Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Is This Another Al-Durah-style Clip? UPDATED

This post is being updated, constantly.
Check at the bottom for additional material
as the days go by.

He picked it up from EI (Electronic Intifada), here.

Here it is and since I first saw it, almost 4000 more entries in less than 2.5 hours.

My immediate first viewing observation:

The interviewee says the boys were moving back, which is true for the most part, but the first one who seems to have been hit was definitely moving forward.  And, oddly, he falls forward, places both his hands down which is a position one wouldn't expect for someone getting shot from in front.

I then asked myself: how did this clip reach the Pals., what was the full version before editing?

I passed it around to friends and received these comments:

Early impressions:1. The 2 were not "boys," but young men involved in violent demonstrations.  By one account, one guy was 20.2. 1st shot man one took place at exact location of sling-shotter in earlier pic. 3. Some 30 shibab poured out of the shadows after he was shot. They weren't innocent bystanders, but part of demonstration. 4. In case 2, 4 cameras instantly show up at scene, not by accident. 

Looks odd that one victim put arms to ground as he fell. Seen other videos of people getting shot and their legs buckle beneath them and they crumple straight down. 

Anyone see any blood? The cameras that arrive on the scene should have a ton of blood especially from chest and back wounds.  These lions are very brave to run out into live fire so quickly to give aid.

What do you think?

Or is this another Al-Durah?


EOZ sent me a link to another video purporting to show IDF violence but the rifle is outfitted with a rubber-bullet barrel attachment:

And here is his blog response.


Additional information I've seen/been sent:

This is looking awfully like formulaic Al-Durah reportage: which referred to "fire coming from the direction of the Israeli position" (at 1:2 -1:28)  - and left the viewer to draw the "obvious" conclusion about how an "innocent bystander" was targeted...
It's hard to tell just how this clip was composed/edited - As presented in this clip, there are problems with the DCI account, on its face - some have been mentioned by others:
1)    In the account given in the DCI video - the narrator (at :48) describes two boys returning to the scene of earlier rioting and the narrator says both were shot - but we are not presented with corroborating film for that particular scenario.
Instead, the clip has the narrator continuing (at :53 of the video clip at ) his account he heard precisely 4 shots fired [apparently at the same time] and there were 3 casualties. However, the video shows only 2 alleged shootings which were apparently captured on security camera footage. It should be noted at the outset that the security camera footage of the two alleged victims named in the video has a time interval of an hour between the two alleged shootings. The first 'casualty' is shot at approximately 1:45 pm per the security camera time mark (security camera 1). The second victim is shot at approximately 2:58 pm (per the time mark of the same security camera). The narrator says two boys were killed at 2:30 or 3:00 - implying they were both killed at the same time.   2)    (I could be mistaken in judging the shadows but) while the DCI narrator says the shots came from the east, the direction of the sun judging from the comparing the shadows in the first and second shootings captured by the security cameras indicate the sun is moving west. Therefore the first victim was walking  south when allegedly shot. The second victim was walking north when shot.  We should therefore  anticipate wounds in their left and right sides respectively, if shot from the east - not the front or back, as alleged by the DCI video (at 1:54). There is no obvious indication of the firing source other than the narrator's allegation - and even he does not say outright the Israelis did it - That's just left to the viewers' conclusion. 
3) Both boys break their falls handily before hitting the pavement, casting doubt on the nature of their injuries as alleged.
4) - The people coming to the aid of the first boy don't pull him toward shelter near the building, but rather appear to drag him in the opposite direction, to a more exposed position. Nobody seems particularly concerned about getting shot themselves as they tend to the wounded.
5)    There is no blood visible whatsoever in the security footage - either on the victims or on the ground.
6)    The appearance of cameramen (apparently beckoned by the onlookers) within seconds of the second shooting is also cause for question. 
Other questions:
The following site -  http://www.stopthewall.org/2014/05/18/two-palestinians-were-killed-66-th-anniversary-al-nakba - fails to name one of the boys in the DCI video (Mohamed Mahmoud Odeh - 16) but names instead Mohammed Abu El Thaher 22-year-old from Abu Shkhedm village north of Ramallah, whom this site says was shot in the heart. Al Jazeera also named Thaher as the second casualty (https://www.facebook.com/aljazeera/posts/10152480428188690) Could this possibly be the third casualty alleged in the DCI video? This site says Nadim Nawara 17 years from a farm, north of Ramallah, (mentioned in the DCI video was shot in the stomach (not the chest as alleged in the DCI video). 
Bottom line: The video doesn't provide any meaningful information. We have an accusation of unlawful shootings, with innuendo about the source of fire. Does the IDF have any info about live fire from the Palestinian side?
While wild speculation is unhelpful the Israelis have focused on precisely the wrong thing- 
Saying "the video is edited in a tendentious manner and does not reflect the level of violence that occurred at the disturbance." is worse than useless. The one thing that is evident from the video is that those allegedly shot in the security tape presented no immediate threat. The unfounded and horrible claim that these unarmed teens were shot intentionally by Israeli forces is the issue to focus on- It's the only thing people care about.
It is heinous incitement to accuse someone of deliberate execution (murder) of unarmed teenagers

those security cameras used to show the show were installed the day before. Also the Israeli soldiers were 300m away.   That's amazing shooting with 3 hits in 4 shots. Unlikely

Did all notice that on one of the still pictures the dead man raises his head?  Never seen a thing like this.

It looks like after the youth is shot someone runs towards him (from out of camera range into the view) BEFORE the people closer to him react.

Also, I watched the DCI video where they interview the man who says that there were four shots.

But here's BBCNo Israeli troops can be seen in the video, which begins with a youth throwing a stone from the end of a street, beside a row of shops.  Seven minutes later, according to the timestamp, a youth wearing a backpack is seen slumping to the ground. An hour and 13 minutes after that, a second youth collapses as he walks away from the area, his back turned to the scene of the earlier confrontations.

If the shootings were separated by more than an hour who would say "four shots?"

Look at camera 1 on this video. After lying still, it appears that the youth lifts his left arm just as the first "helpers" arrive. It happens right at 34 Seconds in. He clearly was not killed or incapacitated by whatever "hit him."

A bullet has been recovered by the family of one of those shot - but the family has not decided whether or not to provide the military with the bullet...

the second one's knees buckle. But regardless it also looks like the shot may have come from the door on the right of the screen an not directly behind him. He walks toward the camera past the door and then his knees buckle. He looks more like he may have been shot, perhaps better acting, but if he was indeed shot, it looks like he may have been shot from the doorway. Then they push him down and call the cameramen over.

If you take a good look, in one of the videos, you will see that one of the rioters was hit by a rubber bullet (knee). So that supports the IDF version of what happened. 

Other possibilities have to be taken into account. For instance, one might have been shot by the IDF and the other not. Or there might have been a legitimate target at which fire was aimed, but one or the other was the unfortunate victim. One cannot judge the situation by looking solely at the persons in the film. The question is what the shooter (if any) was looking at, not what the people in question were actually doing.

 Did any of the PSCC people/journalists report on Twitter/Facebook/etc live IDF fire contemporaneously with the demonstration?  Avi Issacharof only mentioned smelling tear gas. It is unknown when the shooting incident occurred in relation to the attack on Avi. He did not mention any live fire on Twitter or in his account on TOI.  We know Palestinian Security forces were at the demonstration b/c 2 of them rescued Avi. Maybe s/o from the Pal security side did the shooting.

The 2014 script: Two teenaged boys, one seventeen years old, one sixteen years old, are, arguably, killed in the fight against alleged Zionist “colonialism.” Whether or not these deaths were staged; whether or not the IDF shot them; whether or not the IDF was even using live ammunition; whether or not the video released was doctored or provocatively edited--regardless, calls to hold Israel accountable by outside parties will soon be heard all over the world.

Are we really going to fall for another Mohammed Al-Dura trick? According to experts, the two boys seem to have staged their falls. Like Al-Dura, no blood is evident. Like Al-Dura, there are no corpses to autopsy.

 Israeli military investigators said, however, the shots may have been fired by the Palestinian side, rather than by Israeli troops, and senior Israeli officials said a video of the shootings that has that sparked an outcry was likely forged.

Note this paragraph - the security camera footage shows the 2 incidents more than an hour apart, but this guy claims they happened simultaneously:
According to Ziad, Muhammad Abu Thahr, 15, and Nadim Nuwara, 17, suddenly fell to the ground after several minutes of shooting by Israeli soldiers. "For several minutes, live bullets were shot individually … I heard at least four shots, three of which hit the youths including the two seen in the videos."

Are there actually dead bodies to examine, and if so, whose to say they were'n't shot by the Hamas or Fatah earlier? a look at the slugs and an accurate time of death would be most enlightening. Actually it's 4 out of 4 if we count the kid allegedly hit in the elbow.   In addition, the Haaretz report indicates that at least one boy was shot twice .. "The third boy, Muhammad al-Aza, was hit by two bullets, one to the chest and one to his left lung. He is hospitalized in Ramallah."

In the CNN clip, both rifles seem to be equipped with rubber bullet attachments.  And again, as they carry him away, no blood stains --- which is odd for a bullet that is claimed to have passed through him, going out his back.

Israeli channel 2 showed the footage then interviewed an expert who pointed out the long barrels and said the pictures of the pointy largely bullet shaped bullet were bullshit if it passed through a chest and a backpack of books. They tore apart the CNN footage.

Besides the canister at the end of the barrel, you also see in some of the pix a red magazine under the rifle -- blanks. 

CNN delivered compelling evidence that the IDF only used M16 rifles for rubber bullets. In all the footage we've seen you only see this special M16 rifle

This is an interesting observation:

 I watched the CNN video a few times and many things don’t make sense.1- Times:CNN VIDEO:2:03 Soldier shoots2:09 focus on group carrying him away already. We don’t see him lifted from the ground.Time elapsed: 6 seconds or less from time soldier fired until man already is in the air being carried.Security camera (times based on this link):http://www.btselem.org/releases/20140520_bitunya_killings_on_nakba_day:29 secs the person starts to fall:34 secs the first people reach him:37 secs he is picked upTime elapsed: 8 secs from time of shot until he is first picked up.Which is impossible. In CNN at 6 secs he is in the air and already moving. In security camera at 8 secs he is first picked up. It means that the video was altered or he was shot by someone else a few seconds before the soldier fired a shot. But the more logical conclusion from the two tapes is that the CNN video was of a different event.2. Freeze the two videos at that same moment 6 – 8 secs from the beginning and you see that the background and setting is vey different. From the CNN angle at time 2:09– 6 secs after the “shot” - we see clearly that the group holding the body is already beyond the end of the building. We see trees and then a second building. IN the security camera even at :39 a full 10 secs after he falls it is clear that they have not passed the end of the building.3. More  – at 8 secs after the shooting in the security camera the group holding the person is in the sun next to a very distinct continuous shadow of the building.    In the CNN video also at the same 6-8 secs there is no shadow near the group.4. In the CNN video at 8 secs they are about 10 meters passed a garbage can.In the security camera video there is no garbage can there – but there is one about 30- 50 meters back (had to estimate distance). Note also that the garbage can is in the sun in a place where there is no continuous shadow..Most logical conclusion is that the shooting documented by CNN was not the one documented on the security camera. It was a shooting and injuring with a rubber bullet as was army policy, and it happened about 30 -50 meters away form where the security camera was filming.

Jonathan Tobin at Commentary.

And this:

This has become a key component of the Palestinians’ attempt to “internationalize” the conflict, the fomenting of diplomatic pressure on Israel from third parties – whether Western states or organizations like the UN. From the Palestinian perspective, the goal seems to be the same as past campaigns of terrorism: to erode the will of Israelis and achieve greater leverage in bilateral relations, without the costs entailed by a renewal of orchestrated Palestinian terrorism.

Another observation:

The CCTV video did not surface until Sunday/Monday, I believe. Yet the event happened last Thursday. There were clearly dozens of journalists and cameramen at the site of the riots.  Why do none of them have footage of the incident?
a possible theory could be that the security camera video might have been staged (most probably later) -  to reflect the 'symbolic' truth of how these 'innocents/martyrs' were killed and s not really out-of-the box.


On the CCTV footage of the shooting of the first victim we see camera men rushing to film the guy right after he was shot. Did we see the footage of these camera men afterwards? I don't recall it


At 2:45 of the CNN video, there’s a still shot of Salameh on the ground, allegedly after the shooting, taken by Atef Safadi.
 First, look at the cap on his head. The edges seem to show evidence of photoshopping. Second, take a look at the security film, again. As the person identified as Salameh falls, you can see the wrapping around his head come off and fall to the back of his neck. You can also see that he was wearing some sort of a cape, that flies up in the air. In the still photograph, the wrapping that was around his head is now on his chest, and there is no sign of the cape.

Another observation:

 There are some troubling details on the CNN video, which shows both shootings taking place:
First, both kids were shot on almost exactly the same spot, which is conveniently right in the middle of the frame and in clear view of the camera helpfully mounted on the wall.

Second, no one is in the frame when the kids are supposedly shot, yet dozens of people magically and immediately appear when they fall to the ground, including people with cameras--all of them looking like they knew in advance what would be happening and that they should run over and take the body immediately away.

Last, why, if they actually did shoot live rounds, would the IDF have shot these boys where they did, approximately in the identical spots, when it seems that it is quite a distance from where the soldiers were standing and where they posed no imminent physical threat?

The only reason the shootings would have occurred where they did seems to be that it was right in front of a camera that the Palestinians obviously knew was there, offered a panoramic view that would reveal no threat by the boys, and made for good theater and propaganda.

Also, the father of the boy who was killed talked about the bullet he found in the backpack and seemed incredibly composed and dispassionate for someone who had just lost a son--if, in fact, he did.


the way his leg appeared to stiffen is in a way consistent with being hit with a rubber bullet.  But this implies that they are not dead. Either the guys at the funeral are faking or there are dead guys who look like Nouwarah and Salameh.  I am leaning toward the view that that they were shot by Palestinians. Either from the parking lot, or later in the ambulance.


a bullet exiting a body to the backpack would be bringing some visible blood and skin and organ pieces along with it.  As far as why he was shot, it is possible it was a ricochet from a shot at the protesters closer by the IDF positions  around the visible corner of the video.



Joe in Australia said...

Is that a gunshot that can be heard at 47 seconds into the video, when the first person is shot? It sounds like one, but security cameras don't generally have audio.

Anonymous said...

It seems odd that so many come running out to 'victim', no one taking cover.

Anonymous said...

Other possibilities have to be taken into account. For instance, one might have been shot by the IDF and the other not. Or there might have been a legitimate target at which fire was aimed, but one or the other was the unfortunate victim. One cannot judge the situation by looking solely at the persons in the film. The question is what the shooter (if any) was looking at, not what the people in question were actually doing.