Palestinians free AFP photographer-officials (Reuters)

[Eugene]

Palestinians free AFP photographer-officials
07 Jan 2007 18:22:43 GMT
Source: Reuters

GAZA, Jan 7 (Reuters) - Palestinian militants in Gaza freed a photographer
from French news agency Agence France-Presse on Sunday after keeping
him captive for almost a week, officials said.

Unidentified gunmen had kidnapped 50-year-old Jaime Razuri, a native
of Peru, outside the agency's office in Gaza City last Monday. Palestinian
security officers brought Razuri to Abbas's office on Sunday.

"The good efforts by all parties have succeeded in returning the Peruvian
journalist," said senior Abbas aide Tayeb Abdel-Rahim. "He is now free.
The security services will continue their work to get to the captors."

No one has yet claimed responsibility for his abduction.

-snip-

Full article: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L07777754.htm

[Tom Joad]

1. Israel shoots journalists, never kidnaps. RIP James Miller.

[Meshuga]

2. The words you use tell a lot about the quality of your thoughts

Especially when you use your words and an entire nation is generalized (and change the context of a situation to demonize that generalized group):

"Israel shoots journalists, never kidnaps."

Good luck!

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

6. As do yrs...

Referring to Israel is not generalising an entire nation and it takes a fucking huge stretch and some disenguity to try to do so. If you have something constructive to add to the discussion, such as refuting the claim that Israel has shot journalists, it'd be a much more effective strategy, though it's a claim that's impossible to refute...

[Meshuga]

7. Strategy?

What? Are we playing games here? Or in a war with each other to have a need for strategy?

I think you should demand more of your buddy and don't worry about what I bring to the discussion. It's funny that you find that it's alright what he "brought to the discussion." I think you are the one coming with the HUGE stretch here in order to defend his (and your) generalization. ;-)

[Violet_Crumble]

8. I'm not playing games...

So far what I've seen you bring to the discussion is a ridiculous attempt to claim that mentioning Israel equals a generalisation of an entire people. What a load of nonsensical crap that is, and I notice you don't attempt to explain why you think it, you just repeat yr claim again..

btw, me correcting yr silly claim makes me a 'buddy' of Tom? Now if we're going to talk about stretching things to ridiculous proportions, that's got to rank up there with the most stretchy ones I've ever seen...

[Shaktimaan]

13. In this case Tom was undoubtedly making a negative generalization

by implying that it is an Israeli practice to kill journalists on purpose. Otherwise his post wouldn't have made any sense. The whole point was that he was comparing the Palestinian practice of kidnapping journos to an incident when a journo was shot by an IDF soldier. He wrote it in such a way that it is pretty clear he meant that the Israelis shoot journos instead of kidnapping them which implies that it is both intentional and a widespread practice (as the Palestinian kidnappings are.)

He also made sure to say that "Israel shoots journalists" without qualifying it at all, implying that it is Israeli policy to do so. He is saying "This is what Israel does" and not "This is what an Israeli did." He's obviously referring to the entire nation.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. Only to someone who desperately wants to read all sorts of implications into a simple comment...

Uh, haven't you read the information Englander posted for you in this thread? Israel DOES shoot journalists...

Also, when I point out that the US has killed a whole lot of Iraqi civilians during the war in Iraq, are you saying that means I'm making a negative generalisation about the entire nation? Or is Israel a special case and it doesn't apply to any other country?

[Shaktimaan]

21. Well, it really is all in how you say it.

If you said, "America never kidnaps civilians. They kill them." then yes, it becomes a negative generalization. Had he said instead, as you rephrased your example, "Israel has killed a lot of journalists" then it completely changes the implication to be innocuous.


Do you really not see the difference between those two statements?

It has nothing to do with Israel. It has to do with language. There's nothing particularly desperate about it either. What he meant, after all, was pretty clear.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Let me rephrase my comment...

The US never kidnaps Iraqi civilians. They kill them.

Guess what? That's still not a negative generalisation...

The only language yr interpretation of Tom's post is using is that of making lots of implications and coming to a false conclusion that doesn't stand up to logic...

[Englander]

10. As you've completely ignored the killed film-maker -

I'll post a link that might, hopefully, be educational;

Film-maker 'murdered' by soldier

A British cameraman shot dead in the Gaza Strip by an Israeli soldier was murdered, an inquest jury has decided.

James Miller, 34, from Devon, was shot by a soldier from the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) while making a film in a Palestinian refugee camp in 2003.

An Israeli investigation in April 2005 cleared a soldier of misusing firearms.

Coroner Andrew Reid had told the jury at St Pancras Coroner's Court, London, on Thursday to return a verdict of unlawful killing.

>snip

After around an hour of deliberation, the jury decided that Mr Miller had been deliberately shot on the night of 2 May 2003.

A jury spokeswoman said: "We, the jury, unanimously agree this was an unlawful shooting with the intention of killing Mr James Miller.

"Therefore we can come to no other conclusion than that Mr Miller was indeed murdered."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/4883442.stm

[Shaktimaan]

3. But the difference is

that journalists hurt by the IDF were not targeted for what they were reporting. In all likelihood the few journalists killed by the IDF were victims of an accident. Not so for many of those targeted by the PA or PLO.

Palestinian Tradition of Press Intimidation

During the six years of the PLO's reign of terror in Lebanon (1976-1982), Lebanese and foreign journalists were harassed and in several cases murdered by the PLO.

The following journalists and editors were victims of Arafat's ultimate form of censorship:

- Edouard Saeb, editor of L'Orient le Jour and Le Monde correspondent, shot down by PLO gunmen, September 1976.

- Riadh Taha, president of the Lebanese publisher's union. After meeting with Lebanese leader Bashir Gemayal to work out an anti-PLO front, Taha was gunned down by PLO gunmen, 1980.

Journalist Edouard George, who worked for Edouard Saeb, compiled a list of seven foreign journalists who were killed by the PLO between 1976 and 1981:

- Larry Buchman, correspondent for ABC Television - Mark Tryon, Free Belgium Radio - Jean Lougeau, correspondent for French TF-1 - Tony Italo, Italian journalist - Graciella Difaco, Italian journalist - Sean Toolan, correspondent for ABC - Robert Pfeffer, correspondent for Der Spiegel

---

Amnesty International Annual Report 2000:

"Since its establishment in 1994, the PA has progressively restricted the right to freedom of expression through a variety of means, including arrest and detention by various security forces... Many detainees have been held incommunicado and some have been subjected to torture or ill-treatment...

---

Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group

The most damning indictment against the Palestinian Authority comes from a Palestinian organization, the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group. The PHRMG describes at length the nature of the harassment conducted by the Palestinian Authority against journalists. The human rights group's findings can be found in "Media in Palestine: Between the Hammer of the PNA and the Anvil of Self-Censorship."

"Violations against Palestinian journalists for crossing the red lines vary. From 50 violations recorded by the PHRMG the percentages were distributed as follows:
- Injury from gun shooting: 2%
- Beatings: 12%
- Breaking or confiscating cameras: 6%
- Confiscating films or videos: 8%
- Summoning, stopping or detaining: 68%
(Note: rate is taken per accidents not per individuals)..."


Remind me of when the IDF beat up or tortured any journalists, I can't seem to find anything about it happening anywhere. Most be the pro-Israel lobby and Jewish media conglomerates killing all the stories.

[Violet_Crumble]

4. Let me introduce you to Reporters Without Borders...

Remind me of when the IDF beat up or tortured any journalists, I can't seem to find anything about it happening anywhere.

2006

"Nabil al-Mazzawi, an Al-Jazeera cameraman on the West Bank, was beaten on 4 November by Israeli soldiers and held for several hours after he filmed a demonstration against the wall separating Israel and the Occupied Territories."

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=17231

2005

"Reuters news agency photographer Ammar Awad was beaten up on 2 April by a dozen Israeli police on the Mosque Square in Jerusalem, where he was covering clashes between them and Palestinians on the second Friday prayers after Sheikh Yassin’s murder. His camera was smashed and ID papers seized. Police fired tear-gas grenades, injuring about 20 people."

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=13308

2004

"Palestinian photographers Jaafar Ashtiyeh (Agence France-Presse) and Nasser Ashtiyeh (AP) were attacked by Israeli border police on 21 January 2003 as they tried to take a picture of a speeding army jeep with two Palestinians clutching onto the outside. The Israelis got out of the jeep and punched the photographers in the stomach. Ashtiyeh said the police threatened to kill them if the photos were published.

Palestinian journalists Joseph Handal, of the French TV station France 2, and Chaaban Qandel, working for a Palestinian TV station, were attacked and pushed to the ground by Israeli soldiers in Bethlehem (West Bank) on 20 May, despite showing their press cards. Handal was badly beaten, treated for an injured hand and was unable to work.

Majdi Mohammed, a freelance Palestinian photographer working sometimes for the Associated Press, was attacked by Israeli soldiers near Nablus on 21 October while taking pictures of one of them beating a man who had broken the curfew. He said a soldier approached, asked why he was taking photos and then twisted his arm. The two then hit him several times in the back, held his face against the burning-hot hood of their jeep and seized his camera, bag and journalist ID. The digital photos he had taken were destroyed. He said that as they left they threw his papers and ID through the window of the jeep. An Israeli military spokesman said the same day the army would investigate and if necessary punish those responsible for what he said were "very serious" allegations of misconduct."

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=9966

[Shaktimaan]

9. OK, probably should have checked that out better before mouthing off.

Thanks for correcting me. I showed my ass on that one.

Obviously I'm not going to make excuses for the kind of conduct you posted here. Whenever stuff like this happens it reflects poorly on the society represented by the aggressor. I do still disagree with Tom who finds the PA to be comparitavely more respectful of a press presence than Israeli officials. There's a significant difference between individual acts like these and a systematic decision to target journalists (and aid workers) for political reasons (as the Palestinians have been doing lately.)

Israel generally treats the press on the same level as any western nation. I do think that it's worth mentioning that all the reporters in question here were Palestinian. I'm not justifying the attacks but I think it is worth considering that since Israel and Palestine are the two sides involved in this conflict the fact that they were press probably mattered less than the fact that they were Palestinian press in regards to why they were targeted.

[Englander]

11. Now, that's very disingenuous, isn't it?

Israel generally treats the press on the same level as any western nation. I do think that it's worth mentioning that all the reporters in question here were Palestinian. I'm not justifying the attacks but I think it is worth considering that since Israel and Palestine are the two sides involved in this conflict the fact that they were press probably mattered less than the fact that they were Palestinian press in regards to why they were targeted.

Claiming that the attacked press/cameramen were, quote, "Palestinian press", when, in reality,
the journalists targeted by the idf were working for US & European agencies. And, not all of the killed
journalists were Palestinian. I'll post the incidents where US/European agency workers were shot by
idf soldiers, this time in bold. Also, why should it make a difference which journalists are shot at by the idf?


Israel - Annual report 2004

>snip

Nazeh Darwazi, cameraman for the US news agency APTN (Associated Press Television Network), was killed on 19 April 2003 in the centre of Nablus (West Bank) by what eye-witnesses said was a bullet in the head fired by an Israeli soldier from about 20 yards away. The journalist, 42, was wearing a yellow jacket marked "press" and was with a group of half a dozen journalists covering clashes between a group of young Palestinians and Israeli soldiers.

>snip

British documentary-maker and cameraman James Miller, working for his TV production company Frostbite, was shot dead near midnight on 2 May in Rafah, near the border between Gaza and Egypt. He was with journalist Saira Shah and an assistant, Daniel Edge, also with Frostbite, as well as two Palestinian translators.

>snip

Palestinian photographer Saïf Dahla, of the French news agency Agence France-Presse (AFP), was wounded in the right leg on 28 January 2003 by two machinegun bullets fired by Israeli soldiers as they entered the West Bank town of Jenin. He said he was wearing a helmet and a bulletproof jacket with "press" written on the front. The soldiers had fired from a tank about five metres away and there was no fighting at the time. A Reuters cameraman and an AP photographer were with him.

>snip

Ahmed Jadallah (photographer) and Shams Odeh (cameraman), both of Reuters, were wounded on 6 March as they were covering an Israeli army incursion into the Gaza Strip refugee camp of Jabalia. Jadallah was seriously wounded in the legs by shrapnel and Odeh less seriously wounded in the foot. Palestinian sources said a shell was fired into a group of civilians trying to put out a fire, killing eight of them. An Israeli army officer said a bomb had previously gone off inside a building and an Israeli tank had then fired a shell at a Palestinian carrying a rocket-launcher. Reporters Without Borders asked the army to investigate but got no reply.

[Shaktimaan]

17. It doesn't matter who they were WORKING for.

I didn't mean that they were at higher risk because of their employer but because they themselves were Palestinian. (And it looks like the majority of them have been.) Since the IDF is actively fighting the Palestinans it complicates the possible motives significantly. Were they targeted for being press? Or for being Palestinian? Or were they not targeted at all, in which case it may imply that the IDF is just less careful around Palestinian journos. There's a whole host of possible questions to ask about it. I have no idea what the answer is.

But you have to admit that it is significant on some level that so many of the press that've been hurt in idf altercations have been palestinian.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Then why bring it up in the first place?

And this might come as a shock but the IDF isn't supposed to be actively fighting Palestinian civilians, and that includes journalists...

[Shaktimaan]

24. I didn't.

I brought up their nationality, not their employer. You just misunderstood me.

And this might come as a shock but the IDF isn't supposed to be actively fighting Palestinian civilians, and that includes journalists...

I think you're missing the point here. The question has nothing to do with that. It is whether or not Israel is making a practice of actively targeting press, specifically. Not whether any soldiers are guilty of misdeeds. They are seperate issues.

[Violet_Crumble]

26. And their nationality shouldn't matter...

Also, I'm not missing the point. You said: 'Since the IDF is actively fighting the Palestinans it complicates the possible motives significantly.'

[Shaktimaan]

29. so what are you saying...

That you don't think that being Palestinian had any bearing on the events at hand in these examples of journalists being hurt? Is it just a coincidence that such a large percentage seem to be Palestinian?

[Englander]

12. I was just going to ask for the link to that info -

but I've just found it, & am not in the least bit surprised that the link wasn't produced;

COMMUNIQUE: 11 November 2002

Palestinian Intimidation of the Press

As the Palestinian Authority stifles free press, Israel is fighting the media war on an uneven battlefield.

by Lenny Ben-David

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/reports/Palestinian_Intimidation_of_the_Press.asp

[Shaktimaan]

14. why is that?

[Violet_Crumble]

16. The link should have told you...

Honest Reporting....

[Shaktimaan]

18. Um. You're going to have to help me out here.

Why would I be ashamed to link to that? Are they a dishonest organization? They're strongly pro-Israel but I wouldn't take that to mean that this specific info is false.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. It's not exactly a credible source...

Anyone who isn't a partisan should have issues with relying on such a biased site....

[Shaktimaan]

23. I go to biased sites on both sides as well as non-partisan sources.

In my experience biased sites seldom lie outright. Rather they give a distorted picture by leaving out data that doesn't fit their view and then draw dishonest conclusions from it. In this case I was only interested in some percentages and a pull-quote from AI. There's plenty of other source material out there, this was just conveniently on a single page.

But if you look at what I included, I certainly didn't take pains to edit out any of the language that obviously links it to a one-sided site. So despite what you think I wasn't trying to hide anything.

Incidentally, criticizing my source is fine, if anything I sourced was incorrect. But to dis my source and not any of the actual data is pretty pointless. Are you actually taking issue with the data?

[Violet_Crumble]

25. Where did I say I thought you were trying to hide something?

I didn't. All I did was answer the question you asked, as you seemed unaware that Honest Reporting is a very biased site. Personally I'd have taken the time to post the material from a variety of credible sources...

[Shaktimaan]

31. Does it really matter

considering that the data itself is from credible sources?

Is this really an issue worth going into if you aren't even questioning the accuracy of what I posted?

[Englander]

28. So, why wasn't the link there in the 1st place?

And, nobody mentioned anything about any need to be ashamed about using the site, or of the info
being false, so isn't it incredibly disingenous to try & fabricate those false claims?

Plus, "pro-Israel" in this instance means "blatant propagandists".

[Englander]

27. Isn't that self-evident?

Y'know, because the link wasn't provided in the 1st place?

[Shaktimaan]

30. OK. Great.

Um. Thanks for sharing.