Opinions Please: Is this Pallywood? Is this Demopathy?

This morning I received the following email:

Dear Professor Landes

I’ve followed your work on Pallywood and I wondered whether you would comment on the footage released yesterday from Gaza at the Bureij refugee camp, claiming that an Israeli tank shell killed two boys on a bicycle and a Palestinian cameraman. This clip, placed on the BBC website, bears the the logo Hamas TV.

What puzzled me was the following.

Two young men (and one bicycle) lie in the road. The young men show some traces of blood, the form of which resembles that produced by a knife wound. No sign of a shell crater or other damage is visible. In the distance is seen a collection of cars, one of which is claimed to belong to a cameraman killed by the the same shell. The footage continues by getting closer to this car. No obvious damage, fire or smoke is visible. A new camera angle then shows a vehicle marked with TV insignia in flames with heavy billows of smoke surrounding it and spreading prominently into the air. The camera of the camerman is displayed amid scenes of grief.

My puzzlement is:

– whether the injuries displayed on the young men are compatible with a tank shell
– whether a tank shell could have hit both the youngsters and a car 100 meters away
– why the car is not on fire in one image and is very prominently in flames in the other

I only had time to look through it once. No time to pursue, but definitely intending to return to it.

As I walked out this morning, I saw that a picture on the front page of the NYT. I presume the photo was taken before the boys subsequently became full victims of Israeli attacks in the footage used by the BBC. They both look quite solidly alive, to judge by both their expressions.

bicycle boy

Please look at both, see if there are more evidence on the web, and let me know what you think.

Here are two more pictures of these two (I think).

bicycle kids 2


bicycle kids 3

See commentary at Light at the End of the Tunnel.

Update: LGF has other elements of the story, mostly on the death of the cameraman.

And the same day, we get an editorial that I think ranks high on the demopathy scale, on the opinion page of the Washington Post. Please send in your fisking points, as well as any remarks about how this relates to Carter’s activity.

No Peace Without Hamas
By Mahmoud al-Zahar
Thursday, April 17, 2008; A23

GAZA — President Jimmy Carter’s sensible plan to visit the Hamas leadership this week brings honesty and pragmatism to the Middle East while underscoring the fact that American policy has reached its dead end. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice acts as if a few alterations here and there would make the hideous straitjacket of apartheid fit better. While Rice persuades Israeli occupation forces to cut a few dozen meaningless roadblocks from among the more than 500 West Bank control points, these forces simultaneously choke off fuel supplies to Gaza; blockade its 1.5 million people; approve illegal housing projects on West Bank land; and attack Gaza City with F-16s, killing men, women and children. Sadly, this is “business as usual” for the Palestinians.

Last week’s attack on the Nahal Oz fuel depot should not surprise critics in the West. Palestinians are fighting a total war waged on us by a nation that mobilizes against our people with every means at its disposal — from its high-tech military to its economic stranglehold, from its falsified history to its judiciary that “legalizes” the infrastructure of apartheid. Resistance remains our only option. Sixty-five years ago, the courageous Jews of the Warsaw ghetto rose in defense of their people. We Gazans, living in the world’s largest open-air prison, can do no less.

The U.S.-Israeli alliance has sought to negate the results of the January 2006 elections, when the Palestinian people handed our party a mandate to rule. Hundreds of independent monitors, Carter among them, declared this the fairest election ever held in the Arab Middle East. Yet efforts to subvert our democratic experience include the American coup d’etat that created the new sectarian paradigm with Fatah and the continuing warfare against and enforced isolation of Gazans.

Now, finally, we have the welcome tonic of Carter saying what any independent, uncorrupted thinker should conclude: that no “peace plan,” “road map” or “legacy” can succeed unless we are sitting at the negotiating table and without any preconditions.

Israel’s escalation of violence since the staged Annapolis “peace conference” in November has been consistent with its policy of illegal, often deadly collective punishment — in violation of international conventions. Israeli military strikes on Gaza have killed hundreds of Palestinians since then with unwavering White House approval; in 2007 alone the ratio of Palestinians to Israelis killed was 40 to 1, up from 4 to 1 during the period from 2000 to 2005.

Only three months ago I buried my son Hussam, who studied finance at college and wanted to be an accountant; he was killed by an Israeli airstrike. In 2003, I buried Khaled — my first-born — after an Israeli F-16 targeting me wounded my daughter and my wife and flattened the apartment building where we lived, injuring and killing many of our neighbors. Last year, my son-in-law was killed.

Hussam was only 21, but like most young men in Gaza he had grown up fast out of necessity. When I was his age, I wanted to be a surgeon; in the 1960s, we were already refugees, but there was no humiliating blockade then. But now, after decades of imprisonment, killing, statelessness and impoverishment, we ask: What peace can there be if there is no dignity first? And where does dignity come from if not from justice?

Our movement fights on because we cannot allow the foundational crime at the core of the Jewish state — the violent expulsion from our lands and villages that made us refugees — to slip out of world consciousness, forgotten or negotiated away. Judaism — which gave so much to human culture in the contributions of its ancient lawgivers and modern proponents of tikkun olam — has corrupted itself in the detour into Zionism, nationalism and apartheid.

A “peace process” with Palestinians cannot take even its first tiny step until Israel first withdraws to the borders of 1967; dismantles all settlements; removes all soldiers from Gaza and the West Bank; repudiates its illegal annexation of Jerusalem; releases all prisoners; and ends its blockade of our international borders, our coastline and our airspace permanently. This would provide the starting point for just negotiations and would lay the groundwork for the return of millions of refugees. Given what we have lost, it is the only basis by which we can start to be whole again.

I am eternally proud of my sons and miss them every day. I think of them as fathers everywhere, even in Israel, think of their sons — as innocent boys, as curious students, as young men with limitless potential — not as “gunmen” or “militants.” But better that they were defenders of their people than parties to their ultimate dispossession; better that they were active in the Palestinian struggle for survival than passive witnesses to our subjugation.

History teaches us that everything is in flux. Our fight to redress the material crimes of 1948 is scarcely begun, and adversity has taught us patience. As for the Israeli state and its Spartan culture of permanent war, it is all too vulnerable to time, fatigue and demographics: In the end, it is always a question of our children and those who come after us.

Mahmoud al-Zahar, a surgeon, is a founder of Hamas. He is foreign minister in the government of Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, which was elected in January 2006.

32 Responses to Opinions Please: Is this Pallywood? Is this Demopathy?

  1. Stu says:

    Dear Professor Landes,

    Regarding the Washington Post OP/ED, let me kick off the debate, as it relates to my ongoing thesis. The letter is a beautiful demonstration of the skill with which even the most genocidal Palestinians frame their objectives in Western narratives. The worst part is that when Western icons like Jimmy Carter buy into it, and then pile on with words like “apartheid”, much of Hamas’ work is done, or at least done for it. Thanks to such “dupes”, as you call them, words like this become part of the Western narrative and Hamas appears less extreme when its members use the same terminology. In short order, Hamas’ true objectives–none of which have softened–are quickly forgotten as al-Zahar’s plea to sit at the “peace” table is contrasted with Israel’s seemingly unreasonable refusal to have them.

    Observe how he states that no negotiations can succeed if there are preconditions to sitting at the table–a reasonable statement on the face of it. But Hamas has its own preconditions which would effectively eliminate the Jewish state legally and demographically before negotiations even begin (A “peace process” with Palestinians cannot take even its first tiny step until Israel first withdraws to the borders of 1967; dismantles all settlements; removes all soldiers from Gaza and the West Bank; repudiates its illegal annexation of Jerusalem; releases all prisoners; and ends its blockade of our international borders, our coastline and our airspace permanently. This would provide the starting point for just negotiations and would lay the groundwork for the return of millions of refugees.) These demands, lest they appear extreme to western eyes, are placed much deeper in the letter and sandwiched between two softer, more palatable statements. The opening bracket is designed to demonstrate that Hamas is not in fact an anti-Semitic organization (Judaism — which gave so much to human culture in the contributions of its ancient lawgivers and modern proponents of tikkun olam…), while the closing bracket appeals to our humanity (I am eternally proud of my sons and miss them every day. I think of them as fathers everywhere, even in Israel, think of their sons — as innocent boys, as curious students, as young men with limitless potential — not as “gunmen” or “militants”).

    Although I don’t know how it will be received, I would count this salvo as a well-aimed one. Al-Zahar managed to couch extreme objectives in reasonable terms according to a narrative the West can “understand”. An observant reader will notice that nowhere in the letter is there any suggestion of Palestinian responsibility for the Palestinian plight, nowhere in the letter is there any indication that Hamas intends to compromise on any issue. In fact, if one is familiar with the long term, uncompromising quality of Palestinian strategies (yes, Fatah too), the last line waxes particularly ominous, “As for the Israeli state and its Spartan culture of permanent war, it is all too vulnerable to time, fatigue and demographics: In the end, it is always a question of our children and those who come after us.” To Westerners, this statement may seem innocuous. By design the inferred meaning should be, “Israel cannot maintain its intransigence forever. Maybe we won’t, but perhaps our children will reach a settlement together.” For the Palestinian mind, the meaning is not so soft. It should be, “Israel can’t hold out forever. We’ll outbreed them if we don’t pick them apart at the table first.”

    Ciao from bella Napoli,

  2. Stu says:

    And speaking of salvos…

    I think I smell Pallywood in the video, but I’m not used to looking for visual inconsistencies, nor am I good enough at ballistics to determine what is faked and what is real damage. It does seem strange to me, though, that there was such an obvious hole in the lense of the camera. If it’s real, it must have been shrapnel, because it goes without saying that there would have been no camera left after a direct hit. If it’s fake, it would have been pretty easy to do this one–simply cut the camera off a second after the flash. Actually, that’s one way to investigate this thing. Determine distance of the tank, type of round most likely used, and the exact time it would take for the round to reach the camera. If there’s a mismatch–bingo. Also, I’m fairly sure that the cameraman should have had at least a glimpse of the incoming round, even though it’s travelling at supersonic speeds. I didn’t see it, but my image quality was poor. This often shows up even on video, though. If there is no evidence of that on the tape, you might have something. But again, I’m not much in the ballistics field. Just some thoughts.

    Stu again, from bella Napoli.

  3. Antidhimmi says:

    The picture has Pallywood written all over it. An artillery shell would have shredded that bike and according to the picture it’s tire isn’t even flat. The kids blood seems to emanate from an invisible wound. An artillery shell would have showed horrible lacerations. The pictures on the BBC showed the usual clutch of handy ambulances immediately following the alleged shell. The Pals could teach us something about emergency medicine. I don’t know of any place in the world where ambulances seem to show up quicker and in greater numbers than Pakistani cab drivers in New York.

  4. Eliyahu says:

    Stu, excellent analysis of the op ed attributed to al-Zahar. But we don’t know who really wrote it. Probably a Washington-based psywar expert, if we go by the record. Just four or five years, yasser A, the pedophile politician [no, he was not a Catholic priest], signed an op ed in the WashPo or NYT that was full of demo/liberal and peaceloving rhetoric, just like this op ed signed by al-Zahar. It later turned out that the op ed in yasser’s name had been written by Edward Abington, the former US consul general in Jerusalem who had gone to work for the PLO/PA/Fatah as a propagandist/public relations advisor/ after he officially retired from the State Dept.

    Now add to the picture sec’y of state Rice’s labeling of Hamas as “a resistance” group, as if they shared the democratic values and nobility of spirit usually attributed to the French WW2 underground. She’s done that more than once. Furthermore, tony blair, whom the British themselves call Tony Phoney, was trying to bring Hamas into the political process in 2002, if not earlier. What it all adds up to is a concerted Anglo-American effort to promote Hamas as a “peace partner” and to force Israel to accept these Nazis, or more concretely, a branch of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. This policy is disastrous for any possible resistance to Muslim jihad aggression anywhere in the world. I don’t think that Condi or Tony cares.

    Now, not only does Hamas not share democratic and liberal values, but it stands for their antitheses. It also advocates the perpetual war known as jihad. This is a very dangerous situation. It seems that the psywar side of the anti-Israel, Judeophobic struggle is moving into a new, more sinister phase.
    By the way, did anybody see recent sermon by a Hamas cleric in which he foretells the Muslim conquest of the world, with Israel’s demise as merely a first step??

  5. Eliyahu says:

    Just four or five years AGO…

    By the way, I have a post on my blog about tony blair promoting the Hamas through his agent, the aptly named Alistair Crooke, back in 2002. This was based on an article in the Italian middle of the road newspaper, Il Riformista.


    Melanie Phillips too commented on this policy of Blair’s. Link from my blog post.

  6. Solomonia says:

    Reuters Cameraman Killed in Gaza — Israel Doesn’t Get On Knees (for once)…

    Lots of talk and analysis in the blogosphere over the death of Fadel Shana and his martyr’s funeral. Video from Reuters showing final video. Augean Stables looks for elements of Pallywood. Snapped Shot is sniffing for Fauxtography. Dave has a……

  7. […] min 00:40 sekunder ikke brænder, men  at samme  jeep brænder kraftigt minut 00:58. Mere  fra Augean Stables og Gates  of […]

  8. Ilia Sokolinski says:

    The cameramen’s SUV is shown burning at 00:58, but the same SUV is perfectly intact and not burning at 00:40.

    The kids (or at least one of them) is shown perfectly alive on a still photo on the same BBC page as the video.

    No signs of a shell explosion are seen anywhere.

    So this is clearly a Pallywood staging

  9. N00man says:

    I was actually deeply impressed by the sophistication and knowingness of Zahar’s piece. As Stu’s analysis demonstrates, it’s a subtle and forceful work of demopathy.

  10. oao says:

    Well, eliyahu seems somewhat surprised at the turn of events regarding hamas, but this has been written on the wall for a long time. here’s what efraim inbar of bar-ilan university says on MESH and which I have been predicting for years:

    Iranian leadership believes that the decadent and feeble Christian world (this is how the West is seen by the Ayatollahs) is ready to sacrifice the Jewish state in order to achieve a truce with the rising Muslim world. Thus, any American threats to prevent a nuclear attack on Israel will not be taken seriously in Teheran.

    This is exactly what is happening. Carter, WaPo, Rice, Blair, they are all doing just this.

    The palestinians have finally found an effective weapon to which Israel has no response: the ignorance, gullibility, cowardice, anti-semitism and useful idiocy of the west, that deludes itself it’ll save its ass from jihad this way. of course, this will only whet, not sate the islamist appetite (which I guess is poetic justice as far as i am concerned). both hamas and fatah have been pretty clear about this recently, but that’s absent from the western media, which I think has the same agenda. after all how else can this be explained:

    Mahmoud al-Zahar, a surgeon, is a founder of Hamas. He is foreign minister in the government of Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, which was elected in January 2006.

    how respectable.

    now, you’ve got a dhimmified, islamizing europe, a declining US with a lame duck unpopular president, and a fraudulent academia leftists or bought ought by the rich arabs and an iran with nukes. iran and hamas would have to be as idiotic as the west to on anything with the west and israel now.

    be afraid. be very afraid.


  11. oao says:

    oops, should have been “to compromise with the west and israel now”.

  12. oao says:

    as to the gaza incident, i find it much more reasonable to assume that whatever comes out of palestinian sources is a lie and let there be efforts to prove that they are not, rather than the other way around.

  13. Phil says:

    Would you mind a minor typo correction?

    “As I walked out this morning, I saw that a picture on the front page of the NYT.”

    “I presume the photo was taken before the boys subsequently became full victims of Israeli attacks in the footage used by the BBC.”

    Did you mean “presumeD”? I can’t tell whether this statement is saying that you believe they were victims of Israeli attacks, or if you’re leaving it open for now.

  14. Eliyahu says:

    oao, what makes you think I’m surprised?? I put up on my blog the post about tony blair and alistair crooke playing up to Hamas months and months ago. What bothers me is that my forebodings come true. Yes, the academy is corrupt. The academic left is a tool of policy. Etc Etc.

    But while we’re all rightfully being disgusted with jimmy carter, some of Condi’s Balkan pets have been accused of distinctly not nice pastimes. Carla del Ponte of the Hague Tribunal on war crimes in the former Yugoslavia has accused the Kossovo Albanian leadership, Muslim just incidentally, of kidnapping live Serbs to use their … [deleted to protect the adult audience]… in trade, as articles of commerce.
    Yet this story has gotten no attention in the Western MSM, or the English-language MSM, except in my source.


    Just bear in mind that a couple of months ago, Condi was promoting these freedom fighters for the leadership of an independent state, after most of the Serbs in Kossovo had been ethnically cleansed out of there while the territory was under international [KFOR/UN] jurisdiction.
    Happy Holiday, oao

  15. David M says:

    The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 04/18/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.

  16. oao says:

    oao, what makes you think I’m surprised??

    Poor expression on my part. Anyway, you did it months ago, I did it years ago.

    Yet this story has gotten no attention in the Western MSM, or the English-language MSM

    Well, if it is true that the west is scared shitless of the rising islam and is desperate to appease it, wouldn’t you expect the MSM to do exactly that? I would be surprised if the MSM DID publish such things.

    Condi was promoting these freedom fighters for the leadership of an independent state, after most of the Serbs in Kossovo had been ethnically cleansed out of there while the territory was under international

    more evidence that the west/us is fooling itself that by these appeasements they will sate the islamists. that’s what the us did with hamas.

    the europeans have been cowards from the get go, in part because of their culture and their being used to be defended by america, and in part because they’re anti-semites. america starts with arrogance and threats and bluffs and then collapses (iran and korea are good examples); and it’s only starting now to develop the kind of rabid anti-semitism that europe is known for.

  17. Mike says:

    Looks like a result of exploding of so called “cluster shell” – the projectiles are little pieces of submunitions – “flechettes”. The shell blows up in high air and the flechettes (nail-like small arrows with back side stabilizers) pierce soft tissues or even armor on great area. I heard about that kind of weapons 30 years ago, in our mandatory military training classes at a Soviet Polytechnic University (one lieutenant colonel bravado) – so I’m not 100% educated myself.
    Wiki: “Smaller flechettes were used in special artillery shells called “beehive” rounds (so named for the very distinctive whistling buzz made by thousands of flechettes flying downrange at supersonic speeds) and intended for use against troops in the open – a ballistic shell packed with flechettes was fired and set off by pressure-sensitive detonators, scattering flechettes and shrapnel in all directions. They were used in the Vietnam War by artillery gunners to defend their positions against infantry attacks.” This part looks plausible.

    I didn’t see how it works on human beings, but something tells me it is staged.
    1. The bodies’ positions and bicycle. IMO: they drove (“shared”) the same bike, so they would have laid next to each other: the flechettes kill instantly, if you are close to epicenter – which apparently is the case.
    2. Look at the car: the windshield is covered with marks – less than 1 foot from each other on average. If the bodies were really killed, they must have been hit many times
    3. Did you see a body on the stretchers? Probably – that is the victim – wounded one – but they didn’t mention that person .Why? 3 victims on a spot would serve them better. My guess: they are afraid that the wounded person would damage their hoax when gets healthier.
    4. When I first watched the clip on TV, it seems (maybe I’m wrong?) they showed large holes in a car – not consistent with small flechettes they showed in the same clip. The e-net clip didn’t feature that car. Palewood cleaning?
    5. Seems unlikely that the car would have set on fire: the armor piercing pieces should be larger than those scratched the windshield and that were shown separately on TV (definitely anti-infantry – small) .

    What cold be in the reality: terrorists were in the car, trying to escape. Windows were open (as most old cars in the ME do not have AC), so 1, maximum 2 arrows wounded somebody in the car. That individual was evacuated in hurry. The bicycle arrangement was performed by the Palewood cast.

    As for the cameraman: after all – he is an active participant in the HAMAS waged propagandist war. Due to his misinforming reports, people die as Israel is pressed to compromise its security – based on massive brainwashing of the Western by pro-terrorist MSM. Maybe he was killed indeed (we don’t know by whom) –that kind of HAMAS-orchestrated “sacrifice” for the sake of the propagandist points wouldn’t be surprising. What looks suspicious is the damage to the camera: the dent is exactly in the middle of the glass objective. That shouldn’t have turned off the camera – but for the Palewood screenwriters and directors the black screen could be preferable as more powerful finale.

  18. oao says:

    CAMERA Snapshots refers to a WaPo editorial which takes Carter to task for legitimizing Hamas:


    WaPo says:

    no act of terrorism is out of bounds for the Hamas leader [Mahmoud al-Zahar], who endorses the group’s recent ambush of Israeli civilians working at a fuel depot that supplies Gaza. The “total war” of which he speaks was initiated and has been sustained by Hamas itself through its deliberate targeting of civilians, such as the residents of the Israeli town of Sderot, who suffer daily rocket attacks.

    These facts would hardly need restating were it not for actors such as Mr. Carter, who portray Hamas as rational and reasonable.

    One day after the WaPo published a propaganda piece by Al-Zahar which does exactly what they accuse Carter for? — the hypocrisy is blinding.

  19. Mike says:

    Just summarizing my previous post regarding the question Richard asked:

    The clip is “enhanced” at best. To what degree – that can be debated.

  20. Rick B. says:

    I looked quickly at the BBC clip you attached, the Reuters clip on the web, LGF, and the email you received. This looks suspicious.

    Among the questions:

    * Who’s to say the person who filmed the missile was the Reuters cameraman? (For the sake of discussion, I’m assuming it was a real missile from an Israeli tank.) Could it have been, say, a legitimate Hamas target from another incident at a different time? (I’d be interested to know from the IDF if they had ever fired on a target in that location in the past.)

    * In fact, there may be reason to question whether the two basic events shown — the attack and the aftermath — happened on the same day. For instance, in the missile part, the sky looks gray. It’s not totally overcast — the buildings appear to reflect some sunlight — but it’s not a bright blue sky. However, in the aftermath, it’s very sunny, with blue sky and harsh shadows.

    Now, maybe there are legitimate explanations for this — perhaps the camera quality varies from camera to camera, or it’s how the scene was metered, or the sky was “partly cloudy,” etc. — but the sky is noticeably different after the “camera blackout” than before.

    * I’d also be interested to know if the shadows are pointing in the same direction in both segments, or whether the shots were taken at different times of day. Someone who knows the terrain and the route of the road would probably be able to figure this out. If the second cameraman showed up only shortly after the alleged missile attack, then the shadows should basically be the same.

    * In the Reuters piece, I’m also struck by what appears to be 2 different scenes of the same thing. The dead people on the ground look different. In other words, if I’m understanding this correctly, the Reuters video has 4 parts — the missile attack, the first view of the aftermath, a hospital scene, and then a return to the aftermath scene. But the 2 aftermath scenes are different. Different people, different blood, etc. How did that happen?

    It’s possible the narration doesn’t match the film. Or maybe they really are showing another scene, and I’m not understanding their commentary correctly. They make references to both the missile attack and an “air strike” in the same report, and maybe I’m just not understanding what they’re really reporting.

    But it’s clear that the second aftermath scene doesn’t match the first. And the fact that the reporting is so muddled also leads me to be suspicious. They either know what they’re describing, or they don’t.

    * And I agree that different parts of the BBC piece don’t seem to fit together well either, and don’t seem to match the still photo you attached.

    * It also appears this Reuters “journalist” had terrorist ties. What a surprise.


  21. Anat says:

    I have now watched the video and the still for about 20 times, comparing them to each other, and this is my take:

    1. The first sequence of the video, showing the purported last shot from the killed cameraman and additional Israeli tanks, is a separate sequence. It is taken from a high point downwards, over the tree tops, perhaps from the roof of some building. It could not possibly have been taken from ground level, which is where the cameraman is said to have been hit in his car. conclusion: this sequence is totally unrelated to the incident that follows.

    2. Then comes the sequence with the car, bicycle, and injured people. In the first still it looks like a road accident, apparently taken by someone in the car which, in the BBC video, is in front of the injured cyclists (in the video around 00.26). At that stage there is no fire.

    3. Then the ambulance arrives and stops near the car. There is still no fire. Three people walk between the car and the cyclists, none as yet evacuated.

    3. The next sequence in the video, with many additional people, is filmed at the last stage of the evaculation, since the bicycle has been pushed to the side and the ambulances pass where the cyclists were before. There must be a considerable time lapse from the first still for the ambulances to have arrived, operated and departed. But only at this stage the car is on fire. This is apparently when it was set alight.

    Conclusion: a car and bicycle accident was make into a war event by setting the car on fire, and the whole was edited together with some footage of tanks taken from a completely different angle.

  22. […] offenbar noch in 100 m Entfernung Kinder durch das israelische Geschoss verletzt wurden, erklärt sich anscheinend durch die verwendete Munition. Offen bleibt jedoch, warum […]

  23. Fat man says:

    As somebody else has pointed out on another site, the blue underwear guy “wounded” next to the bicycle in the photo appears elsewhere in the photo series on Yahoo/AP. Here’s the comment from Joe Shmoe:

    “For more curious people, go to the Yahoo slide show for Middle East conflict and follow the blue underwear guy from the link above [ http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//080416/ids_photos_wl/r2407528435.jpg/ ]. You’ll notice that he’ll be carried out of the ambulance in a way that you would never carry wounded, but somehow he ends up in a stretcher with a bandage on his chest later on. The pictures are not truthful.”

  24. wildiris says:

    There is one photo I noticed that could probably tie up a lot of loose ends. It shows two firefighters on the right, holding an empty hose, with the burning SUV on the left. It is the only picture that contains both the cameraman’s SUV and the location of the tank’s firing position (far horizon, left of center) in the same frame.

    Time of flight for the fatal tank round, taken from the video clip was about 1+ sec. Typical muzzle velocity for tank round is about 1000 m/sec. This gives a distance of approx. a mile away. Far horizon in referenced photo seems to be about a mile away. So that bit of info coincides between video clip and crime scene.

    This means the SUV was hit from behind. Curiously, there were only a few pictures of the SUV from the rear. And the time-stamp for those photos was well after the scene was cleaned up. But they do show a well-mangled SUV. At first I thought that the vehicle in question was a pickup truck, because there was no backend to it. It was only later that I realized it was a SUV with the back end completely blown apart.

    Since the incoming round was coming in and downward, on a parabolic trajectory, almost in line with the direction of the road, any cluster munitions that it released would have sprayed right down the length of the road, hitting anyone within a few hundred yards. As for the boys, what could be more natural for a couple of bored teenagers, looking for something to do, than to jump on a bike and head out to see if they can catch any of the action.

    The tank was almost, but not quite, directly behind the SUV. The road there makes a shallow cut through the top of the hill, leaving an embankment on both sides. The tank was just enough out of line with the road so that the SUV parked next to the embankment, was probably hidden by the hillside and not visible to the tank crew. The cameraman would have been out of his vehicle, on the opposite side of the road facing back toward the hill, you see on the horizon. The SUV is parked at the crest of a hill. The boys and other bystanders that were injured were on the backside of that hill facing away from the tank and thus would not have been visible to the tank crew. The boys might have thought that they were far enough back from the action to be out of trouble, but luck was not with them that day.

    The tank round in question was a cluster monition of some sort, but was not a flechette round. If it had been, there would have been steel darts stuck all over the incident scene. Many of which would have been noticed and photographed by the film crews that were there. Since there was not photographic evidence presented from the scene of flechette darts, it is highly doubtful that was the nature of the fatal tank round. Also the damage to the SUV is not consistent with a flechette round either. There is a 120mm cluster round for tanks, that the IDF is known to use against targets such as mortar crews and such, that is comprised of six sub-bombs. This round is more consistent the damage seen to the SUV.

    When I first started looking into this incident, I assumed that it was probably staged. The more I thought about and looked at the pictures, the more convinced I am now that the location was deliberately fired upon by the tank and what you’re seeing in the video clips and photos are legitimate civilian casualties.

    But…. That doesn’t mean that the IDF was not firing on a legitimate military target. In the video clip showing the fatal incoming round, there are a number of voices (more than two) heard in the background. Anyone next to the cameraman would have most certainly been killed as well. But the press photos only show one other body next to the cameraman. Interestingly though, I did notice one photo of the scene that seems to show an additional body directly behind the SUV. But this body is not seen again in any of the other frames. The voice record indicates that there were certainly a number of individuals around the cameraman when he was struck, but they show up nowhere in the photographic record of this event.

    My humble opinion at this point (subject to change as additional facts come in) is that the cameraman was embedded with a Hamas fighting unit of some sort. The tank had engaged what its crew had determined was a legitimate military target. There is a time gap during which Hamas would have removed their dead and wounded, leaving the unlucky civilian casualties behind to be filmed awhile later for propaganda purposes. I suspect this is why there are no early views of the damaged SUV from behind. From that angle, the presence of the Hamas fighters would probably have been caught on film.

    As for the SUV catching fire so late in the photo-sequence, never assume malice when simple stupidity will do. Considering that some of these Palestinians are not the brightest bulbs in the marquee, I could easily image one of them unconsciously throwing down his cigarette butt into a pool of leaking gas from the blasted SUV. Or just setting it on fire for the dramatic affect it would add to their photos.

  25. Eliyahu says:

    I saw two scenes allegedly linked to this alleged incident.

    1- a shot, I think it was a still, of a cameraman with a shoulder-mounted film/video camera standing about 20 meters [65 feet approx.?] from an Israeli Merkavah tank. However, the camera is pointed/aimed away from the tank.

    2- a film/video taken from from a dirt road in an agricultural/rural setting. A house or other building is seen about a kilometer or more away. A flash is seen near that building, possibly from the explosion of a shell fired from a tank, but we don’t see a tank. Then, as I recall, the screen goes black. However, why did it go black?? Did the camera stop working? What caused it to stop working?

    A poster above comments that a flechette could possibly have hit the camera right in the middle of the lens, but added that that would be a little too perfect. I too saw a cracked lens. Maybe it was cracked by a flechette, maybe by a hammer. But a poster above comments that a flechette hitting the lens would not necessarily stop the camera. Further, the film allegedly taken by the deceased cameraman was aimed/focussed on the building a kilometer away where the unseen tank was. This means that the camera was pointed/aimed in a nearly horizontal plane. But a flechette would come down –I believe– in a slanted trajectory, at a more or less 45 degree angle from the explosion of the shell. So how would the flechette hit the middle of the lens which was inside a more or less horizontal cylinder, at a recess inside the cylinder/tube of about a half-inch or more from the opening???

    In any event, the shot of the cameraman standing near the tank and pointing the camera away from it has nothing to do with the rest of the footage.

    Further, the demand of “human rights watch” for an investigation is ridiculous. If the cameraman was in a war zone and among combatants, then Geneva convention IV does not protect him. Soldiers in a tank that was a kilometer or even only 800 meters away could hardly tell who was a cameraman or other journalist and who not. Besides, a shoulder-borne film/video camera might look at a distance like a shoulder-borne RPG launcher or other missile launcher. Geneva Convention IV states [see Articles 28 & 53, I believe] that if “protected persons” [non-combatants] are in, on or near a legitimate military target, then they are not protected from attack by the laws of war [Geneva IV]. HRW is simply looking for something to bash Israel with. HRW is another contemptible gang of propagandists.

  26. […] Laut Ma’an war Shana damit beschaeftigt, eine Gruppe Kinder zu filmen. Das scheint soweit richtig zu sein, wobei naeher erklaert werden koennte, welcher Art diese Aufnahmen waren. Anscheinend sollten “zivile” Opfer inszeniert werden. […]

  27. Rick B. says:

    Others have probably noted this as well, but 2 still photos in particular seem to be a sure sign of “Pallywood.” On the Yahoo photo series I saw yesterday, they were numbers 33 and 36.

    In one photo (33), the SUV is not on fire, and there are 2 bodies nearby. In the other (36), the SUV is on fire, and there are no bodies nearby.

    If we’re to believe the fire came from an Israeli missile (and 36 came first), then why are no bodies nearby? If 33 came first, then the fire didn’t come from an Israeli missile.

    Either way, the scene looks staged and the MSM reporting of the images appears to be wrong.

  28. […] footage released yesterday from Gaza at the Bureij refugee camp, claiming that an Israeli tank shehttp://www.theaugeanstables.com/2008/04/17/opinions-please-is-this-pallywood-is-this-demopathy/The Inside Scoop CBS NewsGet The Inside Scoop on what’s happening at CBS News […]

  29. […] footage released yesterday from Gaza at the Bureij refugee camp, claiming that an Israeli tank shehttp://www.theaugeanstables.com/2008/04/17/opinions-please-is-this-pallywood-is-this-demopathy/The American Academy of Arts and Letters Announces Newly Elected Members Art […]

  30. […] footage released yesterday from Gaza at the Bureij refugee camp, claiming that an Israeli tank shehttp://www.theaugeanstables.com/2008/04/17/opinions-please-is-this-pallywood-is-this-demopathy/In leftist Yale, a growing cluster for the right The Yale HeraldWith surging membership, Yale??s […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>