The Jewish Raiders

The Pals. report so:-

Settlers Continue Raids on Joseph's Tomb

A number of Israeli settlers raided Joseph’s Tomb, in the West Bank city of Nablus, this morning,

Eyewitnesses said that the settlers raided the place, under guard of Israeli troops who fired rubber bullets, tear gas and sound bombs at Palestinian youth, who answered by throwing rocks. No injuries have been reported. Almost every week settlers break into Joseph's Tomb to perform Talmudic rituals, under the claim that it belongs to the biblical Joseph, while historical novels stress that the tomb belongs to one Sheikh Yusef Dweikat, a local religious figure.

What do the Oslo Accords stipulate?

The Palestinian side (later to become the Palestinian Authority) agreed to ensure free access to a specific list of Jewish religious sites located in Areas A and B as specified in the 1995 Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, but due to the uncertain security situation, the Israel Defense Forces limits visits by Jews to rare occasions.

They lie.

^ 

One Day Late but...

The Pope would have been excited:

An 800-Year Old Lead Seal Stamped by the Monastery of St. Sabas was Found in Archaeological Excavations carried out by the Israel Antiquities Authority in the Bayit VeGan Neighborhood in Jerusalem.  Archaeologists believe a farmstead discovered during excavations may have been part of the monastery’s property during the Crusader Period

...The seal was unearthed a year and a half ago...at the Horbat Mizmil antiquities site in the Bayit VeGan neighborhood in Jerusalem. These revealed the remains of a farmstead constructed during the Byzantine period (fifth–sixth centuries CE). The site, was abandoned at the end of the Byzantine period, and resettled during the Crusader period (eleventh–twelfth centuries CE), reaching its maximum size during the Mamluk period (thirteenth–fifteenth centuries CE).

The artifacts discovered during the excavations reflected daily life in the farmstead. Surprisingly, while processing the excavation finds a rare lead seal dating to the Crusader period came to light. The seal or bulla as it is known in Latin, was affixed to a letter, and was meant to ensure the document would not be opened by unauthorized persons. The bulla consisted of two blank lead disks and had a string that passed through a channel between them. In sealing the letter these were pressed together with a pincher shaped object with dies, creating the double faced seal.

The 800 year old seal is in excellent condition. A figure is discernible on the obverse side of the seal and the reverse bears an inscription in Greek...

The seal, shows a bearded bust of a saint wearing a himation and holding a cross in his right hand and the Gospel (?) in his left hand. Surrounding it is a Greek inscription naming the saint: “Saint Sabas”. On the back of the bulla appears another longer Greek inscription “This is the seal of the Laura of the Holy Sabas”.

^

IRC's Camen Came

There's an op-ed in the Jerusalem Post and I just had to write this letter below:-

I am amazed that Anton Camen would display either so much chutzpah or too much ignorance in his defense of the International Red Cross position that Jewish residency locations in Judea and Samaria, and previously in Gaza, are somehow illegal ('Why the law prohibits settlement ​a​ctivities', May 26).
His article does not deal with the League of Nations recognition, as enshrined in Article 6 of its 1922 decision, that "the Administration of Palestine...shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes".  The very term of "settlement" is there viewed as an obligation of international bodies to fulfill on behalf of the Jews over and above the local population as long as "the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced".  If there is any "prejudice", it is the Arab campaign, supported by Camen, to deny Jews our rights.
Camen further ignores the previous campaign of expulsion and ethnic cleansing of Jews from those areas during the Mandate period.  That campaign was accompanied by extreme and brutal violence directed by Arabs solely at civilians and in addition to murder, mutilation of the dead and the dying and pillage, there were rapings.  Those Jews have rights, no less than any Arab and perhaps, more, to return to live there and construct homes in Judea and Samaria.  All this preceded the 1949 Geneva Convention.  It would seem to behoove the IRC to argue that Jews have a right of return and its protection rather than disjunctively, in a sterile fashion, attempting to deny that right.
I would also suggest that since the IRC did not act significantly, if at all, against the illegal Jordanian occupation of the area during 1949-1967, its hypocrisy invalidates any of its current interpretations of law and denies it any standing in the matter.

And I should add these three points:

a.  the original League of Nations decision on the matter, with no less authority than the United Nations, was based foremost on "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country" (incidentally, the term "Arabs" never appears in the document).  That Article 6 --- to "encourage...close settlement by Jews, on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes", enshrines "settlement" is an activity the Jews are supposed to enjoy by right and we need recall that the territory of the Mandate in 1922 included Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank" only came into the semantics of the dispute in 1950);

b.   what happened in 1950?  the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, having illegally occupied the area by launching a war og aggression in violation of the UN's recommendations and decisions, annexed it officially in April 1950, an act not recognized except by England.  but then, no one was excited or actively campaigned against this "illegal occupation".  I noted the hypocrisy but I can add it should count for negative points for those who now are anti-Israel.

c.   since the local Arab population ever since 1920 had been engaged in ethnic cleansing of Jews from areas in that territory in which they lived for centuries, and currently demand that no Jews live in their area and had/have a law on their books (as does Jordan) that no Jew may own property in their territory, this people/regime has no moral authority to deny Jews our rights.

And asked a lawyer friend who responded:

Poorly written, even contradicts itself on several points, and makes huge leaps of faith in legal interpretations. Not even worth wasting the time in a response, the writer clearly has his own political agenda, and he won't let the facts or legal arguments confuse him!!

On Who Is The Joke?

Rememver Dror Feiler?

In January 2004 he made international news with his artwork Snow White and The Madness of Truth, which was vandalized by then Israeli ambassador to Sweden Zvi Mazel. The installation consisted of a long pool of water coloured blood red, upon which floated a small white boat named "Snövit" ("Snow White") carrying a portrait of Hanadi Jaradat, a Palestinian suicide bomber who blew herself up on October 2003 in an attack on Maxim's restaurant in the northern Israeli city of Haifa, killing 21 people and injuring 51.
Feiler is now the chairman of the Swedish organization Jews for Israeli–Palestinian Peace (JIPF) and the European organization European Jews for a Just Peace (EJJP). He is also a member of the editorial board of the New Colombia News Agency (ANNCOL).
...On 31 May 2010 Feiler was aboard one of the ships involved in the Gaza flotilla clash and sustained some minor injuries to the face during the raid.^[6] In 2011, Feiler was involved in the Freedom Flotilla II, and was among the 15 activists arrested by Israeli authorities aboard the boat Dignité. He was subsequently deported from Israel,^[7] and banned from re-entering the country for 10 years.

Well, I'm laughing:

Swedish-Jewish European Parliament candidate Dror Feiler awoke on Friday to find a swastika spray painted on the front door of his Stockholm apartment, he told his Facebook followers.  “Good morning! I went out with the trash around 7 o’clock and something resembling a black crab was on my door. But it wasn’t a crab, it was a swastika,” the Left Party candidate wrote in Swedish.

 ^

Pope to Mufti: "No Violence!"

When the Pope visited the Temple Mount --- by the way, Jordan's King Abdallah's cousin and occasional royal regent, Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad, was there

representing the status of the Hashemites as the patrons of the holy shrines in Jerusalem --- he spoke with the anti-Semitic Mufti.

I had envisioned this exchange:

but it seems he has been quoted

Francis deviated from his prepared remarks to refer not just to his “dear friends” but “dear brothers.” “May we respect and love one another as brothers and sisters!” he said. “May we learn to understand the suffering of others! May no one abuse the name of God through violence!”

Now, if he had said "I have been given permission to conduct a Mass at the Cenacle, despite the protests, so why not you allow Jews to pray here on the Temple Mount?", that would have been dandy.

___________

UPDATE

Pope Francis on Monday called for people of all faiths to have access to often hotly-contested sacred sites in Jerusalem, on the final day of his whirlwind Middle East trip.
Francis, who has made interfaith dialogue a cornerstone of his papacy, said believers must be able to pray freely at sites currently contested by Jews, Muslims, and Christians...Francis made an early-morning tour of the holiest sites in Jerusalem's walled Old City, issuing a call for the three religions to "work together for justice and peace" as he was shown around the Al-Aqsa compound, the third holiest site in Islam which Jews also consider sacred.

and this, too:

During a meeting between the Pope and Israeli President Shimon Peres, the Pope expressed his hope for Jerusalem to truly be the City of Peace, “how good it is when pilgrims and residents can enjoy free access to the Holy Places and can freely take part in the religious celebrations.”

_________________

P.S.  A JPost writer misses the significance of Prince Ghazi.

^

"Israel" Mentioned Even Earlier in History

From Malcolm H. Wiener in his "Dating the Emergence of Historical Israel in Light of Recent Developments in Egyptian Chronology" published in TEL AVIV: Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, Volume 41, Number 1, 2014:-

Recent evidence strongly supports a reduction in the duration of the pharaoh Horemheb’s reign from 28 to 14 years. Further evidence strongly favours raising the accession year of Ramesses II from the previously conventional 1279 BCE to 1290 BCE to reflect the Horemheb reduction together with other minor adjustments. The first recorded appearance of the term ‘Israel’ from the Victory Stele of the Egyptian pharaoh Merneptah* should accordingly be placed at ca. 1220 BCE, about a decade earlier than previously believed...

*

[a] song of the nine bows celebrates the pharaoh’s universal patronage with illustrative reference to the region and towns of Palestine: Gaza, Ashkelon, Gezer and Yeno’am, which now belong to Egypt. Israel, metaphorically portrayed as the land of Hurru’s former husband, has been replaced by Merneptah’s patronage in a manner comparable to the well-known role that Yahweh plays in Hosea and Ezekiel as Jerusalem and Samaria’s Ba’al. Regionally, the geographical region referenced by the eponymic use of the name Israel in the stele corresponds with the Saul tradition’s Philistine area

^

Ancient "Settlement" and "Occupation"

I guess we're stuck with the terminology.

From a book review of  Joan E. Taylor's The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea:

The Essenes and the Qumran Settlement By Jodi Magness

Qumran was occupied from around 100 BCE to 68 CE by members of a Jewish sect who deposited the Dead Sea Scrolls in caves surrounding the site. The scrolls represent a collection of Jewish religious works including copies of books of the Hebrew Bible, dating mostly to the second and first centuries BCE...Members of this sect apparently refused to participate in the sacrifices offered in the Jerusalem temple, which they considered polluted by the current priesthood. They therefore withdrew, constituting their own community as the biblical desert camp.

In recent years, some scholars have identified Qumran not as a sectarian settlement but as a villa, manor house, fort, commercial entrêpot, or pottery manufacturing center. All of these highly publicized alternative theories assume there is no connection between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Qumran settlement — an assumption contradicted by the location of some of the scroll caves in the plateau on which the settlement sits, and by the discovery of the same types of pottery (including types peculiar to Qumran) at the site and in the scroll caves.

Even among scholars who identify Qumran as a sectarian settlement, however, there remain disagreements about whether its inhabitants were Essenes. These disagreements stem from difficulties in understanding and reconciling our three main sources of information: 1) sectarian scrolls (works composed by members of this sect); 2) archaeological remains at Qumran; and 3) descriptions of the Essenes provided by ancient authors. These sources provide different — albeit complementary or overlapping — types of information, and each has limitations.

6

No Problem - Let's Have an Autopsy

The dispute over who killed, and how, the two Arab youngsters at Beitunyah continues.

But there should be no problem over the camera "evidence", or the angle, or the projectile or whatever.  Let there be an autopsy.

Yes, there are local cultural problems,

There should be no opposition form the Arab side as there have been autopsies in the past.  Although one ME who is quite active for the Pals. had some problems.

And then, there's this:

February 27, 2013
Medical examiner testifies in murder trialBy MARY RAINWATER
Palestine Herald-Press

PALESTINE — State attorneys continued their fifth day of testimony Tuesday in the murder trial of a Palestine woman accused in the death of her 16-month-old stepgranddaughter.  Jennifer Jill Whitehead, 41, is charged with capital murder for the May 5, 2010 death of Emma Nicole Whitehead, who died at a Dallas hospital one day after being transported to Palestine Regional Medical Center for head and other injuries.

First to testify for the state Tuesday was forensic pathologist Dr. Jill Urban, who works as a medical examiner for the Dallas County Medical Examiner’s Office and performed the autopsy on Emma.  Through the use of photographs taken during the procedure, Urban explained to the jury Emma’s physical condition and how what was discovered led to the conclusion that the child’s death was the result of blunt force injury, with the manner of death deemed to be homicide.

^

The Out-of-the-Ordinary Aspect

If you review this UN agency report for the day the two fatalities occured last week, you'll see that there were many injuries but all by rubber-coated projectiles.

Here's the relevant page:

Should not the out-of-the-ordinary be suspect?  If IDF troops or Border Policemen were out to kill Arabs, why just two?

^

Netanyahu to Goldberg: Nothing New

From Jeffrey Goldberg's interview with Netanyahu, although this opening intro

I met Netanyahu last Friday afternoon in his bunkerlike office in Jerusalem.

is really a low-blow.  It isn't but an office building.

The part the really interests me:

GOLDBERG: Why do you think that Kerry and [U.S. special envoy] Martin Indyk believe that the settlements are a great impediment to peace? Indyk in particular has denounced “rampant settlement activity" as a key factor undermining negotiations.

NETANYAHU: Most of the settlement population, between 80 to 90 percent, is clustered in three urban blocs, in suburbs of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem that everyone knows will stay in a final peace settlement. Effectively, the territory that is involved has not increased. It’s marginal. It’s been marginal for the last 20 years. No new settlements have been built since the time I was first prime minister, which was 1996.

What you are talking about is an increasing population within these urban blocs. It doesn’t materially affect the map. If you took an aerial photograph to see how much territory has been "consumed" by so-called "rampant" settlement activity, the answer is practically nothing. If you can make a deal, you can make a deal. The addition of a few hundred housing units a year in this territory doesn’t alter it. Successive Israeli governments have offered deals and couldn’t get them because the Palestinians would not lock horns with the primary obstacle to peace, which is the refusal to end the conflict with Israel once and for all. To recognize that the Jewish people have the right to self-determination, just as the Palestinian people do. My insistence on recognition of the Jewish state is not a tactical PR stunt. It goes to the core of the conflict.

...GOLDBERG: Come back to this point: If the settlements aren’t a big deal, then what’s a big deal?

NETANYAHU: In the Middle East today, there are two great threats. The threat is militant Islam in its Shia variety or Sunni variety... Does the Palestinian issue play a role here? It hinders more open relations, but such relations are taking place anyway.

UPDATE:

And earlier there, this:

NETANYAHU: We want a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state. How do you get that if you can’t get it through negotiations?  It’s true that the idea of taking unilateral steps is gaining ground, from the center-left to the center-right. Many Israelis are asking themselves if there are certain unilateral steps that could theoretically make sense. But people also recognize that the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza didn't improve the situation or advance peace -- it created Hamastan, from which thousands of rockets have been fired at our cities.

And this:

NETANYAHU: What the Palestinians keep saying is, Look, we want the maximum. We will not make any adjustments in our demands. Nothing. Not tactical, not strategic. I said to them, You tell me that you want me to draw a map of a state, but you won’t tell me that the state on the map will recognize the Jewish state next to it. They want a map without an end of conflict.

I think Palestinian society is divided into two. The first half openly calls for Israel’s destruction. And the second half refuses to confront this and refuses to confront the demons inside their own camp In Israel, there is a vigorous debate about what compromise would entail. There is no such debate in the Palestinian Authority...

From EOZ:

^

So, This Is J Street?

Is this a perceptive analysis of today's J Street? (thanks to LM for the idea and GD for reminding me):-

It should be borne in mind that Israeli foreign policy is the policy of a democratically elected government, representing what the majority of Israelis believe to be in their best interest. Since this belief is backed by their willingness to die, or to serve great stretches of army service, in its defense, it ought to be treated by their unthreatened American Jewish friends with respect, if not awe. Members of J Street have been accusing the “rightist establishment” of various indelicacies. Surely there has been nothing quite so indelicate in American Jewish life of recent years as this widespread assumption on the part of our new political philanthropists that “we know better than you what is in your best interest.”

But if J Street has been insensitive, it has lately also grown dangerous. Like the Russian maskilim (“enlighteners”) of the 19th century, who went to the Czar with a list of reforms to be foisted on their less enlightened Jewish brethren—because they knew what was in the Jewish interest even if the Jewish majority did not—so J Street now approaches the American government to convince Americans that they must bring pressure to bear on an Israel that does not know what is in its best interest. And like the maskilim, members of J Street are convinced of their intellectual and moral superiority in taking this treacherous step. But we know, as the enlighteners ought to have known, that the Czar worked in his interest, not in the interest of the Jews, and used whatever Jewish support he could get neatly to camouflage his ends. The decision of a Jewish group to appeal to the powers-that-be against the perceived self-interest of Israel (and the Jewish body politic) now, when as Mr. Shattan rightly says, “the political fortunes of the state of Israel have reached perhaps an all-time low,” is dangerous, to use the mildest available term.

American Jews, acting as Jews, can only protect Israel’s right to self-determination. When they begin to subvert that right, the constituted community has not only the right but the duty to expose their actions and to condemn them. In so doing it is not being “Mc-Carthyite” or even vengeful, just minimally responsible.

No.

But it sounds very familiar, right?

Here is the original in Commentary, June 1977:

It should be borne in mind that Israeli foreign policy is the policy of a democratically elected government, representing what the majority of Israelis believe to be in their best interest. Since this belief is backed by their willingness to die, or to serve great stretches of army service, in its defense, it ought to be treated by their unthreatened American Jewish friends with respect, if not awe. Members of Breira have been accusing the “rightist establishment” of various indelicacies. Surely there has been nothing quite so indelicate in American Jewish life of recent years as this widespread assumption on the part of our new political philanthropists that “we know better than you what is in your best interest.”

But if Breira has been insensitive, it has lately also grown dangerous. Like the Russian maskilim (“enlighteners”) of the 19th century, who went to the Czar with a list of reforms to be foisted on their less enlightened Jewish brethren—because they knew what was in the Jewish interest even if the Jewish majority did not—so Breira now approaches the American government to convince Americans that they must bring pressure to bear on an Israel that does not know what is in its best interest. And like the maskilim, members of Breira are convinced of their intellectual and moral superiority in taking this treacherous step. But we know, as the enlighteners ought to have known, that the Czar worked in his interest, not in the interest of the Jews, and used whatever Jewish support he could get neatly to camouflage his ends. The decision of a Jewish group to appeal to the powers-that-be against the perceived self-interest of Israel (and the Jewish body politic) now, when as Mr. Shattan rightly says, “the political fortunes of the state of Israel have reached perhaps an all-time low,” is dangerous, to use the mildest available term.

American Jews, acting as Jews, can only protect Israel’s right to self-determination. When they begin to subvert that right, the constituted community has not only the right but the duty to expose their actions and to condemn them. In so doing it is not being “Mc-Carthyite” or even vengeful, just minimally responsible.

Ruth R. Wisse
McGill University
Montreal, Quebec

And from Ben Halperin there:

...Ambivalence, in one mix or another and in varying proportional intensities, is the common element in the Jewish involvement in Breira: the radical student Zionists, the Hillel rabbis and the Sh’ma coterie, and the veteran mavericks long dedicated to upholding alienation in dispersion as a way of life especially designated for the Jews. What they have in common is a shared detachment and disenchantment vis-à-vis the so-called Jewish establishment...

^

Who Supported Israel as a "Jewish State?

A resolution was adopted in early 1977 and, in part, reads:

"...We call upon these,[Arab countries and Palestinian leaders] as well as other Arab spokesmen to publicly acknowledge...and, further, to clarify, that they recognize Israel's right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state within secure borders.  Such recognition is essential for successful peace negotiations."  

Which organization promoted, as a central element to a future Arab-Israell peace, the demad for recognition of Israel as a "Jewish state"? 

It was pointed out to me to look at the April 1977 issue of Jewish Currents.

On page 13, we read:

and here is the entire page which reveals that it was the radical/progressive Breirah group:

In fact, in testimony before the US Senate Subcommittee, Robert Loeb
Executive Director, Breira said, as per his letter published in June that year,

“Those of us who are willing to speak out . . . in recognition of legitimate Arab national rights alongside Israel, do so as a challenge to the Arab world, and to the Palestinians in particular, to respond in kind, and voice without ambiguity their recognition of legitimate Jewish national rights in Israel.” 

So, Netanyahu was outflanked by the left almost 40 years ago?

^

What Bret Stephens Thinks of 2014 College Grads

Here:

Modern education has done its work well: In you, Class of 2014, the coward soul has filled the void left by the blank mind.

...[in] 2012, I complained about the dismaying inverse relationship between that class’s self-regard and its command of basic facts...I did you a (small) injustice. At least the pretense of knowledgeability was important to you. For the Class of 2014, it seems that inviolable ignorance is the only true bliss.

It’s not just the burgeoning list of rescinded invitations to potentially offensive commencement speakers...students at Dartmouth issued a list of 72 demands for “transformative justice.” Among them: “mandate sensitivity training”; “organize continuous external reviews of the College’s structural racism, classism, ableism, sexism and heterosexism”; and “create a policy banning the Indian mascot.”...

...students and like-minded faculty are demanding warnings on study material that trigger “symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.”...Any student who demands—and gets—emotional pampering from his university needs to pay a commensurate price in intellectual derision. College was once about preparing boys and girls to become men and women, not least through a process of desensitization to discomfiting ideas. Now it’s just a $240,000 extension of kindergarten...at least one basic teaching of true liberalism is that the essential right of free people is the right to offend, and an essential responsibility of free people is to learn how to cope with being offended.

I’ll grant you this: It’s not all your fault. The semi- and post-literates who overran the humanities departments at most universities long before I ever set foot in college are the main culprits here. 

...You can still take charge of your education, and of your lives. The cocoon years are over; the micro-aggressions are about to pour down.

Deal with it. Revel in it. No consequential idea ever failed to offend someone; no consequential person was ever spared great offense. Those of you who want to lead meaningful lives need to begin unlearning most of what you’ve been taught, starting right now.

^

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.

New York Times' Robert Mackey has the new Al-Durah-style video up.

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:

1.
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. 

2.
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. 

3.
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 BBC: No 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.

CAMERA's take.

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?

And

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.

Continuing:

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

And

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.

More:

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.

And

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.

^

Temple Mount Tent City Conquest

Ramadan is coming.

It's expected on or around June 28, 2014 and to end on or around July 27, 2014.

Of course, these tents and awnings just happen to be in the way of the paths of visitors here and there.

More.

The Negative Value of 'Price Tag'

First published in the weekly Parsha sheet, Shabat B'Shabato, #1524 this past week, and subsequently republished at various web sites (I have provided below the full Hebrew text), Rabbi Yisrael Rosen, head of the Tzomet Institute and a firm Land of Israel/Gush Emunim/national-religious figure, criticized scathingly the "tag price" phenomenon.  And not for the first time (see his December 2011 piece) when he wrote

Foolish fanaticism, hallucinatory and murderous, also contributed to the spoiling of the vision of expanded settlements among broad groups of our nation. And this is exactly what is happening before our very eyes as we watch the “Price Tag” events, shaking our heads and shedding tears out of pity: It is a pity that you should waste your youth for no good reason in prison, and it is a pity that you corrupt the righteousness of our path.
And this explains why the cries that are heard from every corner are futile: “Where are the rabbis who can calm them down? Why don’t the rabbis stop them?” We are told that “those ruffians” from the Second Temple era “stabbed their own rabbi!” [Gittin ibid]. They will not be deterred by having us turn our backs on them. In any case, if for no other reason than to reject the claim that we do not scold them, I hereby object loudly and without any limit to their actions. The need to voice an objection is also clear from the quote at the beginning of this article, in the commentary on a verse in this week’s Torah portion – that we are all responsible for each other, especially those who “were able to protest and did not.”

He signed last January's petition critical of the acts together with some 100 other Rabbis.

Of course, these voices, and others, and more, for all that, mean almost nothing.  Well, they actually do but since the secular press ignores them or minimizes their impact by not providing the same coverage they do to the acts themselves, the media becomes the best ally these criminal acts could have.  The YESHA leadership has not been complacently silent for years.  I was asked about this issue, more as relating the the Pope's upcoming visit and attacks on churches during my time with the UK's Chief Rabbi's Mission last week although I had to point out that in years past, it was more the haredi section implicated in anti-Christian acts.

Yes, the burning of fields and the daubing of buildings must be covered but, if you then complain that these are "hate acts", "terrorism" or the such and then downplay the criticism within the camp, then all you are engaged in is sensationalism and you become a partner-in-crime.  And, in too many cases, simply because one is politically against the renewed presence of Jews throughout their national homeland, you are ignoring these voices and thereby provide assistance to persons who should long ago have been arrested to gain an empowered platform on the scene.  If only the police would merit one-third of the criticism directed at the youths supposed to be responsible.

The lack of highlighting desecrations of Jewish sites or the swastika grafitti and such is also a testimony to the lack of balance in the public discussion of the issue either by clergymen, politicians, reporters and government officials.

Some excerpts from his latest:

"I do not accept that these acts are Arab provocations, of Jewish left-wingers or the GSS or other dark recess elements.  I suspect that we are talking about youths-without-yoke, kids who are irresponsible who are sure that their hooliganism will win.

...they have assumed for themselves the role of the 'national irritant' of our enemies, rule of law and the security forces...

...these people of the break-out extremism I know do not pay attention to moral rebukes. They do not listen to Rabbis and certainly do not consider the benefit of their actions according to a scale of 'loss and gain'...the claims of 'where are the Rabbis?' are worthless since they do not listen...but, at the very least, to refute claims of non-denunciation, I hereby protest this pehonomenon loudly...

...[relating to the suggestion that these acts arecomparable to Torah sources favoring extremism] extremism is defined as spontaneous and perhaps could be excused under certain circumstances.  Extremism is always individualistic but all this banding together and taking advice one from another is not extremism but hooliganism...

הרב רוזן: מעשיהם של אנשי תג המחיר מובילים למעשים כמו טבח גולדשטיין 

אנשי הקנאות המתפרצת אינם שומעים תוכחות מוסר, אינם מצייתים לרבנים, ובודאי אינם שוקלים את תועלת מעשיהם באמת מידה של רווח והפסד. הם פועלים ´מתוך הבטן´ או מתוך מיסטיקה משיחית ו"שישרף העולם"  

הרב ישראל רוזן ט"ו אייר תשע"ד, 15/05/2014 12:21 

"וכשלו איש באחיו (כו,לז) בעוון אחיו, שכולן ערבים זה בזה  שהיה בידם למחות ולא מיחו" (סנהדרין כז,ב)

 "הנהו בריוני"

 בית המקדש השני חרב, בין השאר, 'בזכות' "הנהו בריוני" - הבריונים הללו - שענדו את תג יחידת הסיקריקין (עפ"י גיטין נו). הללו נטלו את החרב לידם, תוך שכנוע עצמי שהם נוטלים את החוק והצדק בידם, והטילו מוראם וחיתתם על כל סביבותיהם, אויבים ואחים כאחת. כלפי מה הדברים אמורים? בודאי כבר נחשתם מן הכותרת; בריוני 'תג מחיר' ה'נלחמים' בפלשתינים ובמפקדי צה"ל, במסגדים ובצמיגי הג'יפים – באש, בדוקרן ובגרפיטי (בעיקר). בריונים אלו נוטלים לעצמם את תפקיד 'המתגרה הלאומי' באויבינו, בממשלת החוק וברשויות הבטחון (בעיקר). אינני מקבל את הטיעון כאילו מדובר בפרובקציה של פלסטינים, של יהודי-שמאל, של השב"כ או של גורמי אופל חסויים. חוששני כי מדובר בבני-בלי-עול, בנערים חסרי אחריות הבטוחים כי בבריונות ננצח! מכיר אנכי היטב את סיפור קנאות הפיגוע של שמעון ולוי בשכם, אך בנדוננו אני מזדהה לחלוטין עם גערתו הנוקבת של יעקב אבינו-אביהם: "עכרתם אותי להבאישני ביושב הארץ... ואני מתי מספר, ונאספו עלי והכוני ונשמדתי אני וביתי" (בראשית לד,ל). גערת יעקב איננה רק אי-שביעות רצון ("עכרתם אותי") אלא היא הופכת לקללה של ממש - "ארור אפם" - המלווה בענישת הגלייה, פירוד והרחקה זה מזה - "אחלקם ביעקב ואפיצם בישראל" (בראשית מט,ז). הקנאים – פיזור נאה להם ולעולם!  

"רבם דקרו" עוד זאת ידעתי כי אנשי הקנאות המתפרצת אינם שומעים תוכחות מוסר, אינם מצייתים לרבנים, ובודאי אינם שוקלים את תועלת מעשיהם באמת מידה של 'רווח כנגד הפסד'. הם פועלים 'מתוך הבטן' או מתוך מיסטיקה משיחית ו"שישרף העולם"! את ההוכחה עד כמה גדול הנזק במעשים פרטיזניים כאלו סיפק לנו קנאי נשכח במקצת, שהיה אדם בעל רקורד אישי נאצל ולא 'נער גבעות' אלמוני, הלא הוא ד"ר ברוך גולדשטיין מקרית ארבע, אשר הרג עשרות פלסטינים במערת המכפלה בפורים תשנ"ד (94), וגרם נזק עצום "להבאישני", במתן חרב-מתהפכת נגדנו בידי אויבינו המוסלמים ואומות העולם. קנאות אווילית, הזויה ורצחנית, זו תרמה לא מעט להמאסת חזון ההתנחלות בקרב שדרות נרחבות בעם, וכך בדיוק מתרחש לנגד עינינו הצופות ב'תג מחיר' במנוד ראש ובדמע של רחמים: חבל על עלומיכם שיסתאבו בכלא לריק, וחבל על טינוף צידקת הדרך. לפיכך הטענות המושמעות מעל כל בימה: "איפה הרבנים שירסנו אותם", "איפה הרבנים שיוציאו להם כרטיס צהוב" - אלו טענות סרק-סרק באין שומע. יתר על כן, על "הנהו בריוני" של חורבן בית שני נאמר "רבם דקרו!" (מסכת גיטין שם); הם לא יירתעו גם מלהפנות להם עורף. מכל מקום, ולו רק כדי להזים טענת אי-מחאה, הריני מוחה בזאת מחאה רבתי ללא סייג. חובת המחאה שאני מקיים בזאת עולה גם מתוך הציטוט בראש המדור, בדרש על פסוק בפרשתנו, על הערבות ההדדית של כולנו ובפרט של "מי שהיה בידו למחות ואינו מוחה".

 אין קנאות מתוכננת

 הזכרנו את שמעון ולוי, קנאי-שכם, כמעוררי השראה לקנאות תג-מחיר. כאן מקום לומר מספר משפטים רלבנטיים 'מן המקורות' אודות היחס לקנאות. "שמעון ולוי קנאו קנאה גדולה על הזנות ולקחו איש חרבו והרגו" (פרדר"א לח), וספגו קיתונות של חמה מיעקב. "לקחו איש חרבו" בספונטניות, ללא תכנון מוקדם, מבלי לייסד ארגון קנאי וללא תג יחידה והכרזה על מדיניות. כך הדגישו חז"ל: "שלא נטלו עצה מיעקב... ולא נטלו עצה זה מזה" (בר"ר פ,ט). שני אחים אלו נפגשים שוב בזירה קנאות אך הפעם הם ניצבים זה מול זה: פינחס הכהן (בן לוי) הרג את זמרי הנשיא (בן שמעון) בעוון פריצות עם בת מואב; "פנחס שלא ברצון חכמים. א"ר יודה: בקשו לנדותו, אלולי שקפצה עליו רוח הקדש ואמרה (במדבר כח, יב) הנני נותן לו את בריתי שלום תחת אשר קינא" (ירושלמי סנהדרין ט,יא). הסלחנות כלפי פינחס היתה בשל הספונטניות, ולא התכנון. בהלכות קנאים שנינו: "הבועל ארמית קנאים פוגעים בו" (סנהדרין פא,ב), ובנשימה אחת נאמר שם: "הבא לימלך אין מורין לו". הוי אומר, קנאות מוגדרת בספונטניות, ולעתים היא נסלחת לפי הנסיבות. הקנאות לעולם היא יחידאית, וכל התארגנות ו'נטילת עצה זה מזה' אינה קנאות אלא בריונות.

^