UN calls on Israel to lift Gaza blockade

[georgephillip]

"...Your post #127 begins with six points you allege "we differ greatly with respect to.

1. what constitutes a war-crime, in this context...

2. what constitutes a 'child', in this context...

The deliberate targeting of a child might very well constitute a war-crime, if committed during the course of combat operations or related guerrilla operations, or as part of violent events of an insurrectionist nature.

The legal context (occupation status) for such harming can safely be set aside until such time as it may be reasonably ascertained whether such harm was inflicted intentionally.

It will not eventually help the case for occupation-powers shortcomings, when we contemplate the culpability of the populous and the proximity of their war-assets and combatant and insurrectionist activities and the effect this has on the ability of an occupying power to exercise reasonable precautions in accordance with such law governing such situations.

But that's for another time.

First, we need to establish (1) responsibility and (2) context, along with supporting data, to substantiate allegations of Patterns and Trends of such behaviors, indicative of widespread policies or practices which a reasonable person would construe to be eligible for consideration as an intentional act which might be charge-able as a war-crime.

First things first, which is why I've been trying to keep us on-track with respect to Post No. 127, because we need some answers along those lines, in order to continue moving forward with your earlier assertions.

A 'child' can best be defined as an under-age (pick an age... 15, 16, 17, below 18 anyway) person who cannot be reasonably construed as a combatant or participant in hostilities or insurrectionist activities.

If a child is harmed while engaged in combat operations or participating in a riot, then that child may be said to have lost the protections that childhood would otherwise guarantee.

It's an ugly, cold and harsh truth, but that is the way of things, all across the world.

"...We would also have to discuss 'credible sources'..."

* Any 3rd party with no stake in such investigations nor findings nor outcomes.

* Any 3rd party without a mission or history heavily favoring one side or the other.

* Any 3rd party that has sought-out and obtained and investigated both sides of the story with what reasonably seems to be equal energy and objectivity towards both sides.

* Any party not linked to Jewish-Israeli nor Muslim-Arab-Palestinian traditions nor interests.

* Any party not tasked nor funded by another organization heavily weighted towards one side or another; so as to avoid any risk of subservience or Front-Man or Mouthpiece status.

And, frankly, I'm not sure such can be found, but...

Given the old maxim: "The perfect is the enemy of the good"...

Citations from sources which may reasonably be argued as relatively free from bias and who have heard and weighed both sides, certainly sounds like an excellent place to start.

Journalist Amira Hass had the following conversation with an IDF sniper in 2000:

"“All the sharpshooters haven’t shot children.”

But nonetheless there are children who were hit, wounded or killed after they were hit in the head. Unless these were mistakes.

“If they were children, they were mistakes.”

Do they talk about this?

“They talk to us about this a lot. They forbid us to shoot at children.”

How do they say this?

“You don’t shoot a child who is 12 or younger.”

That is, a child of 12 or older is allowed?

“Twelve and up is allowed. He’s not a child any more, he’s already after his bar mitzvah. Something like that.”

Thirteen is bar mitzvah age.

“Twelve and up, you’re allowed to shoot. That’s what they tell us.”

Don?t shoot till you can see they?re over the age of 12

 

[Kondor3]

"...Journalist Amira Hass had the following conversation with an IDF sniper in 2000:

"“All the sharpshooters haven’t shot children.”

But nonetheless there are children who were hit, wounded or killed after they were hit in the head. Unless these were mistakes.

“If they were children, they were mistakes.”

Do they talk about this?

“They talk to us about this a lot. They forbid us to shoot at children.”

How do they say this?

“You don’t shoot a child who is 12 or younger.”

That is, a child of 12 or older is allowed?

“Twelve and up is allowed. He’s not a child any more, he’s already after his bar mitzvah. Something like that.”

Thirteen is bar mitzvah age.

“Twelve and up, you’re allowed to shoot. That’s what they tell us.”

Don?t shoot till you can see they?re over the age of 12

George...

I do not wish to begin such an exchange with an obstructive challenge to credibility, but you leave me no choice...

Do you really expect to get away with citing information found on the website for 'If Americans Only Knew' - a brazen pro-Palestinian source - without having the website's objectivity challenged?

Do you really expect to get away with citing information obtained by an Israeli Ultra-Leftist (and possibly pro-Palestinian) journalist who has been excoriated by the Israeli court system as having defamed her own people - without having her objectivity challenged?

I'm am genuinely and truly and sincerely sorry about this, but you are failing - in classic Epic fashion - in trying to serve-up content from Credible Sources, meeting at least some, if not all, of the criteria defining a Credible Source, in post No. 138.

I see where you're going with this, and it has some potential, but you've just gotta do better than what you've showed us so far, with respect to (a) credibility and (b) verification of testimony. It will be a shame if you can't do better, because I sense a bit of substance in there someplace, based on the biased stuff you've served-up so far.

I'm not (for once) trying to be a pain in the ass about this, it's simply that you must do much better with your sources, in order to gain even a semblance of early traction with such assertions.

Good luck in finding (1) a more objective source and (2) compelling evidence of verification of such anecdotal testimony.

The conversation - amongst several of the regulars here, not just you and I - might suddenly become a whole lot more interesting, if you-and-yours manage to succeed to an extent where the Opposition sees some validity in the assertions.

Good hunting.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"...Journalist Amira Hass had the following conversation with an IDF sniper in 2000:

"“All the sharpshooters haven’t shot children.”

But nonetheless there are children who were hit, wounded or killed after they were hit in the head. Unless these were mistakes.

“If they were children, they were mistakes.”

Do they talk about this?

“They talk to us about this a lot. They forbid us to shoot at children.”

How do they say this?

“You don’t shoot a child who is 12 or younger.”

That is, a child of 12 or older is allowed?

“Twelve and up is allowed. He’s not a child any more, he’s already after his bar mitzvah. Something like that.”

Thirteen is bar mitzvah age.

“Twelve and up, you’re allowed to shoot. That’s what they tell us.”

Don?t shoot till you can see they?re over the age of 12

George...

I do not wish to begin such an exchange with an obstructive challenge to credibility, but you leave me no choice...

Do you really expect to get away with citing information found on the website for 'If Americans Only Knew' - a brazen pro-Palestinian source - without having the website's objectivity challenged?

Do you really expect to get away with citing information obtained by an Israeli Ultra-Leftist (and possibly pro-Palestinian) journalist who has been excoriated by the Israeli court system as having defamed her own people - without having her objectivity challenged?

I'm am genuinely and truly and sincerely sorry about this, but you are failing - in classic Epic fashion - in trying to serve-up content from Credible Sources, meeting at least some, if not all, of the criteria defining a Credible Source, in post No. 138.

I see where you're going with this, and it has some potential, but you've just gotta do better than what you've showed us so far, with respect to (a) credibility and (b) verification of testimony. It will be a shame if you can't do better, because I sense a bit of substance in there someplace, based on the biased stuff you've served-up so far.

I'm not (for once) trying to be a pain in the ass about this, it's simply that you must do much better with your sources, in order to gain even a semblance of early traction with such assertions.

Good luck in finding (1) a more objective source and (2) compelling evidence of verification of such anecdotal testimony.

The conversation - amongst several of the regulars here, not just you and I - might suddenly become a whole lot more interesting, if you-and-yours manage to succeed to an extent where the Opposition sees some validity in the assertions.

Good hunting.

How about you giving us a short list of your credible sources.

Give us some stories on this subject.

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip, et al,

Do you know anything about Amira Hass?

Journalist Amira Hass had the following conversation with an IDF sniper in 2000:

"“All the sharpshooters haven’t shot children.”

But nonetheless there are children who were hit, wounded or killed after they were hit in the head. Unless these were mistakes.

“If they were children, they were mistakes.”

Do they talk about this?

“They talk to us about this a lot. They forbid us to shoot at children.”

How do they say this?

“You don’t shoot a child who is 12 or younger.”

That is, a child of 12 or older is allowed?

“Twelve and up is allowed. He’s not a child any more, he’s already after his bar mitzvah. Something like that.”

Thirteen is bar mitzvah age.

“Twelve and up, you’re allowed to shoot. That’s what they tell us.”

Don?t shoot till you can see they?re over the age of 12

(COMMENT)

Some people think that Ms Hass is an E-5 Source; though some, just as a matter of good manners, would say F-6. She has been caught adjusting the truth in her stories.

Ms Hass has been both praised and honored --- as well as --- condemned and prosecuted for some of the work she has done. She is a well known contemporary author and left-wing journalist (Israeli) in support of the Palestinian Resistance and violence. Christiane Amanpour (former Chief International Correspondent for CNN, now ABC New Anchor, and holder of both Emmy Awards and a Peabody Award) described Ms Hass as "one of the greatest truth-seekers of them all." Ms Hass, best known for her work with Haaretz, considered by many Israelis to be the most influential daily newspaper, writes mostly pro-Palestinian articles in their social and political content.

Take it for what it is worth.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Kondor3]

"...How about you giving us a short list of your credible sources..."

I am not the one making the assertion of Israeli policy regarding headshots against children.

Consequently, the burden of proof is not on me.

In order to prove or reasonably substantiate the assertion of child-headshots as policy or routine practice, you must serve up reasonable evidence, from credible sources.

Given that the burden of proof is not on me, it stands to reason that I am also not obliged to conjure-up a list of credible sources for you to work from.

I have, out of courtesy, and in the interests of continuing to move forward, supplied some basic guidelines that I believe any fair-minded and objective person would conjure-up, in order to gauge a source as credible.

I have even gone so far as to denote that 'The perfect is the enemy of the good' - implying that even if you cannot find organizations and sources which meet all-such criteria, that simply finding ones who are kinda-sorta 'in the neighborhood' of such a laundry-list of Objectivity Litmus Tests at least gets the conversation going, in support of your assertions of intentional Israeli head-shot targeting and general child-targeting, without getting bogged-down in the minutiae of satisfying each and every criteria.

And what gets served-up in return?

Anecdotal testimony from a single IDF soldier, taken by a Leftist Israeli Journalist who is viewed with suspicion amongst her own people and officials as a fifth-columnist and defamer of her own people, and whose 'report' was being carried by a brazen pro-Palestinian website whose oowner-operators routinely advocate for an end to US support for Israel.

Jesus-H-Tap-Dancing-Christ, Tinny, any 5th-grader in a junior debating club would know better than to try to serve-up that kind of claptrap when the rational adult-level goal was to serve-up material from a largely objective (fair, unbiased, and neutral-leaning) source with a sufficient reputation for reliability and impartiality so as to be reasonably free from charges of subjectivity or bias!

To quote a Shirley McClain line from an old movie, 'Steel Magnolias': "These are NOT difficult questions."

You don't serve-up HIGHLY and WIDELY ACKNOWLEDGED questionable sources as your first attempt at serving-up CREDIBLE and OBJECTIVE sources.

I cannot believe that ya'll are THAT badly out-of-touch with Reality, but I find myself beginning to wonder, when I see responses along those lines, in answer to the common-sense and agreeable parameters that had been articulated just prior to that feedback.

Ya'll are simply going to have to use your common sense, to find Credible Sources that any reasonable and non-partisan person would accept as reasonably unbiased and truthful and accurate, and who have bothered to get feedback from both sides, and researched and verified what they're reporting on.

"...Give us some stories on this subject."

What stories,Tinny?

Stories on how the IDF is NOT shooting Palestinian children in the head?

Are you expecting me to 'prove a negative' ?

C'mon, you know better than that.

Stop stalling.

First, one does not prove a negative.

Second, ya'll are the ones making the positive assertions.

Therefore, the burden of proof is upon you, not me.

That goes for the researching and dredging-up of related 'stories', as well.

Hope that helps.

 

[P F Tinmore]

georgephillip, et al,

Do you know anything about Amira Hass?

Journalist Amira Hass had the following conversation with an IDF sniper in 2000:

"“All the sharpshooters haven’t shot children.”

But nonetheless there are children who were hit, wounded or killed after they were hit in the head. Unless these were mistakes.

“If they were children, they were mistakes.”

Do they talk about this?

“They talk to us about this a lot. They forbid us to shoot at children.”

How do they say this?

“You don’t shoot a child who is 12 or younger.”

That is, a child of 12 or older is allowed?

“Twelve and up is allowed. He’s not a child any more, he’s already after his bar mitzvah. Something like that.”

Thirteen is bar mitzvah age.

“Twelve and up, you’re allowed to shoot. That’s what they tell us.”

Don?t shoot till you can see they?re over the age of 12

(COMMENT)

Some people think that Ms Hass is an E-5 Source; though some, just as a matter of good manners, would say F-6. She has been caught adjusting the truth in her stories.

Ms Hass has been both praised and honored --- as well as --- condemned and prosecuted for some of the work she has done. She is a well known contemporary author and left-wing journalist (Israeli) in support of the Palestinian Resistance and violence. Christiane Amanpour (former Chief International Correspondent for CNN, now ABC New Anchor, and holder of both Emmy Awards and a Peabody Award) described Ms Hass as "one of the greatest truth-seekers of them all." Ms Hass, best known for her work with Haaretz, considered by many Israelis to be the most influential daily newspaper, writes mostly pro-Palestinian articles in their social and political content.

Take it for what it is worth.

Most Respectfully,
R

She also lived in Gaza and the West Bank and reported from there. Unlike most "journalists" who sit in Israel getting Israeli press releases and that is their report.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"...How about you giving us a short list of your credible sources..."

I am not the one making the assertion of Israeli policy regarding headshots against children.

Consequently, the burden of proof is not on me.

In order to prove or reasonably substantiate the assertion of child-headshots as policy or routine practice, you must serve up reasonable evidence, from credible sources.

Given that the burden of proof is not on me, it stands to reason that I am also not obliged to conjure-up a list of credible sources for you to work from.

I have, out of courtesy, and in the interests of continuing to move forward, supplied some basic guidelines that I believe any fair-minded and objective person would conjure-up, in order to gauge a source as credible.

I have even gone so far as to denote that 'The perfect is the enemy of the good' - implying that even if you cannot find organizations and sources which meet all-such criteria, that simply finding ones who are kinda-sorta 'in the neighborhood' of such a laundry-list of Objectivity Litmus Tests at least gets the conversation going, in support of your assertions of intentional Israeli head-shot targeting and general child-targeting, without getting bogged-down in the minutiae of satisfying each and every criteria.

And what gets served-up in return?

Anecdotal testimony from a single IDF soldier, taken by a Leftist Israeli Journalist who is viewed with suspicion amongst her own people and officials as a fifth-columnist and defamer of her own people, and whose 'report' was being carried by a brazen pro-Palestinian website whose oowner-operators routinely advocate for an end to US support for Israel.

Jesus-H-Tap-Dancing-Christ, Tinny, any 5th-grader in a junior debating club would know better than to try to serve-up that kind of claptrap when the rational adult-level goal was to serve-up material from a largely objective (fair, unbiased, and neutral-leaning) source with a sufficient reputation for reliability and impartiality so as to be reasonably free from charges of subjectivity or bias!

To quote a Shirley McClain line from an old movie, 'Steel Magnolias': "These are NOT difficult questions."

You don't serve-up HIGHLY and WIDELY ACKNOWLEDGED questionable sources as your first attempt at serving-up CREDIBLE and OBJECTIVE sources.

I cannot believe that ya'll are THAT badly out-of-touch with Reality, but I find myself beginning to wonder, when I see responses along those lines, in answer to the common-sense and agreeable parameters that had been articulated just prior to that feedback.

Ya'll are simply going to have to use your common sense, to find Credible Sources that any reasonable and non-partisan person would accept as reasonably unbiased and truthful and accurate, and who have bothered to get feedback from both sides, and researched and verified what they're reporting on.

"...Give us some stories on this subject."

What stories,Tinny?

Stories on how the IDF is NOT shooting Palestinian children in the head?

Are you expecting me to 'prove a negative' ?

C'mon, you know better than that.

Stop stalling.

First, one does not prove a negative.

Second, ya'll are the ones making the positive assertions.

Therefore, the burden of proof is upon you, not me.

That goes for the researching and dredging-up of related 'stories', as well.

Hope that helps.

B'Tselem Is a highly respected source. I don't recall anybody proving them wrong on anything.

 

[Kondor3]

"...B'Tselem Is a highly respected source. I don't recall anybody proving them wrong on anything."

One of the key (and non-negotiable) criteria for guaranteeing objectivity is that such Credible Source must be a non-stakeholders; not mission-driven to advocate for a given side, and NOT having ties to either Israel or Palestine.

B'Tselem fails those particular, simple, common-sense Sniff Tests each and every time.

Think, Tinny, fer Crissakes... think!

Or turn the matter over to someone else with a wee bit more understanding and talent for such matters.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"...B'Tselem Is a highly respected source. I don't recall anybody proving them wrong on anything."

One of the key (and non-negotiable) criteria for guaranteeing objectivity is that such Credible Source must be a non-stakeholders; not mission-driven to advocate for a given side, and NOT having ties to either Israel or Palestine.

B'Tselem fails those particular, simple, common-sense Sniff Tests each and every time.

Think, Tinny, fer Crissakes... think!

Or turn the matter over to someone else with a wee bit more understanding and talent for such matters.

B'Tselem is a Jewish Israeli organization. What stake would they be holding?

 

[Kondor3]

"...B'Tselem Is a highly respected source. I don't recall anybody proving them wrong on anything."

One of the key (and non-negotiable) criteria for guaranteeing objectivity is that such Credible Source must be a non-stakeholders; not mission-driven to advocate for a given side, and NOT having ties to either Israel or Palestine.

B'Tselem fails those particular, simple, common-sense Sniff Tests each and every time.

Think, Tinny, fer Crissakes... think!

Or turn the matter over to someone else with a wee bit more understanding and talent for such matters.

B'Tselem is a Jewish Israeli organization. What stake would they be holding?

They are a Jewish Israeli leftist organization devoted to humane treatment of Palestinians and as such are extremely biased against their own government and its policies. Many Israelis see them as traitors and fifth-columnists.

Triple-whammy.

C'mon, Tinny, snap out of it, fer Crissakes.

No direct affiliation with either Israeli or Palestinian interests, in order to ensure impartiality and objectivity.

This is not rocket science.

Try again.

 

[P F Tinmore]

One of the key (and non-negotiable) criteria for guaranteeing objectivity is that such Credible Source must be a non-stakeholders; not mission-driven to advocate for a given side, and NOT having ties to either Israel or Palestine.

B'Tselem fails those particular, simple, common-sense Sniff Tests each and every time.

Think, Tinny, fer Crissakes... think!

Or turn the matter over to someone else with a wee bit more understanding and talent for such matters.

B'Tselem is a Jewish Israeli organization. What stake would they be holding?

They are a Jewish Israeli leftist organization devoted to humane treatment of Palestinians and as such are extremely biased against their own government and its policies. Many Israelis see them as traitors and fifth-columnists.

Triple-whammy.

C'mon, Tinny, snap out of it, fer Crissakes.

No direct affiliation with either Israeli or Palestinian interests, in order to ensure impartiality and objectivity.

This is not rocket science.

Try again.

They are a Jewish Israeli leftist organization devoted to humane treatment of Palestinians and as such are extremely biased against their own government and its policies.

Maybe they are just being honest.

 

[Kondor3]

B'Tselem is a Jewish Israeli organization. What stake would they be holding?

They are a Jewish Israeli leftist organization devoted to humane treatment of Palestinians and as such are extremely biased against their own government and its policies. Many Israelis see them as traitors and fifth-columnists.

Triple-whammy.

C'mon, Tinny, snap out of it, fer Crissakes.

No direct affiliation with either Israeli or Palestinian interests, in order to ensure impartiality and objectivity.

This is not rocket science.

Try again.

They are a Jewish Israeli leftist organization devoted to humane treatment of Palestinians and as such are extremely biased against their own government and its policies.

Maybe they are just being honest.

Yes, yes, yes... very nice, I'm sure. Now, are you and/or George going to stop screwing-around and take a serious crack at identifying impartial and credible sources who are not associated with either the Israeli nor Palestinian cause, or are you going to continue spinning your wheels and stalling, because you are unfamiliar with anything outside your own range of one-sided propaganda mills?

 

[SAYIT]

That's OK.

Given their suicide-bombing campaigns and rocket-barrage campaigns against Israeli civilian populations over the past couple of decades, I'm sure the Palestinians have also violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights often enough, so, it all evens-out in the end.

You wouldn't know a human right, if it came from Mike Tyson.
You don't give a shit about human rights, so why bring them up?

Didn't you, just a few post ago, claim you don't deal in ad hominem attacks?

 

[SAYIT]

The Hostile Arab Palestinian has forfeited some of these rights by their actions they have taken and the outcomes that resulted.

Link?

Link to what ?
Either way, you're the most biased poster here, so no matter what evidence ANYONE presents you, it's ALWAYS Israels fault and NEVER the Palestinians fault.

I don't know why an intelligent and knowledgable poster like Rocco wastes his time with you.

Clearly Rocco uses the useful idiot to make his valid points about the conflict.

 

[SAYIT]

"...B'Tselem Is a highly respected source. I don't recall anybody proving them wrong on anything."

One of the key (and non-negotiable) criteria for guaranteeing objectivity is that such Credible Source must be a non-stakeholders; not mission-driven to advocate for a given side, and NOT having ties to either Israel or Palestine.

B'Tselem fails those particular, simple, common-sense Sniff Tests each and every time.

Think, Tinny, fer Crissakes... think!

Or turn the matter over to someone else with a wee bit more understanding and talent for such matters.

B'Tselem is a Jewish Israeli organization. What stake would they be holding?

Even you must know you are lying. It may be Israeli but it's certainly not Jewish.

 

[georgephillip]

"...Journalist Amira Hass had the following conversation with an IDF sniper in 2000:

"“All the sharpshooters haven’t shot children.”

But nonetheless there are children who were hit, wounded or killed after they were hit in the head. Unless these were mistakes.

“If they were children, they were mistakes.”

Do they talk about this?

“They talk to us about this a lot. They forbid us to shoot at children.”

How do they say this?

“You don’t shoot a child who is 12 or younger.”

That is, a child of 12 or older is allowed?

“Twelve and up is allowed. He’s not a child any more, he’s already after his bar mitzvah. Something like that.”

Thirteen is bar mitzvah age.

“Twelve and up, you’re allowed to shoot. That’s what they tell us.”

Don?t shoot till you can see they?re over the age of 12

George...

I do not wish to begin such an exchange with an obstructive challenge to credibility, but you leave me no choice...

Do you really expect to get away with citing information found on the website for 'If Americans Only Knew' - a brazen pro-Palestinian source - without having the website's objectivity challenged?

Do you really expect to get away with citing information obtained by an Israeli Ultra-Leftist (and possibly pro-Palestinian) journalist who has been excoriated by the Israeli court system as having defamed her own people - without having her objectivity challenged?

I'm am genuinely and truly and sincerely sorry about this, but you are failing - in classic Epic fashion - in trying to serve-up content from Credible Sources, meeting at least some, if not all, of the criteria defining a Credible Source, in post No. 138.

I see where you're going with this, and it has some potential, but you've just gotta do better than what you've showed us so far, with respect to (a) credibility and (b) verification of testimony. It will be a shame if you can't do better, because I sense a bit of substance in there someplace, based on the biased stuff you've served-up so far.

I'm not (for once) trying to be a pain in the ass about this, it's simply that you must do much better with your sources, in order to gain even a semblance of early traction with such assertions.

Good luck in finding (1) a more objective source and (2) compelling evidence of verification of such anecdotal testimony.

The conversation - amongst several of the regulars here, not just you and I - might suddenly become a whole lot more interesting, if you-and-yours manage to succeed to an extent where the Opposition sees some validity in the assertions.

Good hunting.

Are you capable of distinguishing between content and context?
Amira Hass presents an interview with an IDF sniper who reveals he's been told any Arab child 12 and above can be shot. Do you find such a charge credible? If so, by what reasoning?

Who is your choice for accurate reporting concerning possible IDF war crimes in the Occupied Territories, and how does his or her credentials compare to mine?

"Amira Hass (Hebrew: עמירה הס*; born 28 June 1956) is an Israeli left-wing journalist and author, mostly known for her columns in the daily newspaper Ha'aretz. She is particularly recognized for her reporting on Palestinian affairs in the West Bank and Gaza, where she has also lived for a number of years.

"The daughter of two Holocaust survivors,[2] Hass is the only child of a Sarajevo-born Jewish mother, who survived nine months in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, and a Romanian-born Jewish father.[3] Hass was born in Jerusalem, and was educated at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where she studied the history of Nazism and the European Left's relation to the Holocaust. Early in her career, she traveled widely and worked in several different jobs..."

"Frustrated by the events of the First Intifada and by what she considered their inadequate coverage in the Israeli media, she started to report from the Palestinian territories in 1991.

As of 2003, she is the only Jewish Israeli journalist who has lived full-time among the Palestinians, in Gaza from 1993 and in Ramallah from 1997.

On various occasions she stated her opinion that 'Just as reporting about England should be from London and about France from Paris, so reporting about Palestine should be from Palestine'"

Credibility cuts both ways, Kondor3
Don't hurt yourself.

Amira Hass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[georgephillip]

georgephillip, et al,

Do you know anything about Amira Hass?

Journalist Amira Hass had the following conversation with an IDF sniper in 2000:

"“All the sharpshooters haven’t shot children.”

But nonetheless there are children who were hit, wounded or killed after they were hit in the head. Unless these were mistakes.

“If they were children, they were mistakes.”

Do they talk about this?

“They talk to us about this a lot. They forbid us to shoot at children.”

How do they say this?

“You don’t shoot a child who is 12 or younger.”

That is, a child of 12 or older is allowed?

“Twelve and up is allowed. He’s not a child any more, he’s already after his bar mitzvah. Something like that.”

Thirteen is bar mitzvah age.

“Twelve and up, you’re allowed to shoot. That’s what they tell us.”

Don?t shoot till you can see they?re over the age of 12

(COMMENT)

Some people think that Ms Hass is an E-5 Source; though some, just as a matter of good manners, would say F-6. She has been caught adjusting the truth in her stories.

Ms Hass has been both praised and honored --- as well as --- condemned and prosecuted for some of the work she has done. She is a well known contemporary author and left-wing journalist (Israeli) in support of the Palestinian Resistance and violence. Christiane Amanpour (former Chief International Correspondent for CNN, now ABC New Anchor, and holder of both Emmy Awards and a Peabody Award) described Ms Hass as "one of the greatest truth-seekers of them all." Ms Hass, best known for her work with Haaretz, considered by many Israelis to be the most influential daily newspaper, writes mostly pro-Palestinian articles in their social and political content.

Take it for what it is worth.

Most Respectfully,
R

Hass appears to be standing much closer to the Truth in Palestine than any journalist in the corporate press is. That's worth a lot to me; how much is the following worth to you?

"On 1 December 2008, Hass, who had traveled to Gaza aboard a protest vessel, had to flee the strip due to threats to her life after she criticized Hamas.[10]

"She was arrested by Israeli police on her return to Israel for being in Gaza without a permit.[11]

"After residing in the Gaza Strip for several months, Hass was again arrested by Israeli police upon her return to Israel on 12 May 2009 'for violating a law which forbids residence in an enemy state.'[12]

Amira Hass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[georgephillip]

They are a Jewish Israeli leftist organization devoted to humane treatment of Palestinians and as such are extremely biased against their own government and its policies. Many Israelis see them as traitors and fifth-columnists.

Triple-whammy.

C'mon, Tinny, snap out of it, fer Crissakes.

No direct affiliation with either Israeli or Palestinian interests, in order to ensure impartiality and objectivity.

This is not rocket science.

Try again.

They are a Jewish Israeli leftist organization devoted to humane treatment of Palestinians and as such are extremely biased against their own government and its policies.

Maybe they are just being honest.

Yes, yes, yes... very nice, I'm sure. Now, are you and/or George going to stop screwing-around and take a serious crack at identifying impartial and credible sources who are not associated with either the Israeli nor Palestinian cause, or are you going to continue spinning your wheels and stalling, because you are unfamiliar with anything outside your own range of one-sided propaganda mills?

Why don't you provide your version of "impartial and credible sources not associated with either the Israeli nor Palestinian cause" which would be likely to have first hand knowledge of events in Palestine?

Human Rights Watch?
ICRC?
Amnesty International?
UN??

 

[docmauser1]

"Frustrated by the events of the First Intifada and by what she considered their inadequate coverage in the Israeli media, she started to report from the Palestinian territories in 1991.Credibility cuts both ways ...Amira Hass

Slapped with a hefty fine in court for intentional lying about events in Hebron in 2001. Once a liar always a liar, of course. How about credibility?

 

[docmauser1]

Why don't you provide your version of "impartial and credible sources not associated with either the Israeli nor Palestinian cause" which would be likely to have first hand knowledge of events in Palestine?
Human Rights Watch?
Human Rights Watch?
ICRC?
Amnesty International?
UN??

Getting a life and a job?