A 14-year-old Palestinian boy, Jad Jadallah, was shot at close range by Israeli soldiers last November in al-Far’a refugee camp in the occupied West Bank. Video footage shows he lay wounded for at least 45 minutes while soldiers blocked ambulances from reaching him.

Get the latest headlines in your email

According to eyewitnesses and CCTV footage verified by the BBC, 14 Israeli soldiers formed a cordon around Jad as he lay bleeding in an alley. Two Palestinian ambulances were prevented from reaching him.

The Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) said soldiers provided “initial medical treatment” after confirming he was not wearing an explosive device. A spokesperson declined to give details about the timing or type of treatment.

All Israeli soldiers receive trauma training and combat units include a trained medic. However, the footage does not show soldiers giving life-saving aid. At times, Jad appeared to wave his arms and throw his hat toward the soldiers in an effort to get attention. The soldiers appeared to ignore him and kicked the hat back.

The IDF accused Jad of throwing a rock, which under its rules of engagement can justify lethal force. Footage shows a soldier placing an object next to Jad after he was shot and photographing it. Jad’s family and a leading human rights group said this suggests an attempt to frame him.

Jad was later placed in an Israeli military vehicle. It remains unclear where or how many times he was shot. The military has not returned his body to his family and has declined to answer questions about his injuries.

CCTV footage captured the moment of the shooting. It shows Jad and two friends standing at the corner of an alley after reports that Israeli forces were leaving the camp.

Four soldiers had remained behind, standing a few metres away behind a wall. Jad’s friends ran when they saw the soldiers. The footage shows a soldier stepping into view less than three metres from Jad and opening fire.

Jad ran up the alley after appearing to be hit. The footage shows dust rising ahead of him, suggesting further shots were fired. He collapsed a few metres later, out of the CCTV frame.

Bystander video filmed from another direction shows him on the ground. His mother said she tried to reach him but was blocked by soldiers.

Call logs from the Palestinian Red Crescent show an ambulance arrived eight minutes after the emergency call. Lead paramedic Hassan Fouqha said his team was stopped at gunpoint about 100 yards from Jad and forced to wait for at least 35 minutes.

Fouqha said a second ambulance approaching from another direction was also blocked. “We could have reached him and provided medical aid but we were prevented,” he said.

Al-Far’a camp is home to about 10,000 Palestinians and is subject to frequent Israeli military raids. According to the United Nations, 55 children were killed by Israeli forces in the West Bank last year, and 227 have been killed there since the 7 October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel.

Join the discussion?

Already a member?

  Adapted by ASEAN Now · Source · 26 Feb 2026

View full article

Zionist Apartheid Israel should be subjected to a comprehensive economic, cultural, and academic boycott by every country in the world that has any sense of decency.

Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions. Somebody tell me this was not criminal. Somebody tell me this isn't murder in cold blood.

A 14-year old throwing a rock justifies lethal force under WHAT rules of engagement. The IDF is making those rules up!

14 soldiers against one teenager! WTF! Was a rock placed next to him to "prove" he was throwing rocks. And justified being shot from three meters with a high-powered war weapon.

The IDF is a culture of impunity not of law and order. Shame! This shame belongs to the Israeli govt and all Israeli citizens who can condone such shameful actions.

This 14-year old could be your son or grandson!

A horrible incident indeed, but I'm sorry, a rock is a deadly weapon when thrown at a person. vehicle, etc. How can that logically be denied?!? So this unfortunate boy was in no way an INNOCENT victim. When a thrown rock (deadly weapon) kills or causes great bodily harm to a target, does the age of the rock thrower matter? If so, what if it was a gun or bomb?

Of course I well understand why Palestinians want to resist and protest Israelis, but sorry, if they use deadly weapons to do their protest, what should they expect in return?

I'll go further. I have zero doubt that many people obsessively supporting demonization of Israel and constantly questioning its right to exist, would not be bothered in the slightest if this boy's rock killed a target. They would consider him a hero.

21 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

A horrible incident indeed, but I'm sorry, a rock is a deadly weapon when thrown at a person. vehicle, etc. How can that logically be denied?!? So this unfortunate boy was in no way an INNOCENT victim. When a thrown rock (deadly weapon) kills or causes great bodily harm to a target, does the age of the rock thrower matter? If so, what if it was a gun or bomb?

Of course I well understand why Palestinians want to resist and protest Israelis, but sorry, if they use deadly weapons to do their protest, what should they expect in return?

I'll go further. I have zero doubt that many people obsessively supporting demonization of Israel and constantly questioning its right to exist, would not be bothered in the slightest if this boy's rock killed a target. They would consider him a hero.

Also the act of throwing 'something' ... is it a rock or a grenade ?

Sorry, shoot first, or you may not be able to ask later.

4 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Also the act of throwing 'something' ... is it a rock or a grenade ?

Sorry, shoot first, or you may not be able to ask later.

Yes and the IDF soldiers are often quite young and have families as well.

57 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

A horrible incident indeed, but I'm sorry, a rock is a deadly weapon when thrown at a person. vehicle, etc. How can that logically be denied?!? So this unfortunate boy was in no way an INNOCENT victim. When a thrown rock (deadly weapon) kills or causes great bodily harm to a target, does the age of the rock thrower matter? If so, what if it was a gun or bomb?

Of course I well understand why Palestinians want to resist and protest Israelis, but sorry, if they use deadly weapons to do their protest, what should they expect in return?

I'll go further. I have zero doubt that many people obsessively supporting demonization of Israel and constantly questioning its right to exist, would not be bothered in the slightest if this boy's rock killed a target. They would consider him a hero.

34 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Also the act of throwing 'something' ... is it a rock or a grenade ?

Sorry, shoot first, or you may not be able to ask later.

At it again lads... defending the indefensible

12 minutes ago, JingerBen said:

At it again lads... defending the indefensible

I'm not defending the 7 Oct attack on Israel. Be careful what you wish for, and never, never, poke the bear.

I agree, it's indefensible

16 minutes ago, JingerBen said:

At it again lads... defending the indefensible

Defending against a lethal attack is just defending.

1 hour ago, unblocktheplanet said:

14 soldiers against one teenager! WTF! Was a rock placed next to him to "prove" he was throwing rocks. And justified being shot from three meters with a high-powered war weapon.

Could have bringing the rock back that he has just thrown ?

Bringing the rock back as evidence

Evidence of IDF murder? More likely to scapegoat the kid. Maybe he wasn't even throwing rocks at those big, burly he-men and she-women in their helmets, bulletproof anti-stab vests, groin shields, steel-toed boots. WATCH OUT! A ROCK!

Brave <deleted>, aren't they? C'mon, Nick, cast this as anything but racist ethnic cleansing. Because anything else is BULL<deleted> and you know it. This is not a country at war, this is not a result of war. Even wars have rules. In fact, has Israel ever declared war??? Has the Knesset ruled it's a war? Or was it all revenge killing for October 7?

2 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

This is not a country at war, this is not a result of war.

Hasnt this war be going on since 1948 ?

Just recently the narrative was "The war didn't start on Oct 7 th , the war began in 1948 "

What is it ?

One reads of incidents like this, day after day, month after month, year after year, and wonders if the Austrian painter knew things we're just figuring out. Maybe the man's fatal fault was being ahead of his times.

5 minutes ago, Autocan said:

One reads of incidents like this, day after day, month after month, year after year, and wonders if the Austrian painter knew things we're just figuring out. Maybe the man's fatal fault was being ahead of his times.

Disgusting comment.

6 minutes ago, Autocan said:

One reads of incidents like this, day after day, month after month, year after year, and wonders if the Austrian painter knew things we're just figuring out. Maybe the man's fatal fault was being ahead of his times.

Why are you shy about saying Adolf Hitler ?

Let me say it for you :

*One reads of incidents like this, day after day, month after month, year after year, and wonders if Adolf Hitler knew things we're just figuring out. Maybe Hitlers fatal fault was being ahead of his times."

1 minute ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Why are you shy about saying Adolf Hitler ?

Let me say it for you :

*One reads of incidents like this, day after day, month after month, year after year, and wonders if Adolf Hitler knew things we're just figuring out. Maybe Hitlers fatal fault was being ahead of his times."

For a psychological reason. Hitler is a demonized name while "Austrian painter" is a more benign reference that might, just might, allow people to deliberate my musings without going instantly into high dudgeon.

11 minutes ago, chickenslegs said:

11 minutes ago, Autocan said:

One reads of incidents like this, day after day, month after month, year after year, and wonders if the Austrian painter knew things we're just figuring out. Maybe the man's fatal fault was being ahead of his times.

Disgusting comment.

The comment or the incident? The latter left a defenseless teen to die on the street unattended. Like a roadkill.

4 minutes ago, Autocan said:

For a psychological reason. Hitler is a demonized name while "Austrian painter" is a more benign reference that might, just might, allow people to deliberate my musings without going instantly into high dudgeon.

If you don't mention Hitlers name , then regular people might then agree with Hitlers attempts to kill all Jews in the world?

" Hitler was right to kill all Jews"

"The Australian painter was right to kill all Jews"

Have you convinced many people that Hitler was right all along ?

10 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

" Hitler was right to kill all Jews"

"The Australian painter was right to kill all Jews"

Excellent point. I would say the appropriate response is exactly same as that to:

"Jews are right in killing all Palestinians".

2 minutes ago, Autocan said:

Excellent point. I would say the appropriate response is exactly same as that to:

"Jews are right in killing all Palestinians".

It is against forum rules to edit other peoples posts to change the context . Which you did do .

1 minute ago, Nick Carter icp said:

It is against forum rules to edit other peoples posts to change the context . Which you did do .

I quoted you verbatim, sweetie. But you shy from choosing the correct response.

Did my point about Jews and Palestinians strike a nerve?

6 minutes ago, Autocan said:

I quoted you verbatim, sweetie. But you shy from choosing the correct response.

You edited my post to change the context .

As that's against forum rules, then I prefer not to reply to it, for obvious reasons

56 minutes ago, Autocan said:

One reads of incidents like this, day after day, month after month, year after year, and wonders if the Austrian painter knew things we're just figuring out. Maybe the man's fatal fault was being ahead of his times.

There it is.

The Nazis emerge from under their rocks.

41 minutes ago, Autocan said:

For a psychological reason. Hitler is a demonized name while "Austrian painter" is a more benign reference that might, just might, allow people to deliberate my musings without going instantly into high dudgeon.

Your audience is other Nazis. Not fooling anyone else.

18 minutes ago, Autocan said:

Excellent point. I would say the appropriate response is exactly same as that to:

"Jews are right in killing all Palestinians".

Quotation marks

Who was you quoting ?

What happened with the medical help should be investigated.

6 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Who was you quoting ?

Who "were" you ... is grammatical.

I put what I said in quotes to match what you said in quotes. Hain't no danged forum law dat says I can't put quotes around ma own words. Dash it, now I have lost grammar myself.

10 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Your audience is other Nazis.

Nazis and Jews. Though the distinction fades by the day.

4 minutes ago, Autocan said:

Nazis and Jews. Though the distinction fades by the day.

Yeah Nazi Germany had a Jewish high court judge who sent their top leader to prison,

What I wrote this before about shooting a rock thrower being lawful was based on a situation where a rock was actually thrown.

If it turns out in this case that a rock was NOT thrown, of course that changes the situation entirely.