Palestinian minors 'assaulted, beaten' in Israeli custody

[Jefferson23]

RAMALLAH (Ma'an) -- The Palestinian Authority Department of Prisoner's Affairs said Wednesday that "dozens" of Palestinian minors jailed by Israel have recently been beaten or assaulted during their time in Israeli custody.

In a statement, the department reported the testimonies of two Palestinian minors who lawyer Hiba Ighbarya visited in HaSharon prison in central Israel.

Sixteen-year-old prisoner Muhammad Khaled Sharifeh from the Old City of Jerusalem said he was detained on July 7 as he was leaving the Al-Aqsa Mosque at noon.

He said he was attacked by several Israeli soldiers, searched, detained as his hands were cuffed with plastic zip ties, and placed in a military vehicle.

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=734581

[DetlefK]

2. Israel must do this to defend itself from Hamas' rockets.

[oberliner]

4. What were the 16 and 17 year old boys detained for?

Interestingly, the article does not include that information or any statement from the Israeli side.

Also - why is there a photo of a boy who is obviously much younger than 16-17 included with the article?

[oberliner]

3. Photo does not match article content

The article references Palestinians aged 16 and 17 who were detained in E Jerusalem.

The picture is of an obviously much younger child in Qalqilia which is nowhere near Jerusalem.

It is hard to take this source seriously when they are so obviously deceitful and manipulative.

[Jefferson23]

5. Yea, lots of pain for children coming from Israeli policy. Do I need to link for you

the years of reports from B'Tselem? I can do that for you, or you can waste time
with heavy reliance on semantics.

That is, if you wish to be taken seriously in this thread.

[oberliner]

6. Agreed

That's why Ma'an should turn over a new leaf and just report things factually like B'tselem does instead of embellishing articles with unrelated and/or deliberately misleading photos. They could even take a cue from the Palestinian Center for Human Rights which is similarly unadorned with the kind of deceit that Ma'an regularly uses.

[Jefferson23]

7. Ma'an is not the one who needs to turn over a new leaf.

Pretending you don't understand the meaning of file photos doesn't help you, either.

[sabbat hunter]

8. while israel

needs to take care of how they treat suspects/prisoners, which can include IMHO 15-17 year old ones if they threw stones, attacked soldiers or civilians, etc, Ma'an is doing a poor job by using a photo that has nothing to do with the article, other than to try and inflame hatred and passions. Obviously the child in the photo is not one of the ones talked about in the article. Ma'an should either use a photo that is related to the article or not use a photo at all.

[Jefferson23]

9. Which they make clear by stating exactly that, a file photo. It is not a controversial practice

and as I said to the other poster, the main problem is the abuse coming from Israeli policy.
They have a long documented record of doing so. Why Ma'an is expected to not participate
as other publications do seems a double standard to me.

[sabbat hunter]

10. but it is a file photo

that is not indicative of the article. They should have used one that showed a teenager.

By showing a small child they are misleading people and are intentionally inflaming people. Rather than trying to show that they are an unbiased source for news, they are showing that they have a strong anti-Israel bias.

Fox news is blasted when they do such things, why should a source that is considered left wing not be blasted as well?

[azurnoir]

11. who considers Ma'an "left wing"?

they report the news from a Palestinian perspective

[Jefferson23]

12. They state exactly what is taking place and where in the photo, there is no deception.

They have an obligation to Israel to not post past history related to policies utilized on a regular basis?
This makesno sense to me. I have no idea if Ma'an is left or right, politically and fail to see the
relevance.

[sabbat hunter]

13. if they want to be taken seriously

and not mocked, then they have an obligation (as do all news agencies/organizations) to show things that are relevant to the article.

Would it be any better if a different news organization showed a picture of a known terrorist shooting civilians, while the article talks about teenagers throwing rocks?

The relevance is that if an organization shows something a picture that is not really related to the article, then that organization deserves to be mocked and not taken seriously.

[Jefferson23]

14. If by serious you mean they would need to ignore the relevance of Israeli policy towards children, I

doubt they'll comply...at least I hope they won't.

The photo was well marked, not deceptive and it's related to the treatment
that continues frequently...another example related to the current story.