our values really are, doesn't it?

[TimeLord]

65. Rachel Corrie was not the first.

There was a several UN workers (my memory went blank) that were shot a year and a half ago. I would also bet that there are many more incidents that do not get reported.

[Resistance]

72. yep

UN workers murdered by Israel = look the other way.

UN workers murdered by 'Al-Qaeda' = invade Arab countries and drop bombs on civilians.

[Herschel]

3. This will bear discussing

when reported by a reliable source.

[Darranar]

4. Al Jazeera generally is a reliable source...

this time I'm not sure (note post #1.)

[Herschel]

5. You are saying

sometimes right and sometimes wrong. Unreliable.

[Darranar]

6. No...

for the most part, they are reliable.

If a single mistake made a news source unreliable, you'd be left with no news sources.

And I'm not convinced that this is a mistaken report. Al Jazeera seems to have done some research on this, and though ISM is hopelessly biased, I doubt they'd fake the shooting of one of their own activists...

[Herschel]

7. Al Jazeera

As you said yourself, we are well advised to look for confirmation. I will leave it at that.

[Darranar]

8. That is true...

and it is smart to do so for any news story like this if one is in doubt.

[Herschel]

9. Reliable sources

such as the Jerusalem Post do not require confirmation.

[Aidoneus]

10. forget it.

deleted by poster..

[Darranar]

12. Post deleted by poster.

[Aidoneus]

13. "forget it"#2

deleted by poster.. don't feel like bothering with this consistant hypocrisy again.

[Darranar]

11. The Jerusalem Post is reliable...

but Al Jazeera isn't?

So an extremely biased "pro-israel" piece of junk is more reliable than an extremely biased pro-Palestinian source?

Why?

[Herschel]

17. Well said

The Jerusalem Post is more pragmatic than leftist. However, for factual information, it is reliable. Al Jazeera is not.

[Darranar]

19. For factual information...

they're both rather reliable - for what they report. There are certainly exceptions - considerably more for JPost than Al Jazeera.

[Herschel]

21. Please!

You are saying Al Jazeera is more reliable? Oh, my.

[Darranar]

25. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying...

when JPost stops having right-wing, borderline if not blatantly bigoted opinion pieces, and stops reporting the news in a clearly and excessively biased fashion, I'll start suspecting it less...

[legin]

22. The Jerusalem Post is a pile of crap

It's a mouthpiece for the Likud party.

"The Jerusalem Post is more pragmatic than leftist." What's this, something from the Harry Flasher school of spin ?

[Herschel]

26. Explain yourself

Name a more reliable and comprehensive source for news of the conflict. One, please.

[Darranar]

29. For me...

I'll take Haaretz.

[Resistance]

64. Electronic Intifada

is more honest than Jerusalem Post.

[legin]

31. OK

Haaretz
BBC
New York Times
Asia Times
The Beano
Washington Post
Fox News even

[Herschel]

33. You two

Haaretz is a fine little paper though editorially misguided at times. Both it and the others do not provide nearly as comprehensive coverage. The New York Times and Fox News are more comprehensive? Please!

[Darranar]

35. "Editorially misguided"?

Because they don't believe that the Palestinians are the root of all evil?

JPost has nothing factual that isn't in other news sources.

[Herschel]

37. So then

no news stories in the Jerusalem Post are exclusive?

[Darranar]

41. I said "factual"

not propaganda or spin.

[Herschel]

42. Again I ask you

Do you believe the Jerusalem Post has no news stories which are exclusive?

[Darranar]

44. What exactly do you mean by "exclusive"?

Are you speaking of special reports and the like?

[Herschel]

46. Oh, my

An exclusive news story which other papers do not have. Information other papers do not have. Call them special reports if you like.

[Darranar]

48. dupe

[Darranar]

49. If Jpost ever saw fit to have information...

that other papers didn't have, I'd immediately grow suspicious.

"Exclusive" isn't clear. Opinion pieces are exclusive to a news source, generally.

[Gimel]

60. Yet very selective

There is not mention, for example of the suicide bomber who blew himself up in the area on Nov 3, the previous day.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/356770.html

This bomber was a Fatch activist and only 16 years old. That is, a child, the same age as those throwing rocks at the troops the next day. Can't you relate the two incidents? The tanks were in the area because of this attack.
http://www.idf.il/english/announcements/2003/november/3.stm

[TimeLord]

66. I believe the discussion is about the incident.

Not who reported it.

If true, this is not good news at all. Considering the IDF's history of killing civilians, UN relief workers, and Peace activists, I would tend to believe the story.

If a dog has bitten you once and then starts to growl, would you have no reason to believe he would bite you again?

[Darranar]

40. Jpost is so comprehensive...

that it has no mention of the peace rally in Te Aviv.

[Resistance]

85. seriously?

Wow, that is bad.

[Darranar]

86. No, I was wrong...

They didn't miss it.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[legin]

39. Dupe post

.

[Herschel]

43. I suggest

removing the other as well.

[legin]

51. Hands off the Beano

It's one of the great british comics.

I grew up on it.

Features classic characters such as Roger the Dodger, The Bash Street Kids and Dennis the Menace.

It's coverage of the I/P issue is legendry. Much better than the Jerusalem Post.

[Resistance]

76. sounds interesting

is it on the internet anywhere?

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Aidoneus]

24. I object

on occasion it more resembles LGF than FR.

[legin]

27. LOL

:evilgrin:

[legin]

45. Little Democratic Footballs perhaps ?? n/t

.

[Herschel]

47. We are all progressives here

-

[Aidoneus]

50. no we're not

some extreme bastardization, hijacking, and misinterpreting of the term is necessary for that to be remotely true.

[Forkboy]

54. lol

it takes more than saying it.

[rini]

15. I googled

nothing newer than Oct.14th 2003. At the moment, I am taking this with a grain of salt.

[Darranar]

16. According to GoogleNews...

this is 12 hours old.

[Herschel]

18. A question for you

If Al Jazeera and the Jerusalem Post reported conflicting information, which is more likely to be accurate? I think you know the answer.

[Darranar]

20. I'd look for confirmation of either fact...

I'm less suspect of Al Jazeera then I am of JPost, but I'm not naive enough to believe that they have everything exactly right...

[Herschel]

23. You are either misinformed

or would rather not speak the obvious.

[Darranar]

28. Both Al Jazeera and JPost report the news...

and both do it in a biased fashion. Do we agree on that?

[Herschel]

30. Perhaps there is bias for both

However, it is extremely rare for the Jerusalem Post to be inaccurate factually. That cannot be said for Al Jazeera.

[Darranar]

32. Prove it...

This article is one thing Al Jazeera may have gotten wrong.

[Herschel]

34. If I had posted

from the Jerusalem Post, I would do so with confidence. Yet you are wavering on Al Jazeera. Oh, my.

[Darranar]

36. I am wavering...

not because it is Al jazeera, but because no other news source had confirmed this.

I would waver just as much if this were Haaretz.

[Resistance]

75. I am not sure if that is a good reason to waver

Plenty of stories never reach any mainstream sources

[Jack Rabbit]

52. You guys should learn to Google

Try Gooling Google News on "Ulrika Andersson", the name of the victim. Then you will get the story from Scoop in New Zealand. I found it hours ago. It says:

Ulrika Andersson, a 25 year old International Solidarity Movement female volunteer from Sweden, was shot in the collarbone with a rubber bullet while standing on the street in front of a group of children.
Later today, other ISM volunteers had been centimeters away from being hit with live fire as well. The injured have been treated by UPMRC and Red Crescent workers.
On multiple occasions, female ISM volunteers tried to engage with the soldiers in jeeps in verbal dialogue pertaining to the reason for the invasion but were met either with flirting or orders to leave the area. The Israeli military has seized control of and occupied at least two homes in the southern and eastern entrances to the camp, although this number may be as high as four.

Now, as hard as some might find this to take, al-Jazeera is a perfectly reliable source of facts. Some might find its editorial content and pro-Arab bias difficult, but al-Jazeera's basic facts are facts.

If I read in al-Jazeera that an unarmed Swedish ISM volunteer was wounded in a skirmish, I will believe that it happened. I may watch for the bias and slant, just as I would in reading the Jersusalem Post. However, the fact that a news source may be biased and slanted does not mean that they make it up. Just learn to read around it. After all, this is a war.

[Darranar]

53. That article was from an ISM press release...

hardly an objective source.

Though I did noticed it; see post #1.

[Darranar]

55. Another article on this...

though from a rather biased source:

IOF Wounds 12 Palestinians and Two Peace Activists, Attacks Journalists

NABLUS, November 5, 2003 (IPC + Agencies)-- Israeli occupying forces (IOF) have invaded the Balata refugee camp, east of Nablus City, shot and wounded 14 citizens, including two international peace activists and six children.



IPC correspondent said that large forces of Israeli troops and vehicles besieged the refugee camp early on Monday, and started opening heavy indiscriminate fire towards the citizens' houses. Heavy confrontations were reported between the Palestinian inhabitants of the camp and the Israeli troops, who fired rubber-coated bullets and tear gas canisters.



Medical sources in Nablus said that dozens of Palestinian citizens arrived at the different hospitals in Nablus, after being wounded with either the rubber-coated bullets or inhaling the poisonous tear gas.

http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_e/ipc_e-1/e_News/news2003/2003-11/014.html

[Herschel]

56. And now a press release

Have we found anything reliable?

[Darranar]

57. Do you think ISM faked it?

[Resistance]

58. How brave of the Israeli troops

gunning down an unarmed peace activist ... once again proving there is no difference between the IDF and Hamas.

[Gimel]

59. Provocation

Soldiers have consistently engaged in provacative behavior, taunting groups of rock-throwing, Palestinian youth by driving their vehicles closer to them and then retreating a few dozen meters after attacking with their weapons. So far, nine Palestinians, mostly youths, have been shot with live fire in the legs, arms, back, and torso regions.

From the ISM press release.



Although the press release says that the troops acted to provoke the Palestinian youths, it passed over the fact that the youths were throwing rocks at the troops. In other words, the provocation was laid at the feet of the soldiers, when the word means to initiate a reaction, not to respond to a reaction.

In my understanding of language, to provoke means to seek a response. Why were the youth throwing rocks at the soldiers? Why do the ISM think they can discuss the issues of the conflict with soldiers who are not independent actors on the scene? They are out of place in this context. Like Ms Corrie, they intentionally place themselves in the line of fire.

[lefty_mcduff]

61. Is the response to 'rock throwing youths' live fire?

Is there an equivalancy between rock-throwing youths and armed-to-the-teeth well trained soldiers?

[Gimel]

62. Hospital reports

The hospital reported only treating rubber-bullet wounds and tear gas. No live amunition. There was a false report in the ISM news release. No live amunition was used.

[TimeLord]

67. Rubber bullets kill as well.

Particularly if they are well placed.

[Resistance]

71. oh ok

Gimel wrote: "Like Ms Corrie, they intentionally place themselves in the line of fire."

Using this warped logic, we should blame Israeli bus-riders for making themselves perfect targets for suicide bombers.

[dai]

73. Not a very good analogy...

...because Rachel Corrie was making a political statement by placing herself where she was, Israeli bus-riders are not trying to make any point by taking the bus.

I think Gimel is right, ISM does intentionally place themselves in the line of fire and I don't believe they deny this intention. Personally, I think they are doing it for good reasons - but they are intentionally putting themselves at risk; Israeli citizens (and Palestinians, I suppose), don't really have a choice, so it is not a fair comparison.

[Resistance]

74. yes I see your point there

I meant to show the warped thinking that blames the innocent victims of violent aggression, and makes excuses for the perpetrators.

[Gimel]

77. Distortions

of the truth made your point fall flat. The "perpetrators" have no intention of killing someone, so there can be no "excuse" only a false claim.

[Resistance]

78. There is no distortion

Israeli soldiers have intentionally targeted non-violent peace activists for murder.

I don't think this can be stated much more clearer than that.

[GabysPoppy]

79. You are wrong

[Violet_Crumble]

80. No, he's not...

That British guy who was shot by the IDF? He's in a coma and may as well be dead. There was definately intent involved in that one. And that British journalist? Hell, there was intent there. Even if there wasn't intent, why is depraved indifference any better? In some ways it's an even worse thing...


Violet...

[bluesoul]

81. Extreme negligence

the same thing really. Just as with US attacks in Afghanistan killing numerous children and other innocent people...

[Resistance]

82. Not negligence

Purposeful, deliberate, intentional targeting of peace activists. They scoped Hurndall out specifically and shot him in the head. Rachel Corrie was deliberately run down in most likely a planned attack. Brian Avery was targeted and shot in the face. James Miller was shot with full knowledge of who he was before they murdered him. Ian Hook was sighted in a scope and deliberately shot dead.

It's much worse than negligence.

[Resistance]

83. and even if it is merely negligence

it's still homicide; yet the killers walk free and the U.S. rewards them with more free weapons, more free attack helicopters, more free money, and total silence over the incidents.