Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, Moderators, protect
28,120
edits
Changes
→Bias
The "Palestinian" authority issued an official statement today (Thursday) in which it claimed that an "investigation" it (supposedly) "conducted" "revealed" that "the IDF fired an al-Jazeera reporter "intentionally" and without prior warning while she was on the run." This is a continuation of the Arab blood libel against Israel after the investigation published on the subject on the CNN network based on Cobb Smith, who previously worked for a terrorist organization and even falsely stated that Israel used (supposedly) white phosphorus bombs against civilians.
The "Palestinian" authority issued an official statement today (Thursday) in which it claimed that an "investigation" it (supposedly) "conducted" "revealed" that "the IDF fired an al-Jazeera reporter "intentionally" and without prior warning while she was on the run." This is a continuation of the Arab blood libel against Israel after the investigation published on the subject on the CNN network based on Cobb Smith, who previously worked for a terrorist organization and even falsely stated that Israel used (supposedly) white phosphorus bombs against civilians.
It should be noted that the Arabs refused any request from the IDF for a joint investigation of the incident or by another neutral international entity.</blockquote></ref>
It should be noted that the Arabs refused any request from the IDF for a joint investigation of the incident or by another neutral international entity.</blockquote></ref>
The CNN "investigation" claiming Israel [as if] "deliberately" shot Shireen Abu Akla relies on the testimony of a "Palestinian" reporter named Shatha Hanaysha who dreams of "rockets of the resistance."<ref>
Aviva Klompas @AvivaKlompas Tweeted ([https://twitter.com/AvivaKlompas/status/1529217278729891840 May 24, 2022]):
<blockquote>
The @CNN investigation claiming Israel deliberately shot Sheerin Abu Akla relies on the testimony of a Palestinian reporter named Shatha Hanaysha. Here are some of Shatha’s tweets. Perhaps someone who dreams of "rockets of the resistance" isn’t an impartial eye witness...
[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FTjfAb9VIAA-RTn?format=jpg&name=small].</blockquote></ref>
Former diplomat:
<ref>Lenny Ben-David @lennybendavid ([https://twitter.com/lennybendavid/status/1529232543283019776 May 24, 2022]):
<blockquote>
Great thread. Another CNN flaw: what motive would Israel have to shoot/"target" a middle age woman? If an Israeli sniper was shooting anyone, why not shoot at Palestinian fighters? How can CNN make a conclusion if the Palestinians refuse to release the bullet? CNN.</blockquote></ref><i>Another CNN flaw: what motive would Israel have to shoot/"target" a middle age woman? If an Israeli sniper was shooting anyone, why not shoot at Palestinian fighters? How can CNN make a conclusion if the Palestinians refuse to release the bullet?</i>
And it was totally debunked anyway, point by point.<ref>Dovid Efune @Efune Tweeted ([https://twitter.com/Efune/status/1529216592336281601 May 24, 2022]):<blockquote>
1. Per CNN's own map, the Israeli forces were positioned in between Abu Akleh and the militants. If they were shooting at each other (green arrow for IDF, red arrow for gunmen), then the Palestinians were the only ones shooting in Abu Akleh's direction.
2. 2. CNN confirms that both the Israelis and the militants were using M16 and M4 rifles. It then cites an "expert" who claims that the Palestinians, about 300 meters away from Abu Akleh, were out of range. The M4's range is 500+ meters. The M16's range is 800+ meters.
3. The report relies heavily on "eyewitnesses." Citing witness testimony from within what @NatanSharansky would call a "fear society" is inherently problematic. The sources are highly motivated to toe the line and would place themselves at great personal risk if they didn't.
4. CNN then cites "explosive weapons expert" Chris Cobb-Smith, who is no objective observer. Cobb-Smith has a history (over a decade) of directing his "expertise" towards incriminating Israel. He's also tied to some reliably anti-Israel groups, including Forensic Architecture.
Cobb-Smith claims that the grouping of bullet holes at the scene could not have come from random (militant) fire. But CNN ignores the likelihood that the gunmen were firing -- and specifically aiming -- in the direction of the IDF, whom Abu Akleh was standing behind.
Also, the spacing of the bullet holes shown by CNN, with one higher up and two lower down, seem unlikely to have come from a sniper, as CNN asserts. I know of no military that would retain a sniper who was that bad a shot, no less the IDF.
5. CNN's final piece of "evidence" comes from forensic audio analyst Robert Maher who matches the distance (200m) from which the deadly bullet was fired to the IDF. Maher seems straight enough, but here's the catch. Per CNN, there were 2 volleys fired in Abu Akleh's direction...
Maher only analyses the second volley because, CNN says, "eyewitnesses" say Abu Akleh was hit in the second barrage. But what if the eyewitnesses were wrong, per the above, and she was killed in the first? Why does CNN not give us the same data from the first volley?
If, as seems a more likely scenario, the militants (from 300m) came up behind the Israelis and fired in their (and Abu Akleh's) direction, then the Israelis would have returned fire (from 200m) towards them. Maher may be right on distance, but the IDF was shooting the other way.
In sum, CNN's report appears carefully constructed to fit a pre-determined conclusion: Israel is guilty. It will no doubt be used to recruit for terror groups who prey on innocent civilians in Israel and in worldwide Jewish communities. Their blood will be on @CNN's hands.</blockquote></ref>
===2020 election===
===2020 election===