Very interesting, Bill, thanks. I wasn't able to watch tonight but will try to catch a re-run. Needless to say, your assessment of Miller's murder is horrifying, although I don't understand what motive the soldiers could have had to deliberately fire on an innocent civilian. Even if we impute to them the most egregiously bad intentions (i.e., that they get off on shooting Palestinians), why would they deliberately target a cameraman of all people, knowing how much propaganda value the film of the incident would have? For that matter, if they're monstrous enough to murder a man in cold blood, why wouldn't they also have confiscated the film after the fact? It sounds like an accident to me, although since (a) you're not necessarily saying it wasn't and (b) I haven't seen the film, I won't belabor the point.

I also wish Shah had gone ahead after Miller's death and conducted the interviews with the Israeli children. I can understand wanting to punish Israel for what happened to her friend, but, after all, it wasn't the kids who shot him. If the goal was to depict the Israeli/Palestinian conflict from both sides, then she should have done just that -- making sure, of course, also to include the footage of Miller's death. To my mind, that would have been the fairest possible treatment.

I watched this. As usual the only people that stood to gain from the killing of a journalist are the Palestinians. No one saw who fired the shot. No bullet was recovered, or if it was there was no mention of it.

The Israelis care about their image. The Palestinians got a new martyr and a cool new poster to parade around with.

Case closed unless some real evidence turns up.

Except that images-- still and picture-- do lie, all the time. (A classic, tragic example is described here.) Maybe you saw three guys approaching the soldiers slowly with a large white flag, but didn't see the three other guys who slowly approched the soldiers with a large white flag the day before-- and then opened fire. The thing is, we don't know, and don't assume you do know just because you saw some footage.

I haven't seen this film either, so I will withhold judgement. I will caution, however, that the Palestinians respect for white flags of truce is not quite up to western standards.

Ok, I know that I'm opening myself up to criticism here, but be careful to listen to yourselves. Listen to your instincts before you just DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND. (not talking about your comments, Allah)

Taking these points:

1. The film certainly was made by people that i'm sure had much more sympathy for the Palestinians than Allah, your readers, and even me. I'm sure that some people will have a fit over the fact that the journalists filmed the kids making dynamite for their militant overlords without reporting it to the IDF. But honestly, it was reasonably even-handed, and my opinion is that any thinking person will at least come away with the impression that the militants are insane maniacs. Moonbats will certainly come away from the same piece of work thinking something quite different, railing at the site of the offroading Amtraks and bulldozers.

2. Maybe "cold blood" isn't the right word, and it certainly could have been an accident. It was at night (though the IDF has night vision), and perhaps the Arab IDF soldiers didn't understand the English that was clearly being shouted by the journalists - two men and a woman, walking slowly with flak vests and helemets, holding a large white flag.

3. I don't buy the "but maybe someone tried to pull that trick the day before" angle. If the IDF is forced to shoot every person that walks towards them in a routine night-time expedition, then Israel better get that fucking wall built and withdraw ASAP, because there is apparently no way to wage even moderately just combat operations.

4. the film wasn't taken by the people that were shot at, hence no film confiscation.

5. Joey - you are a Goddamned partisan wack-job if you watched that tape and say "case-closed." While it certainly doesn't implicate the Israelis 100% (and John Tabin brings up some good points about the potential confusion of what I saw), AT THE VERY LEAST it should mean CASE OPEN. Someone should be held accountable, if not for murder, then at least egregious incompetence, barring some thorough examination and exoneration. of course, we don't have all of the information that may be relevant to whatever inquiry may have been conducted by the IDF, we only have the word of the journalists, in a brief soundbite.

Look, I'm not a frothy pro-Israel supporter, but I certainly support Israel as a morally superior pluralistic Democracy in the middle of a shitty region, and I didn't see anything in that film (admittedly only the last half) that struck me as "look at the evil, evil, EVIl israelis," up until the end.

That journalist getting waxed horrified me. I was sitting there thinking, "This can't possibly be where he gets it, can it?" And boom, it was.

Maybe I'll have to watch it again, but that was my reaction.

Oh, and any of you that want to DEFEND the israeli's actions by randomly saying "but the Palestinians are worse," can get that 5th grade shit off my blog. That's the logic that moonbats use when I interview them and challenge them about US foreign policy.

* It's possible that the Israelis screwed up.

* it's possible that it was a justifiable accident.

* It's possible that the shot came from somewhere else, though the only eyewitness testimony contradicts the possibility.

* It's also possible that some IDF soldiers are trigger happy, or murderers.

Whatever the case, I would highly doubt that they realized that they were killing a journalist.

Great post(s) Bill.

I just saw the film tonight, and find it unclear why the events have not been clarified as much as they could be.

1. Who was firing throughout the Ramalla incursion? Just Israeli's?

Were there not armed Palestinian militants in the area at all times?

2. What kind of rifle report does that sound like? An Israeli or Militant rifle. A single shot is repeated, and many experts could tell clearly what is heard. Why was no one asked?

3. Was the bullet in the body or was there any other ballistic evidence gathered to prove who could have shot him? Why not return to the building and collect the other bullets?

4. From what direction did the shots come from, and why were there no flashes from the Israeli vehicles visible?

It seems the documentary really doesn't pursue the kind of details I need to consider the case closed.

I just saw the film tonight, and find it unclear why the events have not been clarified as much as they could be.

1. Who was firing throughout the Ramalla incursion? Just Israeli's?

Were there not armed Palestinian militants in the area at all times?

2. What kind of rifle report does that sound like? An Israeli or Militant rifle. A single shot is repeated, and many experts could tell clearly what is heard. Why was no one asked?

3. Was the bullet in the body or was there any other ballistic evidence gathered to prove who could have shot him? Why not return to the building and collect the other bullets?

4. From what direction did the shots come from, and why were there no flashes from the Israeli vehicles visible?

It seems the documentary really doesn't pursue the kind of details I need to consider the case closed.

Sorry for the double post... well I'd also like to mention I am less inclined to believe that the soldiers would have murdered the reporter given their risk of trial and punishment is much more likely than those who would have similiarly carried out the act in their own interests by framing the soldiers.

Given the general madness of the Paliestinian militants and their cult of death and searing hatred for Jews, why should a Western reporter's life not be sacrificed for a propaganda coup.

I also wonder how much the militants knew of their plans to go to Israel and get the alternate story. Knowing how the Jewish children would upstage their teachings on morality, IMHO, one can imagine the conspiracy is ripe for plucking.

I'm not going to watch the movie but just out of curiosity :
in the death scene , where is the camera located ?

Behind the three, at night. You can see them walking towards the Israelis, then you hear a warning shot. They stop ... you hear the woman yelling that they are British journalists ... another shot, and you can make out the flag dropping to the ground as the guy's shot in the neck.

I missed the film, so my apologies if this was included. I read at the time this happened that an IDF soldier was arrested and charged with the equivalency of manslaughter. So how can you argue no one was held accountable?

The film says that no one was held accountable for the journalist's death; it's not my charge, it's the film's charge.

If you are correct, then perhaps the film is propaganda.

2 single shots?
thats mildly strange but not all that significant unless you are standing on the grassy knull or something

And was Miller a brit?
There was a british guy who got killed by the IDF and the IDF decided that he got killed "by the book" and so carried it no farther but then the civilian authorities under preasure from the british government decided to charge the soldier involved
as far as I know this is the only case in recent years similar to what you describe

I have to view the film of course. But perhaps the Israeli tank drivers didn't understand English? They were Bedouin from what I have read, so that isn't completely implausible. Furthermore if that is the case then from their point of view this is what they see:

3 people approaching them with a flag which happens to be white at night. Given the attitude of the militants, a white flag symbolizes nothing. They demand that the people stop, they don't stop, a warning shot is fired. They stop then yell something then continue. Another shot is fired and one of the three is killed.

It is easy to make judgements on the sidelines. But if you are in a hostile area where children are being used to scout you out, then you are not going to take anything for granted.

Given the suicide bombings we have seen, if someone continues walking to you at a slow pace despite a warning shot and demands to stop, and it is night, and they are holding a nice big flag, then you may be very well tempted to get rid of them. The significant fact is that they did NOT shoot everyone, they killed one person. Which tells me that they were not trigger happy. If they were trigger happy they would have indiscriminately fired on everyone.

Again, I didn't see the movie, I'm only basing this on what I have read.

I think this is a tragedy, but I am very much against holding the tank drivers accountable. If you want to hold the leadership accountable for sending these men into the zone, knock yourself out. That's what leadership is for. But it is intolerable to give a man a gun, put him in a hostile area and tell him not to defend himself when his fears are screaming at him.

-ron

My apologies, Bill. I confused Miller with Tom Hurndall. I did do a search for the official findings of Israel and the IDF on the Miller incident, but could not find it. I would like to read exactly what they said occurred. Anybody know where I might locate it? Thanks.

Hey Allah. Tell you and your blogging buddies to take your propaganda elsewhere. Stop supporting the puppet Jew government that bushitler has proped up.

Clearly what's needed here is a comment from me, yet another guy who hasn't seen the film. But I've seen the commercials!

First, I think Bill is being perhaps a bit too credulous in following "the tape doesn't lie" argument. In fact, it often does, (see Mohammed Al-Doura) and this kind of thing is a weapon in the ongoing propaganda war. Still, I'd like to see it and find out more about the case, particularly the aftermath.

However, what is interesting to me is that from the commercial and Bill's comments above is that a focus of the film appears to be showing the psychotic death cult nature of Palestinian society. The commercial shows one boy saying "Martyrdom isn't just for grown-ups. Anybody can do it," while the narrator intones "How do people learn to hate so much that they're willing to die so they can kill?" This is new material for a mainstream documentary, and if it brings home the reality of Palestinian "education" and attitudes towards children to all of HBO's viewing audience, I think that that's a postiive development.

Ron -

1. Hard to see but it looked like they did stop

2. as I mention in the previous comments, entirely possible they didnt speak english

3. re: The significant fact is that they did NOT shoot everyone, they killed one person
After the second shot was fired, they continued to open up on the journalists, and almost killed the other two.

The simple fact is, if they can't discern that these were journalists, walking slowly, with a white flag, wearing flak vests and those black journalist helmets (when have you seen militants with such equipment), then the IDF might as well just slaughter everything that moves in the street.

You can say "it's difficult to judge on the sidelines," but I think we have a better ability to judge after watching a video. If I could find probable cause for hesitation as an observer without night vision equipment, I think that there is cause to question the actions of the IDF soldiers, and not simply write this off as "well, we can't really judge, it IS a war zone," largely because YOU are naturally predisposed to support Israel.

If the shoe was on the other foot ...

I'd like to catch a second viewing but based on the first viewing I think I counted 4 or maybe 5 seperate, single shots.

Immediately before this scene there was a clip recording the soldiers earlier in the afternoon as they played distinctly local sounding Arab music and were calling out to the neighborhood along the lines of "Brothers, do you like our music?"... overall a rather laid back crew.

Apparently there were shots traded throughout the day and this was a time of rest for the soldiers.

Anyway, the following scene was their attempt to leave the house, as things had been quite for a long while.

As three of the reporter exited from a Palestinian home nearby two were filming from the window.

Miller flashed his light on the white flag carried by another male in the crew while the lady who does the voice over stood in between.

The first problem is they failed to call out LOUDLY as they walked directly to the Isreali positions.

After one shot rang out I think that's when they started to yell they were British... in English.

And they kept walking and 2 second later another shot kills Miller.

Now, from the window, the camera man is freaking out and you can hear him say they killed a journalist.

Then a few more shots seem to come very close to him personally, and we see through the camera he suddenly jerks as he takes a dive.

I'd have to see the whole thing again but I didn't see any muzzle flashes in the angle he was filming from, which was directed at the Israeli positions.

Maybe we can get someone like Kim du Toit to comment on the sound of the shot, which was very distinctive if I recall.

Anyway, that's what I saw... HBO's next playing is 3:30 AM Pacific time on Saturday. Less than 19 hours!

Eric - yes, that was the impression that I drew. It did cast many of the palis in a sympathetic light, but it also projected the stark image of a cult that worships death.

Missing the bigger picture guys.

You're looking at the trees. Step back for a moment, and view the forest: Israel is fighting a 40-year proxy war against despotic enemy states that routinely announce publicly that they're going to exterminate Israel at the first opportunity.

Here's a question: living next to the freest, most prosperous country in the Mideast, why do you think the Palestinians haven't done the reasonable, logical thing and become Israel's Canada? The answer is: most would probably like to, but they can't, because anyone who advances the notion is killed by the Arab-state-funded/armed proxies who rule the Pals by force. Meanwhile, the Pal children are forcibly brainwashed into believing Jews are the source of all their problems; the Hitler Youth had nothing on these guys.

After hearing the news today that hundreds of Iranians (reportedly sent by the gov't in Tehran) are fighting in Iraq, the hundreds killed there in suicide bombings, and the continuing shift of public opinion against terrorism, I am struck by the following notion: Iraq is quickly becoming Israel.

Death In Gaza? Well, Miller certainly found that, and that is tragic. But at the risk of being a conspiracy nut, I feel compelled to ask: with no Israeli muzzle flashes detected on camera, can you discount the fact Miller was coincidentally shot just before he was going off to film the Israeli side of the argument? Which side consistently targets civilians as a matter of policy?

Tall Dave -

No, I think that you are missing the point. On occasion it's shameful to ignore the trees when looking at the forest.

It's called being a slave to a larger ideology, ends justify the means, etc.

From my perspective, of course Israel is largely in the right. That doesn't mean that IDF soldiers can randomly kill British reporters, via malice or incompetence.

Your larger philosophical points have little to do with this question.

Bill,

I think you have it precisely backwards - the larger philosophical points have much bearing on how Miller died, specifically on whether it was in fact Israelis who shot him, coincidentally just before he was about to film their side of the conflict. Given their philosophical approach, it is not difficult to imagine a mid-level Hamas/PLO apparatchik hearing about the film, saying "OK, wait till he approaches the Israelis, and make it look like they killed him. Then we'll draw up some posters and say he's our martyr."

Obviously the ends often do justify the means - thousands died in the Normandy invasion, but no one is suggesting that their deaths were not justified in the larger context of the war. Deliberately immoral actions are of course another story, and if the Israelis did shoot Miller an investigation should be done and the perpretator punished, but to imply that has some moral reflection on the larger conflict (which is clearly the aim of most films like this) is simply ridiculous and propagandistic.

If some Israeli soldiers are careless or aggressive enough to kill the journalist under those circumstances, then it DOES have a moral reflection on the larger conflict; it calls many tactics into question.

It's possible to support Israel AND to find Israelis culpable in some situations. It's called intellectual honesty.

They aren't angels, and being under existential threat for most of their history doesn't excuse EVERYTHING.

I'm willing to entertain the POSSIBILITY that militants shot teh reporter, but considering:

A. That's not the way it looks on tape

B. This theory is merely being suggested as an automatic defense by pro-Israeli partisans, rather than a coherent theory floated by some investigative body

Then I would place the burden of proff on those seeking to provide evidence for such a theory.

Once again, if the shoe was on the other foot ...

I still don't know what to think about this.....I was at school with James Millar (as was Mr Free Market of www.fmft.com if you read him)so I've tried to keep an eye on it. Just don't know. Deliberate ? Accident? Mistake? Just don't know.

Re you points on tactics, as I said deliberately immoral/negligent acts should be, and generally are, punished by responsible societies. Which brings me to your other point...

>>>Once again, if the shoe was on the other foot...
I'm glad you brought this point up. We KNOW what happens when the shoe is on the other foot: the murderer is feted as a hero, with posters, videotape, and a parade in their honor.

>>>Then I would place the burden of proff on those seeking to provide evidence for such a theory
Here again is the crux of my argument: given their respective philosphies, isn't it reasonable to put the burden of proof on the side that targets civilians as a matter of policy?

I think we would both agree there should be more investigation.

We KNOW what happens when the shoe is on the other foot: the murderer is feted as a hero, with posters, videotape, and a parade in their honor.

So what?

isn't it reasonable to put the burden of proof on the side that targets civilians as a matter of policy?

Not when by burden of proof you are contradicting a VIDEO TAPE that gives me (a rational, largely unbiased analyst) the distinct impression that the Israelis killed the guy.

In my analysis I've generously allowed for the possibility that my impresion is wrong. in contrast, your analysis seeks to place the burden of proof on teh palis, just because they do a greater number of "wrong" things.

Admittedly, you are applying 30,000 foot logic and complex reasoning to formulate your arguments, but I have to chuckle a bit at the fact that you are so automatically strident in your defense.

Look man, I fucking hate Palestinian militants, but I think that your opinion is the basis of your analysis, instead of analysis being the basis of your opinion ... in this event.

It certainly looks like some Istaeli soldiers unecessarily killed a journalist.

Given the video, the burden of proof is on the Israelis to DISPROVE it. this should be clear to a dispassionate analyst.

Given the video, the burden of proof is on the Israelis to DISPROVE it.
And maybe they have. I still would like to see the Israeli official findings before second guessing them.

Agreed, I'm not certain yet the IDF really were the shooters at all.

The film simply doesn't reveal anything about what happened except that there were shots and that the reporters were a target.

There is reason to allow that the Palestinian militants could have been responsible.

It's clear up to the last segment, that the crew had been allowed to interview the family and its connections among the militia very intimately.

Had the crew been upfront about their production, though?

Was it known that they would finish filming in Israel among Jewish children and families, or was it found out? Did it even matter in the murder?

The encouragement of the children to hate the Jewish enemy by their teachers, family, and peers, up to know has been chilling but it's almost refreshing to see such open expression of insanity without shame, a culture of death in all it's dark glory.

The crew, instead of going out the back and going AWAY from the battle, they walk DIRECTLY TOWARDS the camp of the IDF.

For what, an escort?

What I MUST assume from the IDF side is that each soldier is aware of the personal consequences to him and his failure to follow the specific rules of engagement.

If a soldier flagrantly murdered a Western reporter in the field, the Israeli leadership would demand to sacrifice him for the world press.

Would anyone in the IDF knowingly murder a reporter for kicks, given they must have been reminded again and again about their appearance and conduct and trained to follow the rules of war in the face of constant media.

The militia, on the other hand, set out to maximize propaganda and there is no legal or moral penalty in such a murder, beyond how that would serve the ultimate victory over Israel.

And in the closing scenes the Palestinian propaganda machine had already printed batches of Miller's own martyr poster, against the crew's protests.

I wonder at the end how naive the crew was, especially how unafraid they were of being involved so intimately with the most militant extremists Palestine has to offer.

If it weren't for the Palestinian terrorist animals in Rafah this would never have happened. When was the last time a soldier accidently fired on a reported during peaceful times. Never. Miller's family can thank Yassir Arafat and the rest of the terrorist animals for their relatives death.

I'm sorry, but you guys are bordering on ridiculous with the contortions that you automatically engage in to defend the Israelis. You aren't as bad, but it borders on the reflexive conspiracy theories that are spun to malign anything the Bush admin does.

American soldiers tortured Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

It's certainly possible that some Israeli soldiers killed a reporter because they were jumpy/trigger happy.

Jesus.

"Given the video, the burden of proof is on the Israelis to DISPROVE it."

That's not fair at all, I know from the video only that there were shots and that Miller was hit.

And all the Palestinian militants with guns in the last hour are running around in the night with the 9 year old boy scouting for them. This is what the crew filmed the night before, in fact. So the guns are out there.

In this next day of footage, the daytime footage of this GIANT bulldozer was crazy. It was getting pelted at a rate of 20 rocks/sec by a swarm of kids around it. Once a minute there was a shot and they would run off... None were shot at, and in fact without that warning on kid almost got IHOP'ed by the 20 foot blade. This clip made me want to scream: "Where are their damn PARENTS?!?"

Since the same house and window follows the daytime footage into the night, we know Miller walked directly towards the IDF camp, and while doing so were in full view from many covered positions the militia can occupy.

If this documentary wanted to get to the bottom of this murder, where is body and the bullet and the simple forensics to eliminate or confirm that the known IDF weapons could not have matched it?

The worst thing about the documentry, is the failure to explain the details of the aftermath.

For example, how did it end after the shots? Did the Israeli army call in transport or a rescue or had they ran back to join the Palestinians?

It's certainly possible that some Israeli soldiers killed a reporter because they were jumpy/trigger happy.
Sure, it's possible. However, wanting to hear the Israelis out before forming an even tentative conclusion hardly borders on the ridiculous.

Comrade -

re: If this documentary wanted to get to the bottom of this murder, where is body and the bullet and the simple forensics to eliminate or confirm that the known IDF weapons could not have matched it?"

I think that is the responsibility of the Israeli officials, not the reporters. The reporters could have been more specific about what inquiry, if any, took place, however.

I was also struck by how insane it was for those kids to be throwing the stones at the Israeli bulldozers.

However, wanting to hear the Israelis out before forming an even tentative conclusion hardly borders on the ridiculous.

Sorry Julie, but THAT opinion borders on the ridiculous. I watched the VIDEO. If Western Journalists were killed by Palestinain security forces, I have sincere doubts that you would be willing to go to such lengths of fairness.

You guys are like Johnny Cochran for the IDF. Israelis were taunting insurgents with louspekers and music. They were firing into empty buildings to draw out militants with return fire. They fired a WARNING SHOT (what militants fire a warning shot?!)

And then someone fired on the reporters in a controlled manner.

We'd better end the discussion, before I express my scorn for the mental gymnastics and fundamental inability to for self-analysis in this thread.

The funny thing is, I support the israelis,M/i> but some of you guys are seriously over-the-top.

I think that is the responsibility of the Israeli officials, not the reporters. The reporters could have been more specific about what inquiry, if any, took place, however.

I agree, the ending left us woefully short on details.

For example, was the body examined... with or without a bullet a wound still
reveals the type of calibre. I'm inclined to assume that the British authorities are in fact the first to recieve the body for such details.

I was also struck by how insane it was for those kids to be throwing the stones at the Israeli bulldozers.

LOL, I know! I shit my pants when that kid fell down in front of the 20 foot blade and almost got mauled.

Even the windows seems impervious to the rocks, though. I couldn't tell but there didn't seem to be even cracks on them.

(what militants fire a warning shot?!)

The same ones who miss on the first try!

For anybody interested about the bullet etc, it was examined by an independent ballistics expert at the request of the family.

Details here

5.56-mm (.223-inch) bullet

That's an M-16 round. AK-47's carry 7.62 MM rounds.

Looks bad for your Pali gunmen theory, folks ...

But to prempt: "But the Militants could have stolen M-16s!"

Did the journalists keep walking after the warning shot was fired?

Visit the link two posts above and watch it.

Sorry Julie, but THAT opinion borders on the ridiculous.
Well, Bill, now your talking like a jerk.
You guys are like Johnny Cochran for the IDF.
I will eschew the comparison, but I have done several hundred criminal jury trials, as both a prosecutor, and a PD. I know that jumping to a conclusion without examining all the evidence available tends to come back to bite you in the ass. I'm not sure why you find the idea to want to read the Israeli findings so upsetting, or as you put it, ridiculous.

Check out the interview with Saira Shah, the reporter that made the film with Miller. She doesn't even pretend to be even-handed.

"An enormous number of children are killed by Israeli snipers in Rafah."
Thanks for that rigorous journalism, Saira.

yet.http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/death_in_gaza/interview.html

Bill, thanks for trying to be reasonable and unbiased. Tough job, but you are doing it well.

We won't know the truth of this for awhile, just like we didn't with al-Dura. Jenin we knew pretty quickly. I am inclined to assume extenuating circumstances for the IDF, just because - after all the outrage has cleared - there usually is, and the Pals usually lie. That's the history so far.

I am glad the film shows the Palestinian jihad training for what it is.

* It's possible that the shot came from somewhere else, though the only eyewitness testimony contradicts the possibility.

But it was dark. There were no muzzle flashes in the video in the direction of the Israeli APC. Why weren't they using their night vision for filming this scene in the dark? When they followed Ahmed around when he was playing with the terrorist they had a night vision filter. It was conviently absent that night leading me to think they were setup.

For the greater good, of course. They needed a new western dupe on a poster.

Tomo, good link!

Weapons using 5.56mm ammunition include:

American M16A1/A2/A3/A4, M4/M4A1 Carbine, CAR15, XM177E1/E2, M733, AR-15, and other rifles of the Armalite family

American/Belgian M249 SAW / FN Minimi light machine gun

AK-101 and -105 rifles

French FAMAS F1/G2 rifle

British L85/SA80 rifle

Heckler and Koch HK33, Heckler und

Koch G36, HK23, and HK53 rifles and machine guns

Austrian Steyr AUG and ACR rifles

Belgian FN FNC rifle

Canadian Diemaco C7/C8 rifles

Israeli IMI Negev SAW and Tavor TAR-21
bullpup assault rifle.

Still thinking...

Bill, LGF has plenty of photos of Palestinians with M-16s and other NATO spec 5.56mm weapons. The fact is that they are almost as cheap as AKs. The Palestinians would not have to steal them. They can easily buy them from the Egyptians, Jordanians, weapons dealers, etc.

If an autopsy was done, the trajectory of the bullet should be easy to determine. Also, if the TANKER was in a TANK when the Journalist was shot, the fact that the round was 5.56 could exonerate the Israelis. This link - http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/merkava/MerkavaMk3.html - says that like the US M1-A2, the lightest weapon on the Israeli Merkava tanks is a 7.62x51 NATO machinegun.

If the tankers were shooting a warning shot at the brits, FROM a tank, where did the 5.56 round come from?

NOTE: The Israelis use the Merkava line of tanks as APCs, it is likely the vehicle in question.

But to prempt: "But the Militants could have stolen M-16s!"

If you do a little research you'll see that our very own CIA supplied the Palestinians with M16s. Part of the peace plan to arm PA security forces. Also the terrorist Ahmed is hangin' with have M16s and it's not at all uncommon to see them carrying M16s. You can go to yahoo news and do a photo search and see it.

I taped most of the movie last night. I'm rendering it right now, the relevant part. It's 2 minutes 54 seconds. I'll post the url in a bit.

M16 on the left.

here's a bunch of Palis with M16s.

Jane-

It is perfectly reasonable to me to make a judgment that it may be likely that the beduoin Arabic IDF soldiers killed the journalist, and that the burden of proof lies with proving otherwise, which I have admitted is ceratinly possible.

It is also plainly apparent that whatever bias I have aquired from watching the tape PALES in cp,parison to the bias of many of the individuals on this thread that have more vociferously defended the Israelis, often by maligning the Palis, and sometimes without even having watched the tape.

I am the type of person that often withholds judgment when there is not enough info, which is why I backtracked again and acknowledged the possibilties that:

A. it was an honest mistake

B. It's possible that Palestinians did it

But it is PERFECTLY reasonable for me to say that it looks as though the Israelis are culpable based on the rare benefit of video of an incident.

I AM NOT NOR HAVE I sugggested that reading Israeli findings are ridiculous, quite the opposite. What I find particularly ridiculous is applying RIDICULOUS philosophical arguments about how the palis are BAD and the IDF is GOOD to a specific incident where video evidence could give someone a strong impression that Israelis soldiers may have fucked up.

It is also reasonable for me to conclude that many that contend that the palis MUST have done it are drinking some strong fucking Kool-Aid to assume that as the default.

It is also pretty apparent that if a video suggested that Palis authorities did, no such shadow of rigorous presumption of innocenvce would be heard from anyone.

However, Bill, from what you and others have said about the incident AS PRESENTED in the film, the Israelis were in an APC, or more likely a Merkava tank. That makes it unlikely that the 5.56 round that killed the journalist came from the Israelis. Unless the tanker in question used his Tar-21 instead of one of the Tank's 7.62 machineguns. Since I was not there, I am not going say one side definitely did it. However, from the evidence I have heard about, there is some doubt that the Israeli tankers could have shot a 5.56 round into the British Journalist.

If there is audio of the shots in question, that may answer the question. 5.56mm and 7.62x51mm rounds have signifigantly different reports. Even with echoes or multiple rounds from the same weapon going off, it should be possible to id the caliber of weapon being fired.

Bill, I haven't had a chance to see the video yet, so this comment is based only on what I have read on this thread. I'm confused about your continued insistence that "it looks as though the Israelis are culpable based on the rare benefit of video of an incident" when others are saying there were no muzzle flashes from the Israeli positions. Do you see muzzle flashes, or do you not think the point is relevant? Given that apparently the place was crawling with armed men, what is it that has you leaning toward the conclusion that the shot came from the Israelis?

Something is Moorish about the documentary.

The narrator is readily blaming the IDF for the shooting but you have to dig up a CNN interview to get the vauge aftermath of the event.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/04/lkl.00.html

"KING: Why would an Israeli shoot a British journalist?

SHAH: That's what I want to know. I don't believe there's a conspiracy. I don't, you know, I just don't believe in any of that.

KING: Is the Israeli government investigating this?

SHAH: Well, this is the thing. James' family is pushing for a transparent investigation that, you know, will be published so that it will just be open. And, I have to say, you know, we've had incidents in the British army. You know, I know you've had incidents in the American army that, you know...

KING: Friendly fire.

SHAH: All sorts of things but we just need to know what the guy was thinking, what, you know, was he a bad guy, was he, you know, a scared guy.

KING: When James fell did they come to assist you?

SHAH: Eventually they did. It took some time. Eventually they did come. James was already dead by then.

KING: He died right there on the ground?

SHAH: He died there on the ground. I was with him when he died.
"

As I suspected, the IDF came out into the the open and assisted soon after the shots were fired.

This same force was also responsible for her escort back into Israel along with her crew and including Millers body. This body was then examined by an Israeli doctor who was observed by a UK counterpart.

The Micheal Moore aspect is how she ends the film by narrating in a manner to leave the IDF at fault while failing to narrate the following events she knew well enough to leave out from the film, all for the sake of 'objectivity' in her Muslim faith based view of life.

Watch how this works...

http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/death_in_gaza/interview.html

"HBO: What would you like for viewers to take away from this film?

SAIRA: These kids are not monsters. They are living in unacceptable conditions. Human beings are human beings the world over and the circumstances they live in have a profound impact upon their behavior. There is a cycle of violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where [b]every killing creates a martyr, which creates more killing. [/b]Injustice breeds injustice.
"

Moral relativity!

As a Muslim she's already basing the cycle of violence on the aspect of martyrdom. It's a cycle not strongly reflected among Isreali culture.

And then you see how simple it is that every martyr is killed and created more and blah blah blah.

She's also aware of how suicide bombers are made martyrs, and yet her perception is still limited to only how martyrs are simply "killed". That's a denial of grand proportions.

The cycle of violence is a typical form of creating equal blame among each party, before making the Jew the real problem.

http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/death_in_gaza/interview.html

"HBO: Was there anything unexpected that you learned in course of making this film? What challenged your initial expectations?

SAIRA: Yes, a lot, because everything you read or see about this conflict in particular is sifted through a filter of politics. It is hard to get away from the concept that there are "goodies" and "baddies"."

Well sure, moral relativity and all that.

"We found kids who were being exploited by both sides in a conflict they did not understand."

The militans using children as scouts, cover, or recon, all based on her documentary, convinced me, that the one side interviewed is ipso-nutso-facto.

The IDF exploiting children in some other equivalent henious way is a FRIGGEN FIGMENT OF YOUR MOONBATTED NOGGIN.

"An enormous number of children are killed by Israeli snipers in Rafah."

Ahh, exploitation through murder, she says.

Child killing Jew snipers, finally. The cycle of violence thing and the whole spiel about "Goodies" and "Baddies" is always somehow about Jews killing innocent children, along with killing the "matyrs" I guess. Expect those who blow themselves up and kill and that's also the cycle thing, too.

Murdering ENOURMOUS NUMBERS of children, mind you. Not in the film, rather, but in the cycle of violence.

"Their deaths are used to recruit the next generation of militants. I wasn't prepared for the cynicism of that, as well as being horrified by the lack of respect for human life shown by the Israeli soldiers."

After 90 minutes of peeking into the nightmare that is Gaza, I rather hoped to see film of the Isreali children and their families like it was intended.

She'd not have ended the film with only a few clips over the Gaza poster after the shooting, if she wanted to present the full picture.

Instead of mentioning any of the details she reveals in the interview.. the the IDF broke cover and went to assist them... she leaves us with the new martyr poster of Miller. Is that dishonest? If I saw the IDF move in, call for backup, and escort them out, which is what actually happened, instead of some picture of Miller and wondering how they got out alive, I'd have first came way with a whole different perception of the story.

The fact the IDF responded is VERY IMPORTANT.

If she can't tell the whole story, and instead caps the whole thing off with a martyr poster, she's not much better than Micheal Moore.

First, the name is Julie, not Jane. Jane posted x1 16 hours ago. But from its content, your post is directed towards me. Please have the courtesy of getting my name straight.

Second, every time I posted that I would like to read the Israeli findings, you HAVE ridiculed me. For you to say the opposite, is, to put it nicely, disingenuous.

Third, please quote to me my RIDICULOUS philosophical arguments about how the palis are BAD and the IDF is GOOD blah, blah blah. Not someone else's words. Mine. Oh, good luck finding it or any language you can spin to support such a dumbass allegation.

Fourth, if you are so concerned about the truth, why don't you spend some time trying to find any Israeli reports that might exist instead of ridiculing me for the mere suggestion? At least, I tried to find them.

Comrade -

Instead of mentioning any of the details she reveals in the interview.. the the IDF broke cover and went to assist them... she leaves us with the new martyr poster of Miller. Is that dishonest?

Yes, I agree. She left me with a very distinct impression, obviously, and did not bother to offer details about what steps were taken by the Israeli govt.

Julie -

First, the name is Julie, not Jane. Jane posted x1 16 hours ago. But from its content, your post is directed towards me. Please have the courtesy of getting my name straight.

Please have the courtesy to remove that stick from your ass; it's not MY JOB to argue with you on my blog all day and get shit from you for missing your name in a 60 comment thread.

Second, every time I posted that I would like to read the Israeli findings, you HAVE ridiculed me. For you to say the opposite, is, to put it nicely, disingenuous.

Bullshit, Jesus. I largely ignored your calls for reviewing the Israeli side (because i do not disagree with the statement), until you called me out with 'However, wanting to hear the Israelis out before forming an even tentative conclusion hardly borders on the ridiculous." Truth be told, I wasn't referring to any of your previous sdtatements when I used the word "ridiculous," but i hit back on you after THAT statment a bit too hard because I'm dealing with a variety of opposing angles, and you challenged me as if i was talking to you.

Third, please quote to me my RIDICULOUS philosophical arguments about how the palis are BAD and the IDF is GOOD blah, blah blah. Not someone else's words. Mine. Oh, good luck finding it or any language you can spin to support such a dumbass allegation.

Wasn't talking about you. I was taking a shot at Comrade (who seems to have thicker skin than you). Since I am taking on "all comers" here I did a little aggregating. Sorry Jane, I mean, Julie, it's not all about you.

Reviewing the above posts, YOU are the one that chose to think that I was talking to YOU, when in fact I was issuing general proclamations in my lone defense on the board. Considering the brevity of your comments, it was unlikely that you figured prominently in my thoughts when I cited things that were "ridiculous."

The first thing that you said that got my attention was "Sure, it's possible. However, wanting to hear the Israelis out before forming an even tentative conclusion hardly borders on the ridiculous."

I wasn't really so much referring to YOUR comments.

here's what happens - one person takes a certain position, and then proceeds to defend that position from a variety of ideologues positing different angles, some of them which are ADMITTEDLY ideologically driven.

You help press the attack, and perhaps take a bit more heat from me than your statment deserves. If you read my earlier statments, my logic is fairly even-handed and sound, as a small couple on this board have pointed out.

I do however, stand by the idea that it is reasonable to put the burden of proof on the Israelis, and "If Western Journalists seemed to be killed by Palestinain security forces, I have sincere doubts that you would be willing to go to such lengths of fairness."

And that's all I have to say about this subject right now, until I get more information.

Bill, will you at least concede that the issue is not nearly as clear as the filmmaker tries to present it?

That the Palestinians had the means (5.56mm firearms) to kill the journalist, and that the Israelis might not, if they acted as the filmmaker suggests (fire on Brits with tank mounted weapons)?

I have already conceded that ... my problem is assuming the opposite.

Geez Louise, You would think that having whipped ourselves over Abu Gharab and seen that sometimes good armies do bad things in war, we would be able to take a fresh, new, and objective look at the IP conflict and notice that an awful lot of Palestinian civilians get killed there every week. Whether this is collateral damage, individual derriliction, or a general policy- the fact remains, its very dangerous for a child to walk the streets in the occupied territories.
This journalist Bill mentions is one of many journalists killed there- and not all have been by the Palestinians. We all know the stories of the IDF taking residents car keys just to be a bitch, checking ID cards and throwing them on the ground just to be a bitch, women giving birth at checkpoints- are all bets off when facing terrorism? Here in the US the answer is NO. Would Americans agree to deny occupied children medical treatment and education as a long term policy, a necessary requirement of security? No.

Can we even discuss Israeli extremists who also beleive they have a God given right to all the land and block the peace process? Why is it so hard to believe the IDF killed the journalist when they bulldoze houses with people inside? This is a horrible bloody conflict. The Arabs aren't this pissed for nothing at all- its not just the occupation but the nature of the occupation. The quicker the American right can recognize this, the greater friend we become to our best ally the Israelis.

Thus the logical thing to do is invade Israel next.

Seriously the IP conflict is not a place to retain one-sided romanticized notions. For information of the risks to journalist (from both sides) in the occupied territories try this also hereand here.

"RSF noted that, since September 2000, it has recorded at least 58 incidents in which journalists have been shot and wounded while covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "In the overwhelming majority of cases, Israeli shooting was to blame," the organisation said in its letter to the defence minister.

"In total, five journalists - two foreigners and three Palestinians - have been killed by the Israeli Defence Forces. For months, [the army] has refused to give the family [of British cameraman JAMES MILLER information] or publish the conclusions of an investigation ordered by the military prosecutor-general, Menahem Finkelstein, into the death of the British cameraman on 2 May 2003 in the southern Gaza Strip," RSF added.

Then of course there is a James Miller website

Jane:

"Can we even discuss Israeli extremists who also beleive they have a God given right to all the land and block the peace process?"

Why? For ever 1,000 extremist attacks a few are Jewish or Christian or even a Japanese cult, but the mass are Muslims and I have a real problem with the level of extremist violence this one religion puts out.

And having a reputation for mass, random murder the first thing I hear from Muslims is the Jews are nyah nyah nyah.

I don't care!!

Ok I read through these comments and this post, and I have a few observations:

#1. Bill immediately concluded that the Israelis shot the reporter. He did not even consider that the Pals might have shot him, despite the fact that no muzzle flash was observed from the Israeli position. When other posters decided to give the benefit of the doubt to the Israelis, Bill slammed them for being biased and unreasonable. To the contrary, I think Bill committed himself too strongly to the proposition that the Israelis killed the reporter before the evidence was in.

#2. The caliber evidence is inconclusive. 5.56mm is the NATO STANDARD. A huge number of weapons use it.

#3. The entry wound is NOT inconclusive. The round entered the reporter's *FRONT* lower left neck, exited out the rear into his flak jacket where it was found. Assuming the reporter was facing the Israeli position when shot, this is conclusive evidence that the round came from the Israeli position.

Conclusions:

#1. Bill, cut people a little slack and don't come out swinging. Since the Palestinians have major credibility issues, and the Israelis generally have a good track record, it is reasonable for people to give Israelis the benefit of the doubt. Don't bite their heads off because they weren't as convinced as you were by the video. Videos don't tell the whole story. The Rodney King beating is a great example. Conversely, now that the evidence of the entry wound is available, it would not be all that reasonable to argue the Palestinians fired on the reporter.

#2. There is a lot of argument about weak circumstantial evidence. The 5.56 means little to nothing, the proximity of the Israelis means little to nothing, etc. Either side could have shot the guy based on THAT evidence. If anything the camera angles, editing, and presentation were excellent works of propaganda if they so effectively prevented you from considering the possibility that the Palestinians shot the reporter, Bill. Regardless, the arguments on weak evidence is no longer relevant now that we have evidence of the entry wound.

So Bill ended up being right in his conclusion, but his _analysis_ was flawed. He dismissed the other point of view (that the Palestinians _could_ have fired the shots) as Israeli cheerleading even though it had merit at the time. That position no longer has much merit given the evidence.

I think we all learned a lesson about jumping to conclusions. The Israeli unit should have its rifles tested for ballistics and an investigation should determine whether the shots were the result of willful malice, negligence, or a reasonable mistake.

p.s. Bill Im not trying to flame you I just think you were a little too hard on everyone else.

Jane, thanks for the link...

This bodyguard was hired to investigate the death of Miller.

Without physical or forensic evidence, and without actually visiting the crime scene at all, the claim first made and never established is always about the IDF as the shooter.

Certainly the bold claim that YES, the IDF killed Miller, and even more, it was done deliberately and for the sake of MURDER.

But not one bullet to match against a single rifle. Physical evidence is not referenced or linked.

The MURDER motive is based on #29 alone. Before the #30 concludes it.

See this is the ONE SINGLE CLAIM for this motive and it's all just contrived.

"29. Taking all these factors into account it is unreasonable to believe IDF soldiers did not know the film team were in the vicinity and that it was this same team that moved out of the house that evening. With the current security status along the border the operational command structure would definitively have been aware of a camera team working in the vicinity. Under the tactical conditions that the unit responsible for this area of operations would have been working under they would have been constantly updated on all unusual activity, especially that of foreign media. [b]Any professional and alert military unit under combat conditions would be aware of each and every location where there was any occupied habitation, human movement or obvious light source.[/b]"

Perfect troops. It's now simply no accident because Isreali troops are perfect (even while sleeping). When they also miss 6 of 7 shots, whoever the shooter was, Chris still want's to attribute this to a murder that Jews inflicted.

"it is unreasonable to believe IDF soldiers did not know the film team were in the vicinity and that it was this same team that moved out of the house that evening.",

Let me assume like him, instead of the IDF, the armed militants, I say, had shot Miller.

Because "it is unreasonable to believe Palistinian militia did not know the film team were in the vicinity and that it was this same team that moved out of the house that evening.",

Crap works both way, see? It spreads evenly, and can also prove all the same worthless claims apply to Palestine using this whole kind of "they had to know" logic.

Now ordering Miller's death, as policy from high command... just a dumb idea. His controversal film "Behind the Veil" pissed off fundamentalist Muslims and when the Jews target and kill someone intentionally, there is no film and surviving witnesses escorted out because that would be really dumb.

This professional bodyguard, Chris, never even links a bullet to a rifle nor can we actually link to the testimony he bases his claims on.

Rather, #29 is about the need to PROVE murder for their client somehow... perhaps for a future suit.

CHRISTOPHER S.G. COBB-SMITH,

http://www.justice4jamesmiller.com/CCSCV.htm

"32. The conclusion of this report is that the film team were consciously and deliberately targeted by the IDF soldiers."

See look, Murdering Jews.

"If it is the former the question needs to be asked as to how far this extends up the chain of command and to what level senior officers are giving tacit approval of this by their inaction."

And yet another murdering Jew.

Which in this situation wouldn't be possible, but if it was and this is all seriously proposed, I see my friend was just killed and yet I remain and the government knows what I know.

Neat how his option #1 includes advice, too!

Imagine the government just killed a friend covertly. And left you alive although they know what you know.

Blah blah blah and you die.

The "need to question" shit is like it's not really in fact like that. Instead you can speak out and not actually die, becuase option #1 is also some kind imaginary place for Liberals to hang out and speak out and beat oppression with words.

If this actually happened I'd not actually be so stupid to speak out and expect I'd live afterwards.

Option #2 is simple flagrant murder.

No mistake, just a perfect single soldier who was aware of the entire region and indentified everyone within a second of wakening. Actually is could have been a mistake, it's Chris who is having to prove it otherwise. And in fact the Palestinian shooter are all suspect and this whole dumb idea about killing Western journalists as a policy is not something we can buy. Nor are there orders which would help the cause and such a chain of fools don't last in the military anyhow.

Instead ONLY option beyond the conspricy is a single malicious murder.

Yes, accidents are not allowed and we should also forget the Palestinian gunmen in range.

No, several decade of military imprisonment won't offset the risk of a random murder but this HAD to have happened.

And missing are all the other random dead shot in vast numbers and all consistent with being perfectly intentional murders (becuase the IDF cannot make a mistake). Anyway, that's when I give up on this pile of slush.

This intentional murder angle is annoying. It's hard to think that #30 follows from #29.

The report is not consistent and I have to read how first:

"g. APCs. It was not possible to determine exactly where the APCs were located due to the number of tracks in the area."

And yet the next page is going to be all smarmy with their academic claims.

"25. The trajectory and direction of the rounds fired are consistent with the rounds being fired from the location of APC 2."

Bullshit! You get the little compass out next to the dot you marked and suddenlty the exactly direction and trajectory is all sourced from that little dot... remember, you had no fucking clue where it should have been, exactly.

While there are some good facts this is when I have to cry BULL... it's just too much!

kaltes,

You aren't trying to flame me, but you read my posts above and come to the conclusion that I DISMISSED the idea?

Look, the film leaves a very distinct impression. They walked towards Israelis that were scouring the area and firing into abandoned buildings and getting no response, and they got shot.

The thing is, I know where you people were coming from ... take you saying "given the palis horrible track record." How about the Israelis track record?

Innocents die all the time! kids, bystanders, whatever. It's war. And this shit about muzzle flash cracks me up. You don't even know the angle of the Israeli vehicle to discern the direction of the muzzle flash.

I'm done with this.

I've not seen the film, so won't comment on it directly.

We seem to forget that both Palestinians and Israelis are people. People do things intentionally and unintentionally. They can be stupid, bigoted, irrational.

I am certain to the depths of my heart that Palestinians have committed atrocities. They have also made mistakes.

I am equally certain that some members of the IDF, not to mention civilian Israelis (and I most particularly include American-Israelis) have committed atrocities and have made mistakes.

I'm familiar with the video clip in question. I have also seen other clips--which the FBI has adjudged un-tampered--that show cold blooded murders of Palestinians. It happens and it should not happen.

I am also very familiar with the murders committed by various Palestinian factions and have first-hand experience with several of them.

My point is that it does a disservice, no it does damage to any attempt to deal with problems by misidentifying the problems. By thinking that only Palestinians do evil, we can no better find a solution than by assuming that only Israelis do evil.

One does not have to start swimming in the shoals of moral relativism to realize that both sides are involved in murders. And as long as murders keep happening, neither side is prepared to give an inch.

But it is PERFECTLY reasonable for me to say that it looks as though the Israelis are culpable based on the rare benefit of video of an incident.

Based on what? What indication do you have that the Israelis fired the shot in question? Based on the comments above, there does not appear to be a visible muzzle flash from the Israeli position, so where the round came from is undetermined. Caliber is not proof, both sides have access to the same firearms.

IMO, it is possible that the round came from the Israeli position, maybe even likely if they fired what is being called the 'warning shot'. The reason is this: if someone advances on your position and you fire a warning shot, the people being warned have two options: 1) leave, or 2) wait for instructions. Any other action is an invitation to shoot at you. Yelling out something and continuing the action that provoked the warning shot, without any acknowledgement that what you yelled was understood is STUPID.

But in any case, the legal standard usually applied to this sort of situation is 'innocent until proven guilty', not the reverse. Why are you assuming the Israelis are guilty?

Jane, when was the last time Israeli 'extremists' walked up to a car carrying a pregnant woman and her young daughters, and procedded to shoot up the car AND film the affair? When was the last time Israeli 'extremists' then shot a funeral procession?

Jane Israel is occupying land - disputed land that belonged to EGYPT and JORDAN. Land seized when EGYPT and JORDAN attempted to annihilate ISRAEL. ISRAEL has made it clear that they will give back this land when Egypt and Jordan acknowledge Israel's right to exist AND sign peace treaties to end hostilities.

And more to the point, Jane, the Palis began shooting at Israel settelments in 1953. 1953, 14 YEARS before the 'occupation' began. So what occupation where the locals resisting then? I say locals because they still referred to themselves as Eyptians and Jordanians at the time.

So, Jane, as far as I am concerned, take your moral equivalence, fold it until it is all corners,a nd shove back where it came from. I have an idea of where that is, but you know for sure.

And jane, if the Israelis shot Miller from a tank, where did the 5.56mm round come from? Their tanks/apcs mount AT LEAST 7.62 machineguns? While the Palis make extensive use of 5.56 rifles.

PS - using a FRENCH source for info on Israel is about as trustworthy as using Al Jazeera.

Bill, I had missed the comment earlier where you stated that the issue was not nearly as clear as the filmmakers tried to paint it.

An overly simplistic view is necessarily unrealistic and therefore counter-productive.

Thank you Eric, for outing yourself as a racist bigot. We now know that we can include you in the blacklist along with LGF.

I sincerely doubt you'd know moral relativism if it bit you.

The fact--FACT--is that IDF has killed innocent people. Amost all the time, it was accidental, or "collateral damage". Sometimes it was deliberate. And yes, the word is "murder".

If you find it "moral relativism" to equate the bombing of a civilian car with the shelling of a civilian home, in both instances of which children and women were killed, you clearly have a broken sense of morality.

The bigotry that tries to shame people into shutting their mouths in response to fallacious cries of "anti-Semitism" is bad for America and it's bad for Israel. In fact, it's not very far at all from the populism spouted at SA rallies.

If that's your intent, then fine. We know exactly how to consider your opinions, i.e., not at all.

If it's not your intent, then you might apply a little more thought to your rants, for rants is what they are.

Source John? When did the IDF MURDER Palestinian civilians? I have heard about the IDF targeting Al-Asqa leaders, Hamas agents, Hizbollah goons. When did they aim at Palestinian women? Children? Inarmed/old men?

When has the IDF 'shelled a civilian home'? Was this during the '48, '67 or '73 war? Or was this a 'civilian home' from which rockets, mortars or suicide belts have come from?

The 'collateral damage' comes from the FACT that Hamas, Fatah, and the other terror organizations HIDE amongst unarmed civilian populations. Why? BECAUSE the IDF is loathe to fire in areas with unarmed people in them. Why do you think Hamas leaders use their OWN CHILDREN as shields?

Have I called for the Palestinians to be 'driven into the sea'? Have I called on the Israelis to bomb Palestinian shops, buses or cafes? I am not even as opposed to the Palestinians as ISM is to Israel. So if I am racist, so Jane up there.

The fact is this: Before 1948 no Arab country supported the IDEA of Palestine, and before 1960, no Arab called themselves Palestinians. Palestine is the cover Arab countries use to push for the eradication of Israel. Why? Because they are no fans of Jews, and Israel gives the kings and dictators a threat to keep their oppressed people focused on, instead of the staggering problems at home.

A couple of questions, John. 1) Why would the Arabs use a ROMAN name for a Palestine? If it is an ancient Arab nation, doesn't it have an Arabic name? 2) Why would the Arabs use a word - Palestine - to name a country, when Arabic does NOT have a sound integral to the word? There is no 'P' in Arabic, John. The 'Palestinians' called themselves 'Balestinians'. 3) If the Arab nations are SO concerned with the plight of 'Palestinians', why do they not open their borders to these refugees?

So, John, excuse me if I dismiss YOU along with Jane. Anti-Israeli people say they aren't anti-semetic, so I won't accuse you of that without proof. But why do people like you blame Israel, when the Arabs started the war, and the ARABS are the people who refuse to come to negotiating table? And John, considering the military advantage the Israelis have, if they REALLY want the Palestinians dead, why aren't they?

By the way, no one has explained to poor, moronic, racist me, WHY the Egyptians/Jordanians/'Palestinians' were attacking Jewish settlements - IN ISRAEL - 14 years before the 'occupation of Gaza and the West Bank' began. Or how the IDF shot Miller with a 5.56mm round out of a tank armed with 3 7.62mm machineguns and 120mm cannon. Magic, or the blame-Israel-first instincts of the filmmaker?

"Fallacious cries of anti-semitism" is my personal favorite response from the 'I'm-not-a-racist-but-I-hate-the-mrudering-Jews' crowd.

w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m


Last update - 01:32 26/08/2003
JAG orders full probe of shooting death of British cameraman
By Arnon Regular

Judge Advocate General Menahem Finkelstein has instructed the Military Police to open an investigation into the May 2 killing of British photographer James Miller in southern Rafah, close to the border with Egypt.

Major General Finkelstein ordered the inquiry following several requests from Miller's family and its representative, attorney Avigdor Feldman.

FURTHERMORE, BALLISTIC TESTS CONDUCTED BY THE BRITISH EMBASSY IN TEL AVIV ON 10 RIFLES BELONGING TO ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES SOLDIERS WHO WERE IN THE AREA OF THE SHOOTING REVEALED THAT THE BULLET THAT KILLED MILLER WAS FIRED FROM ONE OF THOSE WEAPONS.

The IDF had refused to order a Military Police investigation, opting for an internal inquiry of the unit to which the soldiers belong and one at the Southern Command.

For the first few days after the incident, military sources hinted several times that Miller apparently had been shot by Palestinians. The hints were based on an erroneous observation by both soldiers and officers, who mistook an exit wound in Miller's back for an entrance wound.

Following the incident, Miller's family, which constantly claimed the IDF was trying to avoid an investigation so as not to expose the soldiers to criminal charges, hired a ballistics expert, who collected testimony from Miller's crew and witnesses, and a pathologist, whose autopsy on the cameraman's body revealed the bullet that killed him. The findings led to a demand for a check of the weapons of soldiers who were in the area at the time.

The results of the ballistic tests formed the basis for Finkelstein's decision to order a full Military Police investigation, which will have to determine, among other things, whether the soldiers' actions were performed with criminal intent.

According to inquiries conducted on behalf of the Miller family, a four-man film crew arrived in the area of the incident at 7:00 P.M. and took up a position in a house belonging to a Palestinian close to the Egyptian border. The area is known for its frequent clashes between IDF soldiers and armed Palestinians, and the crew was working on a documentary film about the effects of violence in the area on children.

At around 11 P.M., the family's inquiry revealed, the crew decided to return to Gaza City, leaving the house bearing a white flag. Miller was shining a light on the flag.

The crew came under fire a few dozen meters from the house; the second bullet that was fired, the family inquiry says, struck Miller. The crew managed to make its way to the soldiers, and Miller was evacuated for medical treatment, but died on his way to the hospital.

"The ballistic tests show that the shooting was carried out by an IDF soldier under criminal circumstances and not operational ones, for which there was no justification," said Feldman. "The fact that Miller was a journalist was known to the soldiers, and is connected to the reason for the shots fired at him."

The IDF Spokesman's Office has yet to comment on the JAG's decision.

Do you have a direct link? I could not find that on the site ...

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=333192

Well, Sofia, thanks for providing some details. It appears that some IDF soldiers killed an unarmed man. The article's only mention of malice comes the family's attorney, so it is not certain that the soldiers murdered Miller. However the IDF is not burying the matter. And if it was IDF policy to shoot foreign reporters, the other filmmakers would be dead.

However the IDF is not burying the matter.

The IDF is not calling for an investigation, the british govt. is. The IDF seems to have largely blamed it on the Palis at first.

And if it was IDF policy to shoot foreign reporters,

Who ever suggested that it was?

What seems a possibility, however, is the concept that some Beduoin Arab Israeli soldiers don't follow the protocols of war and are indiscriminate in the people that they shoot at.

I hope the idea that such a possibility that this phenomenon exists doesn't cause anyone's head to explode.

JAG Finkelstein ordered the investigation. And he would have ordered it, regardless of whether the British gov./Miller family requested it. Since the date on Sofia's article is almost a year old, I wonder what happened to the investigation. I have no problems with the IDF initially blaming it on the Palestinians since it appeared pre-autopsy that the entrance wound was in the back. And bill, please feel free to ignore my post.

Julie -

FYI - this is MY blog. Here's an idea: why don't you start your OWN blog.

Then you can comment to your heart's content, without worrying about little old me.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's your ball. . . . But, you're the one who previously felt the need to tell me that you ignored my posts. And rest assured, I'm not worried about you.

Phew. I think we can both sleep better at night.

Since the date on Sofia's article is almost a year old, I wonder what happened to the investigation.

Posted by: julie at August 15, 2004 06:38 PM

As of today the Miller family are still waiting for some conclusion from the Advocate General.