Israeli soldiers torture 10-year-old in his home

[ProgressiveMuslim]

Report, Defence for Children International-Palestine Section, 10 July 2008

A 10-year-old boy was subjected to physical abuse amounting to torture for 2.5 hours by Israeli soldiers who stormed his family's shop on 11 June, seeking information on the location of a handgun. The boy was repeatedly beaten, slapped and punched in the head and stomach, forced to hold a stress position for half and hour, and threatened. He was deeply shocked and lost two molar teeth as a result of the assault.

On Wednesday 11 June 2008, at around 10:30am, 10-year-old Ezzat, his brother Makkawi (7) and sister Lara (8) were in their father's shop selling animal feed and eggs in the village of Sanniriya, near the West Bank city of Qalqiliya. The children were suddenly startled to see two Israeli soldiers storm in to the shop.

Interrogation and abuse in the shop

One soldier wearing a black T-shirt started shouting in a loud, menacing voice in Arabic, "your father sent us to you to collect his gun." A terrified Ezzat responded, "My father does not own a gun." The soldier responded by slapping Ezzat hard across the right cheek and his brother Makawi across his face. The soldier then ordered Makkawi and Lara to leave the shop. Once the younger children had left the soldier demanded once again that Ezzat hand over his father's gun. Although Ezzat repeated that his father did not own a gun the soldier ordered him to search for it in the sacks containing the animal feed. Ezzat kept insisting that there was no gun in the shop so the soldier slapped him once again, this time across his left cheek.

One of Ezzat's friends, realizing that something was wrong, tried to enter the shop but was kicked by the soldier standing at the door and prevented from entering. Soon a group of local people had gathered outside the shop. Some of the people in the group also tried to enter the shop but were prevented from doing so by the soldier at the door.

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9683.shtml

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. I have a son his age. I would die if someone did that to him. :^(

[atreides1]

2. I have a grandson his age.

And someone would die if they did that to him, and it wouldn't be me!

[TomInTib]

4. Exactly.

I have (had) a friend who is married to an Israeli officer.

He was over to the house, going on about their theory that, if they terrorized the kids, the kids will be much more manageable as adults.

I told him to get the fuck out of my house.

[breakaleg]

6. Think of the lengths parents would go to protect or defend their kids, and vise versa.

Then ask yourself if you would become submissive towards the IDF if you were in this position.

It amazes me that the abuse and violence perpetrated by the IDF doesn't work, and yet they continue to use that failed tactic without recognizing this.

[Sezu]

3. Al-Dura 2. n/t

[notfullofit]

5. I have been

looking for another source of information on this article and have come up empty.

[Sezu]

7. I know. You will likely come up empty. Unfortunately,

there have been so many incidents of faux reporting from Palestinian sources, it is hard to believe anything they say anymore

[Violet_Crumble]

8. Have you got any evidence at all that this child was lying?

Coz it's put up or shutup time.

[aranthus]

45. The source is not credible

It's electronicintifada. I don't know if the boy is lying because I don't know if the boy even exists. I haven't seen this from an independent credible source.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. Majed Jaradat, 13, beaten during interrogation and imprisoned for two months

Here's some more incidents of Palestinians being beaten...

Majed Jaradat, 13, beaten during interrogation and imprisoned for two months

On 13 November 2007, soldiers arrested Majed Jaradat, 13, after he threw stones during a demonstration in Sa’ir Village, Hebron District. Jaradat’s testimony to B'Tselem indicates that while he was detained, soldiers beat and kicked him in the back. The violence continued in the interrogation room at the Etzion police station, where the interrogator beat him. Following the interrogation, he was taken to the Ofer detention facility, in Israel.

http://www.btselem.org/english/Detainees_and_Prisoners/20080703_Abuse_of_minor_detainee_Majed_Jaradat.asp

[notfullofit]

14. Surely you

jest?

Even I, with my limited knowledge, know that B'Tselem is as bad as electronicintifada, you can hardly call them neutral. Hell they probably got their info from electronicintifada, as they have in the past.

I am not familiar with CAMERA (I will check them out later) but I'll bet they are Israels answer to B'Tselem.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. WTF? B'Tselem is as bad as EI????

B'Tselem are a highly respected human rights organisation. If you knew anything at all about them, you'd know they're not biased. And seeing you don't seem to know anything about B'Tselem, where do you come up with such a weird claim that they probably get their info from EI? They don't...

Here's information about B'Tselem and what they do:

B'TSELEM - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories was established in 1989 by a group of prominent academics, attorneys, journalists, and Knesset members. It endeavors to document and educate the Israeli public and policymakers about human rights violations in the Occupied Territories, combat the phenomenon of denial prevalent among the Israeli public, and help create a human rights culture in Israel.

B'Tselem in Hebrew literally means "in the image of," and is also used as a synonym for human dignity. The word is taken from Genesis 1:27 "And God created humans in his image. In the image of God did He create him." It is in this spirit that the first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "All human beings are born equal in dignity and rights."

As an Israeli human rights organization, B'Tselem acts primarily to change Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories and ensure that its government, which rules the Occupied Territories, protects the human rights of residents there and complies with its obligations under international law.

B'Tselem is independent and is funded by contributions from foundations in Europe and North America that support human rights activity worldwide, and by private individuals in Israel and abroad.

B'Tselem has attained a prominent place among human rights organizations. In December, 1989 it received the Carter-Menil Award for Human Rights. Its reports have gained B'Tselem a reputation for accuracy, and the Israeli authorities relate to them seriously. B'Tselem ensures the reliability of information it publishes by conducting its own fieldwork and research, the results of which are thoroughly cross-checked with relevant documents, official government sources, and information from other sources, among them Israeli, Palestinian, and other human rights organizations.


Activities
(2003 Activity Report)

The focus on documentation reflects B'Tselem's objective of providing as much information as possible to the Israeli public, since information is indispensable to taking action and making choices. Readers of B'Tselem publications may decide to do nothing, but they cannot say, "We didn't know."

Reports

B'Tselem has published scores of reports, some comprehensive in scope, covering most kinds of human rights violations that have occurred in the Occupied Territories. The reports have dealt, for example, with torture, fatal shootings by security forces, restriction on movement, expropriation of land and discrimination in planning and building in East Jerusalem, administrative detention, and settler violence.

Press conferences are often held when a new report is published. In addition, reports often lead to B'Tselem accompanying and assisting journalists reporting on human rights violations, and to other activities intended to affect public opinion in Israel.


Activity in the Knesset

B'Tselem regularly provides Knesset members with information on human rights violations in the Occupied Territories, and injustices caused by Israeli authorities. Several Knesset members, from various factions, assist B'Tselem in placing human rights matters on the public agenda and in safeguarding human rights.


Public action

B'Tselem has hundreds of supporters and volunteers who work to improve the human rights situation in the Occupied Territories. These activities include, in part, setting up information stands, distributing printed material, addressing problems and requests to decision-makers, and participating in protests in the Occupied Territories.

http://www.btselem.org/English/About_BTselem/Index.asp

As for bias, didn't you know that B'Tselem focuses on human rights abuses against both Palestinians and Israelis? here's a link to some of their info on attacks on Israeli civilians

http://www.btselem.org/English/Israeli_Civilians/

So tell me again. Where's this accusation of bias coming from?

You bet CAMERA is Israel's answer to B'Tselem? Hope you weren't betting too much there. B'Tselem is an Israeli human rights group, and CAMERA are a bunch of American propagandists and aren't a human rights group....

[notfullofit]

17. Ideology instead of facts

B'Tselem's Gaza Report - Ideology Instead of Facts
March 13, 2008

snip..

B’Tselem’s summer 2007 booklet "The Gaza Strip - One Big Prison" paints a picture of Israel as an aggressor and occupier with full control of the Gaza Strip, that does not perform its humanitarian responsibility to the Palestinians and imprisons them in their own land. To its credit, B’Tselem has occasionally included the context of terror and acknowledged Israel’s security concerns, but its selective choice of facts, disproportionate focus, and the use of one-sided photographs, demonstrates the primacy it places on ideological campaigning over accuracy.

Introduction:

B'Tselem's "The Gaza Strip - One Big Prison" booklet is a powerful example of the sophisticated public relations machine involved in NGO campaigns. The text and images are skillfully combined to promote B'Tselem's political agenda: Israel as the persistent occupier, besieging Gaza and creating a humanitarian crisis. Yet, careful analysis shows that B'Tselem's arguments lack coherence and largely rely on unverifiable anecdotal evidence. This is particularly pronounced in claims regarding the number of "civilian" casualties which are repeated and compounded by superpower partner NGOs such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Christian Aid.

Textual analysis:
The booklet states on the back cover: "Israel has turned the Gaza Strip into the largest prison on earth, while at the same time renouncing responsibility for the lives and welfare of its residents." The entire publication is premised on this statement, although its veracity (and that of other claims) is never proven. There is no attempt to conduct a serious analysis of the nature of Israel's responsibility to Gaza following Disengagement, or an investigation of who is responsible for the deteriorating conditions. The result is a diatribe of demonizing claims against Israel, which exploits the rhetoric of universal human rights.

Anecdotal accounts of Palestinian suffering

A broad red band is printed at the bottom of each page, containing personal stories of devastation. Out of nine accounts, only one is from an Israeli point-of-view, a highly disproportionate imbalance that reflects much greater sympathy for the Palestinian position. These narrators essentially serve as "eyewitnesses", reinforcing the report’s arguments by illustrating its claims. However, like all "eyewitnesses", these people have their own agendas and the claims cannot be verified. On page 5, a mother explains how helicopter fly-overs cause her daughter, Miriam, to "wet her pants". Such explicit descriptions of fear resulting from terrorism in Israeli children do not figure in the booklet.

loads more...
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/b_tselem_s_gaza_report_ideology_instead_of_facts

Boy am I getting an education!
But I'm sure you'll find something wrong with this source too, no?

[Violet_Crumble]

19. More like linking to idiocy instead of facts...

You must have forgotten that not long ago you were pointing to NGO Monitor as though it was the holy grail, and back then it was explained to you about the incredible bias of a group that paints any NGO that dares to criticise Israel as being Israel haters. I'm curious now as to how you fail to see the bias in even the most zealoted pro-Israel internet stuff, but make accusations of bias against any writer or organisation that criticises Israel.

I'll refresh yr memory about NGO Monitor and its bullshit accusations about highly respected NGO's like B'Tselem, AI, and HRW...

Like many extremely biased groups they operate using omissions and half-truths. Not only have they thrown the same crap at AI year after year, but their major target is Human Rights Watch. I'll post an entire article I found coz the guy who wrote it said it so much better than I could...

Monitoring The Monitor

One of the more active sideshows of our time is the tangle of new organizations devoted to uncovering and broadcasting what they see as “the truth.” Now that the Internet has radically simplified the work and lowered the cost of getting such messages out, it seems a wonder that there’s room in cyberspace for all the information that each day brings.

But there’s the rub: It’s not the quantity that’s the problem, it’s the nature of what passes for “information.” How are we to distinguish between information and noise? How can we tell when an organization’s ideological agenda colors its presentation?

What brings this to mind just now is an unfolding assault on Human Rights Watch, which is widely regarded and respected, along with Amnesty International USA, as the premier human rights agency in the United States. Its reports are carefully researched and, often to the embarrassment of governments, widely reported.

So, for example, its recent 53-page report on the “rendition” of some 60 alleged Islamist terrorists, sent to Egypt where (contrary to our president’s bland assessment) even our State Department indicates they are virtually certain to be tortured. Other Human Rights Watch reports in recent weeks have focused on Darfur; on America’s treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo, Afghanistan and Iraq, and on the state of human rights in Peru, in Nepal, in Iraq and in Vietnam.

These reports, frequently of conditions that would otherwise pass unnoticed, are produced by a staff of nearly 200 people in 15 offices around the world with an annual budget just short of $22 million.

It comes as no surprise that Human Rights Watch also speaks out on Israel, often (though not always) critically. Enter NGO Monitor, an organization that believes that the best way to defend Israel is to condemn anyone who criticizes it.

NGO Monitor operates out of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs/Institute for Contemporary Affairs. Its editor is Gerald Steinberg, a professor at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, and its stated purpose is “to end the practice used by certain self-declared ‘humanitarian NGOs’ of exploiting the label ‘universal human rights values’ to promote politically and ideologically motivated anti-Israel agendas.”

It is in that context that it has paid special attention to Human Rights Watch, offering on its Web site more reports on Human Rights Watch than on any other of the 75 NGOs it seeks to “out.” It holds that Human Rights Watch exploits “the rhetoric of universal human rights to promote narrow political and ideological preferences,” thereby falling squarely within the explicit scope of NGO Monitor’s interest.

I cannot here review all of what NGO Monitor claims as evidence for its harsh view that Human Rights Watch acts “in concert with international demonization of Israel.” But here are two items that provide an indication of the “narrow political and ideological preferences” of NGO Monitor itself:

On April 18, NGO Monitor issued a “draft report on Human Rights Watch” which claims that an “objective quantitative analysis” shows that Human Rights Watch places an “extreme emphasis on critical assessments of Israel.” I have reviewed the draft document and checked its central claim against the actual documents Human Rights Watch has produced regarding Israel since the year 2000. The discrepancy between NGO Monitor’s claims and Human Rights Watch’s record is massive.

Human Rights Watch has in fact devoted more attention to each of five other nations in the region — Iraq, Sudan, Egypt, Turkey and Iran — than to Israel. I called this to Steinberg’s attention on May 3, and he responded that NGO Monitor would “examine and respond” to the discrepancies. Since then, I have received 27 emails from Steinberg; not one has in any way responded to this matter. Yet the draft report remains online, unamended.

On June 30, Israel’s Supreme Court issued a much-publicized ruling on the “separation fence.” The heart of the ruling was that “the route which the military commander established for the security fence… injures the local inhabitants in a severe and acute way, while violating their rights under humanitarian international law” and that the fence must therefore be relocated.

But if you were to read the NGO Monitor’s summary of the ruling, you would never know this. You would, instead, read all the court’s reasons for declaring that Israel has the right to build a fence to protect its citizens — and none of the language that explains the court’s view that the location of the fence is an unacceptable “infringement on the local inhabitants’ rights and interests.”

Now NGO Monitor is on a public campaign to establish a mechanism, as Steinberg puts it, “to watch the watchers” — that is, to provide external controls over the actions of NGOs in general and of Human Rights Watch in particular. It also urges that NGO hiring and other practices be “transparent.”

Here, again, my repeated requests for an explanation of just how hiring practices might be rendered transparent, and why board oversight and donor response are inadequate as safeguards, have gone unanswered.

Human Rights Watch is not beyond criticism; no NGO is. And all NGOs — NGO Monitor not less than Human Rights Watch — have an agenda. It is entirely appropriate for outsiders to enquire, to judge whether an NGO’s claimed agenda is honestly stated and honestly pursued.

NGO Monitor is not exempt from the kind of scrutiny it proposes for Human Rights Watch and others; its claim that Human Rights Watch “promotes narrow political and ideological preferences” while its own hands are clean and its motives pure is vacuous.

Let it, as it wishes, “watch the watcher” — but let it, in turn, be watched.

http://www.forward.com/articles/monitoring-the-monitor /

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=213252#213847

[notfullofit]

21. I find

it oddly amusing that any link to a source not approved by you, is supposed to be considered by me, to be biased. Does that mean any site that disagrees with your POV should be disregarded?
Sorry but it does not work that way, I happen to have my own POV and I call it freedom of choice, you know, that's the American way, to each his own. Hell, half my relatives disagree with me on all kinds of subjects, that's just the way it is, life would be too boring otherwise.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. I'm glad yr amused...

I find it oddly amusing that any link to a source not approved by you, is supposed to be considered by me, to be biased.

Stop exaggerating. I've picked you up on Arutz Sheva (let's see, most people here disapprove of it because it's bigoted), and NGO Monitor (and the reason I have a problem with them is because they're dishonest as pointed out in the article I posted twice for you to read, and they're extremely biased). Have you seen me say anything when you post something from say Ha'aretz, for example? You haven't because I haven't done it. Unlike you, I don't base my call on what's biased on what 'side' it supports, which is why I've said more than a few times now that I find EI biased. I could say I find it oddly amusing that you constantly pop up falsely accusing The Guardian, B'Tselem, Amnesty International etc (along with invented accusations about them ) of bias after reading this post of yrs, but I think it sort of ventures into the realms of kind of pathetic...

I happen to have my own POV and I call it freedom of choice, you know, that's the American way, to each his own.

This isn't about having a POV, though I do wonder if you think Americans who don't agree with yr POV should have their citizenship stripped the same way as you said you think an Israeli journalist's citizenship should be stripped from him. This is about showing some objectivity and intelligence when reading things on the internet. Just because something falls into yr POV doesn't mean it's credible or unbiased. And that's what you do all the time when it comes to sources. Rather than address the issue or explain why you think something's biased, you post accusations of hating Israel. Yeah, well, so fucking what? Freedom of speech and doing things the American way allows any dimwit to have whatever opinion they like, but it also allows for other folk to point out how idiotic that opinion is. Mind you, if we could strip citizenship from those who dare to think the freedom of speech that you cling to also applies to them, then the US would have a pretty miniscule population! ;)

[notfullofit]

36. Back at ya. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

49. That's on a par with my kidlet's 'I know you are but what I am I?' and 'Whatever!!' n/t

[subsuelo]

18. f it's a Pro-Peace left-leaning organization then it is to be attacked

Whether Israeli or Palestinian. Didn't you get the memo?

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Yeah, that's what it looks like n/t

[azurnoir]

16. B'Tselem is Israel's answer n/t

[ProgressiveMuslim]

52. My BIL was sodomized by the Shin Bet as a young teen.

Bottom line: Some Israelis commit heinous crimes against the children of Palestine.

Bottom line: Not enough decent Israelis care enough to do anything about it.

Is that a surprise? No. Not enough decent Americans can stop its war crimes either. But when evil is denied or minimized it sucks. And those who deny and minimize share culpability.

[Dick Dastardly]

10. Its Electronic Intifada, which means no credibility.

It is for the most part just propaganda and not very good propaganda at that. The facts they do use are distorted. If I am not mistaken they are linked with the ISM

[ProgressiveMuslim]

11. Check out the organization that made the report. Do you dispute them as well? nt

[Violet_Crumble]

13. Yeah, why can't it be from a credible source like CAMERA??

I hope I don't have to put a sarcasm icon here just in case anyone thinks I was being serious. You've linked to sites that are propaganda sites and don't have a problem with doing that, so it looks like yr dislike of propaganda is a very one-sided thing, especially since just now in another post you've linked to MEFacts of all places...

Now, yr claiming the facts are distorted. Fine, show me where the facts are distorted in the incident in the OP. As I've pointed out in another post in this thread, B'Tselem as also documented instances of Palestinians being beaten, so I'm not understanding where the resistance to thinking this could happen is coming from...

[ProgressiveMuslim]

12. That's the best you can do? Pretty lame. nt

[eyl]

22. A few things strike me reading this

(and the original report):

1) There is no independent confirmation of the story I can find; what pages I've seen mentioning this story (and none of them are major reputable news sources) quotes the same DCI/PS story verbatim, without any additional information. Nor is there any mention of any attempt by DCI to get an Israeli response to the allegations.

2) The family name of the children involved is not given, nor is their father's (who the soldiers were supposedly looking for) or mother's name.

3) The report does not give any explanation as to how (or if, for that matter) DCI/PS investigated this. I see no mention of talking to witnesses - in fact, the report does not even actually state that Ezzat described the events!

4) How did they know they were soldiers? Normally, it could be assumed that they were wearing uniforms, but the report mentions that one of them was wearing a black T-shirt - which is against regulations* - and does not mention that the others were wearing uniforms. In addition, there is no indication in the report that the were speaking Hebrew - all mentions are of Arabic, and there's not even mention of an accent.

Given all this, I'd say the story it's far from proven. It's possible it occurred as described; it's also possible it's a fabrication, or, for that matter, that the "soldiers" were actually Palestinian gunmen.

*Some units allow you to wear a black shirt, but it has to be covered by a uniform shirt.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. I'd be more comfortable if B'Tselem had reported it...

You brought up some valid points there, and while I already spotted 1 and 2 myself, I didn't know the bit about the uniforms. Something I did notice, though, and I'm risking being called an apologist for torture, is that the title of the report said the child had been tortured, but the report described people hitting the child, which of course is bad enough, but it's not torture....

What I took offense at in this thread is the off-hand way two posters dismissed the account solely because the child is a Palestinian and they implied that Palestinians are liars and not to believe anything they say. My gut feeling is something happened but it's not clear that the attackers were soldiers....

[Sezu]

26. There is nothing "off handed," about such a response

to an obviously "vague," story such as this when there is so much faux reporting along these lines. And while your attempt to smear skeptics by the claim that they say all Palestinians are liars, you miss the OBVIOUS reality of the skepticism that the WRITER is the liar in the opinion of the skeptics. You fell for it so now you need to attack others who are skeptical to excuse your gullibility by erecting your strawmen.

[notfullofit]

37. Exactly! nt

[Violet_Crumble]

50. There most definately is...

Let me remind you of what you said: 'there have been so many incidents of faux reporting from Palestinian sources, it is hard to believe anything they say anymore'

Apart from the fact that this wasn't a Palestinian source, you very much implied that Palestinians aren't to be believed on anything. Look at the difference between the knee-jerking responses from two of you in this thread (one going so far as to label B'Tselem as being anti-Israel) to the response from eyl, which set out points he had questions about. And he made a point of saying that it may or may not have happened as has been reported, something neither you nor notfullofit did....

[madeline_con]

44. Torture, from the article...

"In that hour he was ordered by the same soldier to stand on one foot for half an hour, with his back against the wall and with both his hands lifted up in the air. Ezzat was exhausted by this but was too scared to put his foot down on the ground. Eventually he was told by one of the other soldiers that he could put his foot down. He was then asked to sit down in a squat position. He managed to remain in this position for two minutes and then had to stand up...

DCI/PS is appalled that Israeli authorities would subject a 10-year-old child to beatings, position abuse and threats over the course of several hours. The treatment of Ezzat falls within the definition of torture and other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment as defined in the UN Convention Against Torture, to which Israel is a State Party. The treatment of Ezzat also infringes numerous other international conventions to which Israel is bound, as well as Israeli military and domestic law."

[EFerrari]

35. LinkTv has a documentary that it airs where refusniks describe

stories just like this.

If you need to believe this isn't happening, that's fine. But there are plenty of reports out there should you be troubled to look for them. You might be interested in this story.

Combatants For Peace: Former Israeli and Palestinian Fighters Talk About Why Dialogue, Not War, Will Solve the Middle East Crisis

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/7/24/combatants_for_peace_former_israeli_and

[LeftishBrit]

25. If accurately reported, this is truly disgusting...

but I share Eyl's concerns. As the saying goes, in any war the first casualty is truth, and atrocity stories are often invented or exaggerated: e.g. the allegation in the First Gulf War that under Saddam's regime babies were being pulled from their incubators and allowed to die. I wouldn't fully trust such a story from either side (or anyone) without further confirmation.

If it *is* true, I hope the soldiers are severely punished.

[azurnoir]

27. Same story different source

Although I am sure some here they lie too. Note other stories on the same page

http://www.dci-pal.org/english/home.cfm

[pelsar]

28. same EXACT story.....

word for word...with no last names, no addresses absolutely nothing to use if one was interested in checking the story out....

[azurnoir]

30. Except that there are other excepted stories on the same page

or are saying they are all lies?

What struck me is that the story was so similar to one was told from a first hand POV, that would be the victim and later his father. Differences would be that it took place in Lebanon and in the '80's. There was no documentation, no news stories, just a common occurrence that at the time went unnoticed

[eyl]

29. Uh.....that's the source for EI's story n/t

[azurnoir]

31. Yeah it is

but a number o the posters here seem to think EI simply pulled the story out of their arse.

[Sezu]

32. LOL. n/t

[azurnoir]

33. So you find the possibility

that there could be some truth to the story funny? Or is it something else are you now claiming that an children's rights organization is lieing?

Oh thats right they were EI's source so it must be a lie.

Oh yeah your initial response was pure knee jerking at its finest, almost Pavlovian

[Sezu]

34. No I'm laughing at the tautolgies which pass for proof

among some here. hell, there's a POSSIBILITY that Bush is a Reptilian Alien. That's how "possibilities," work.

[azurnoir]

38. Ah ha now I understand

you feel the possibility that Defence for Children International is telling the truth is about the same as Bush being a reptilian alien, ok does that apply to whole organization or just the Palestine division or just stuff that EI reprints?


http://www.dci-is.org/

[Sezu]

42. With that, it appears you understand nothing. I was, as any

rational reader would comprehend, delineating the bounds of "possibilities." Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. This is why most readers require more than a single source. Your mileage may vary, especially if you want this to be true so that Israelis can be seen as monsters.

[azurnoir]

43. Israeli's seen as monsters?

If I wanted that I had that first hand long ago, so no not quite. Your example of possibilities was made purposely fatuous so as to reinforce your original claim of "al Dura 2".
Note I provided another source, one IMHO more dependable EI and did not claim this made it absolute truth, you are the who proclaimed it absolute lie straight away.

[Sezu]

46. No, what I ORIGINALLY said is

"You will likely come up empty. Unfortunately,
there have been so many incidents of faux reporting from Palestinian sources, it is hard to believe anything they say anymore "

Hardly proclaiming it an absolute lie no matter what colour the sky is in your universe. The entire issue here is and has been whether a reliable second source would be forthcoming. So far, no cigar.

[notfullofit]

47. Kinda like

the boy who cried wolf.

[Sezu]

48. In certain instances yes. Often we have reports which are

reliable because of the hard facts in the report and the corroboration of several sources. It is very easy to separate these from questionable vague propagandistic reports....for most readers.

[Violet_Crumble]

51. What you originally said was:'Al-dura 2'.

What did you mean by that if you weren't trying to automatically discard the story as not being true?

[eyl]

39. The issues I listed in post 22

are issues with DCI's reporting, not EI's (which just repeated the story verbatim).

[azurnoir]

40. DCI's article

does have a part at the bottom of the page with a number of links for contacting both the Israeli government and the EU on this issue, as for address the city is listed, an exact street address is needed? Family names that is unusual to not list them. The part I find suspect is the picture as if a soldier is going to allow a picture to be taken?
I never said that this was confirmation, but DCI is a more reliable source than EI.

And as I mentioned to Pelsar I have been told similar stories face to face, no political agenda, no public announcement just what happen to this person in Lebanon growing up under Israeli occupation.

[eyl]

41. You miss my point

I saw that DCI had contact links, but what I was commenting on is that there's no mention of any attempt by DCI to try to get a response from Israel on this issue (the links are there for people to send in protests, not for information). You are correct that the village name is given, and absent that I would be even more suspicious of this piece, but the absence of names is a "red flag".