Palestinian report says Israel deliberately killed Al Jazeera's Shireen Abu Aqla

[webfact]

Shireen Abu Aqla's killing drew outrage and condemnation around the world

IMAGE SOURCE, EPA

 

By Raffi Berg
BBC News

 

A Palestinian investigation has concluded that Al Jazeera reporter Shireen Abu Aqla was intentionally shot dead by an Israeli soldier.

 

Announcing the findings, the Palestinian attorney general said "the only shooting was by the occupation forces, with the aim of killing".

 

The Israeli defence minister rejected the report, calling it "a blatant lie".

 

Full story: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-61562545

 

-- © Copyright BBC 2022-05-28

[RichardColeman]

Not much point in commenting on this - you'll either be an Islamaphobe or anti-semite !

[Tropposurfer]

Don't take a rocket science degree to know that

 

[Enoon]

9 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

Not much point in commenting on this - you'll either be an Islamaphobe or anti-semite !

Do you mean that a person would be an Islamaphobe for approving/defending Jewish-Israeli action against her as a Muslim?

 

She was a Christian.

 

A Melkite Catholic.

 

 

[zzaa09]

Remember that the invented and apartheid state of Israel only pursues activities with the select permission and green light from Uncle Sugar. 

[WildBillHiccup]

In the News this very day (really):

Israeli military shoot dead a 15 year old Palestinian boy —

— he was throwing stones ! ! !

So how come they all didn't lay down their rifles and throw the stones back at him? 

[RobU]

1 hour ago, Enoon said:

Do you mean that a person would be an Islamaphobe for approving/defending Jewish-Israeli action against her as a Muslim?

 

She was a Christian.

 

A Melkite Catholic.

 

 

But the Palestinian authority that came to this conclusion is not Christian. Her faith is irrelevant

[ClaySmc]

17 minutes ago, RobU said:

But the Palestinian authority that came to this conclusion is not Christian. Her faith is irrelevant

Then why do you bring it up. There have been objective reports by major western media outlets that have contradicted Israeli propaganda:

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/24/middleeast/shireen-abu-akleh-jenin-killing-investigation-cmd-intl/index.html

 

 

[RobU]

21 minutes ago, ClaySmc said:

Then why do you bring it up. There have been objective reports by major western media outlets that have contradicted Israeli propaganda:

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/24/middleeast/shireen-abu-akleh-jenin-killing-investigation-cmd-intl/index.html

 

 

I didn't bring it up, you did I responded to someone elses comment, read my posts before you comment

[RobU]

38 minutes ago, ClaySmc said:

Then why do you bring it up. There have been objective reports by major western media outlets that have contradicted Israeli propaganda:

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/24/middleeast/shireen-abu-akleh-jenin-killing-investigation-cmd-intl/index.html

 

 

I responded to the comment that if anyone passes a comment agreeing or criticising either side they would be labelled either Islamaphobic or Anti Semetic (because one side is Islamic and the other is Jewish). The Argument is between the 2 Authorities not between the Christian woman and the israeli soldier who killed her. Hence her (and his) faith is irrelevant, for all I know the soldier may have been an agnostic citizen who joined the army to defend his country.

[Jingthing]

12 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

Not much point in commenting on this - you'll either be an Islamaphobe or anti-semite !

Wrong.

You can oppose some policies and actions of the Israeli government as I do without being a Jew hater.

If you don't think Israel has a right to exist and defense, that's something else.

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, WildBillHiccup said:

In the News this very day (really):

Israeli military shoot dead a 15 year old Palestinian boy —

— he was throwing stones ! ! !

So how come they all didn't lay down their rifles and throw the stones back at him? 

Stones have been known to be lethal. Like when thrown at cars sometimes cause fatal accidents.

[Jingthing]

2 hours ago, zzaa09 said:

Remember that the invented and apartheid state of Israel only pursues activities with the select permission and green light from Uncle Sugar. 

What state isn't invented?

 

If you're talking about Arab Israeli citizens 20 percent of the population they don't really live under apartheid.

[ClaySmc]

40 minutes ago, RobU said:

I didn't bring it up, you did I responded to someone elses comment, read my posts before you comment

I apologize if I misunderstood. Sorry about that.

[Harveyg]

6 hours ago, ClaySmc said:

Then why do you bring it up. There have been objective reports by major western media outlets that have contradicted Israeli propaganda:

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/24/middleeast/shireen-abu-akleh-jenin-killing-investigation-cmd-intl/index.html

 

 

Objective reports. You link to one from CNN. Is anyone interviewed from the Israeli side? Anyone? Does the title of the article suggest objectivity? This is how antisemitism breeds. Get both sides before you remotely call it objective.

 

Where are the videos showing the cause and nature and reason for the military presence?

 

all evidence presented is only presented by one side.

Thank you CNN.

[Jingthing]

31 minutes ago, Harveyg said:

Objective reports. You link to one from CNN. Is anyone interviewed from the Israeli side? Anyone? Does the title of the article suggest objectivity? This is how antisemitism breeds. Get both sides before you remotely call it objective.

 

Where are the videos showing the cause and nature and reason for the military presence?

 

all evidence presented is only presented by one side.

Thank you CNN.

CNN is a reasonably reliable news source. When they do make mistakes, they acknowledge them. I don't think invoking charges of antisemitism is helpful or relevant on this matter. A very popular journalist was killed. People of good faith regardless of their views on the Israeli Palestinian conflict will want the truth to come out, and any guilty parties to be punished.

[Harveyg]

8 hours ago, Jingthing said:

CNN is a reasonably reliable news source. When they do make mistakes, they acknowledge them. I don't think invoking charges of antisemitism is helpful or relevant on this matter. A very popular journalist was killed. People of good faith regardless of their views on the Israeli Palestinian conflict will want the truth to come out, and any guilty parties to be punished.

I do not view CNN as reliable. They’re in the news business to make money and so are their sponsors. Let’s be clear about that. I’ll give you one example. Anderson Cooper’s show is produced by Pfizer. His salary is 12 million per year and 10 million of that is paid by Pfizer.  The potential conflict of interest is quite apparent.

in the case of the Arab-Israeli conflict I cannot cite particular potential conflicts of interest except to say they’re in business, period. Their business demands creating as much drama as possible. What a good way to do that is to solicit evidence and comments only from one side. How much time was the Israeli side given? That is simply not reliable journalism nor what is objective.

 

As for “People of good faith regardless of their views on the Israeli Palestinian conflict will want the truth to come out, and any guilty parties to be punished.” - I agree with you, however I do not regard conclusions based on one-sided arguments as being a person of good faith, yet many respondents are quite ready and willing to pronounce a guilty sentence.

 

regarding charges of antisemitism, my comment was that this sort of one-sided coverage creates the atmosphere of demonizing one group. If they wanted to be fair they could’ve been. They chose not to be fair. Examine the videos and examine who talks and examine who is interviewed. It is let’s say at least 95% one way. It’s not even close to 50%.

The only comment attributed to the Israeli side that I recall is that they referred to some of the accusations as lies. Nothing else do I recall. Not even 10 seconds worth of time. Does the  journalist state what questions were asked to whom on the Israili side that received no response? Apparently not. What efforts were made to establish the reason the soldiers were there? 

[AnnaBanana]

Where is Morch when you need him?

 At least he was au fait  and entertaining.

[proton]

Palestinian is a by word for self inflicted 'victim'. The Arabs could have had their own state offered by the Brits in the 30's, they said no as they were 'only' offered 80% of the area the Jews the other 20%. They said no again after WW2 when the UN offered a 50-% solution, instead 5 Arab armies attacked the new Israel. They have never been interested in a 2 state solution, only in one- their own with no Israel. 

[Mac Mickmanus]

20 hours ago, WildBillHiccup said:

In the News this very day (really):

Israeli military shoot dead a 15 year old Palestinian boy —

— he was throwing stones ! ! !

So how come they all didn't lay down their rifles and throw the stones back at him? 

Because that isn't how law enforcement works .

No where in the World do the authorities match the way the people are behaving 

[ClaySmc]

5 hours ago, Harveyg said:

regarding charges of antisemitism

According to Israeli policy, anyone who doesn't agree with Israeli policy is antisemitic; that could even be those of Jewish faith. You got a closed loop there, one that is indefensible. 

[ozimoron]

20 hours ago, RobU said:

I responded to the comment that if anyone passes a comment agreeing or criticising either side they would be labelled either Islamaphobic or Anti Semetic (because one side is Islamic and the other is Jewish). The Argument is between the 2 Authorities not between the Christian woman and the israeli soldier who killed her. Hence her (and his) faith is irrelevant, for all I know the soldier may have been an agnostic citizen who joined the army to defend his country.

Anybody with critical thinking skills understands that criticizing a government is not criticizing a religion.

[Jingthing]

12 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Anybody with critical thinking skills understands that criticizing a government is not criticizing a religion.

Mostly true.

But some "criticism" of the Israeli government is not normal criticism. It's more like Israel doesn't deserve to exist kind of rhetoric. Also Israel was founded as a homeland for the Jewish people. Jewish is not only a religion. It's more like an ethnoreligious kind of thing like the Kurds. Most of the Jews I know are not religious. They are still Jews.

[Jingthing]

14 minutes ago, ClaySmc said:

According to Israeli policy, anyone who doesn't agree with Israeli policy is antisemitic; that could even be those of Jewish faith. You got a closed loop there, one that is indefensible. 

Show me that law because I call total B.S. Israel is a democracy and Israelis argue with each other over all kinds of government policies. 

[GroveHillWanderer]

6 hours ago, Harveyg said:

His salary is 12 million per year and 10 million of that is paid by Pfizer.

Do you have a source for that claim? He is paid a $12 million yearly salary by CNN and no doubt some of the money CNN gets from advertising will come from Pfizer (since they advertise on CNN) but just because they are a corporate sponsor of his show does not mean they are paying 85% of his overall salary.

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Mostly true.

But some "criticism" of the Israeli government is not normal criticism. It's more like Israel doesn't deserve to exist kind of rhetoric. Also Israel was founded as a homeland for the Jewish people. Jewish is not only a religion. It's more like an ethnoreligious kind of thing like the Kurds. Most of the Jews I know are not religious. They are still Jews.

None of that is relevant to what I said. We should be free to ctiticize the actions of a government without being labelled anti-semites or anti-muslim. Nor does criticizing a government equate to denying its right to exist.

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

None of that is relevant to what I said. We should be free to ctiticize the actions of a government without being labelled anti-semites or anti-muslim. Nor does criticizing a government equate to denying its right to exist.

It's like you didn't even.read my post OR you're in denial that there actually is such a thing as Israel demonization that is antisemitic. 

 

Here is a way to tell legit criticism from the antisemitic variety:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Ds_of_antisemitism

 

The "three Ds" or the "3D test" of antisemitism is a set of criteria which was formulated by Israeli politician Natan Sharansky in order to distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from antisemitism. The three Ds stand for delegitimization, demonization, and double standards, each of which, according to the test, indicates antisemitism.[1][2] The test is intended to draw the line between legitimate criticism of the State of Israel, its actions and policies, and non-legitimate criticism which becomes antisemitic.

[Jingthing]

2 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Do you have a source for that claim? He is paid a $12 million yearly salary by CNN and no doubt some of the money CNN gets from advertising will come from Pfizer (since they advertise on CNN) but just because they are a corporate sponsor of his show does not mean they are paying 85% of his overall salary.

Of course he doesn't  Rhetoric like that can be found on right wing conspiracy theory antivax websites. But CNN isn't good enough.

[ozimoron]

13 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

It's like you didn't even.read my post OR you're in denial that there actually is such a thing as Israel demonization that is antisemitic. 

 

Here is a way to tell legit criticism from the antisemitic variety:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Ds_of_antisemitism

 

The "three Ds" or the "3D test" of antisemitism is a set of criteria which was formulated by Israeli politician Natan Sharansky in order to distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from antisemitism. The three Ds stand for delegitimization, demonization, and double standards, each of which, according to the test, indicates antisemitism.[1][2] The test is intended to draw the line between legitimate criticism of the State of Israel, its actions and policies, and non-legitimate criticism which becomes antisemitic.

You're still trying to misrepresent what I said which was that criticizing Israel's actions is NOT demonizing Israel. Some would have all criticism of Israel as off limits.

[lungbing]

You can argue all you want about who killed the reporter, but what I find totally abhorent is the attack by Israeli police on the people attending her funeral, and especially attacking the coffin bearers themselves.