Another Hoax Against Israel

[boyntonstu]

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2011/01/tear-gas-death-was-hoax.html

They are without shame, and they didn't give up without a real fight:
That is, with regard to the accusation by the PA that Israel had
"killed" Jawaher Abu Rahma with tear gas in the course of the
demonstration at the fence at Bil'in a little over a week ago.

" ...* Abu Rahma arrived at the hospital at 15:20 on Friday - but her lab report is dated/timed 14:45, 35 minutes earlier!

* There is no emergency room report for her arrival.

* The reason for death given was "Inhaling gas from Israeli soldiers according to family."

10 days prior to her death she was in that hospital, taking medication for leukemia. There is evidence that she was in the hospital in the weeks prior as well, which indicates that she had a chronic disease.

Never has anyone died from tear gas in five years of riots in Bil'in."....

Do you remember that photo of the father protecting his 12 year old son before the Israelis supposedly killed him?

Another proven hoax.

Can anyone show a similar hoax invented by Israel?

 

[Thunder]

 

[Mycroft]

Here are a couple more articles about the event that may be more reliable than a blog.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/world/middleeast/05mideast.html?_r=1&ref=middleeast

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4010391,00.html

 

[lionking]

Brilliant response. If others responded to your repetitive and boring threads in this way, you would scream blue murder.

 

[Thunder]

Brilliant response. If others responded to your repetitive and boring threads in this way, you would scream blue murder.

I urge...even beg you to test this "theory".

 

[Puppycow]

Leukemia sounds more plausible than tear gas.

From the NY Times:

Her mother said she and her daughter, Jawaher Abu Rahmah, were watching the protest from a distance when a cloud of tear gas wafted their way, causing her daughter to collapse.

Well, why didn't the mother collapse too? Why didn't anyone else closer to the source?

 

[Puppycow]

The family refused an autopsy on religious grounds.

Fine. Just don't ask us to believe your claims then.

 

[boyntonstu]

"According to the medical report, there was no clear cause of death, the burial was undertaken via an accelerated procedure, and no post-mortem was performed.
What are the facts?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4008561,00.html

"The information also reveals that Abu-Rahma was administered an unusual quantity of drugs, used to offer treatment against poisoning, drug overdose, or leukemia. Moreover, her family's report that she was "hurt by Israeli gas" was not corroborated by any other source. "

In the U.S. an autopsy is required if foul play is suspected.

Remember this:

An open and shut case of Israeli brutality?

Videos and photos to prove it, etc.

As a direct result of this photo:


The footage of the father and son acquired what one writer called the power of a battle flag. For the Palestinians, it confirmed their view of the apparently limitless nature of Israel's brutality toward them, while for sections of the Israeli and Jewish communities the allegations were a modern blood libel, the ancient antisemitic association of Jews with child sacrifice. The scene was evoked in other deaths. It was blamed for the October 2000 lynching of two Israeli army reservists in Ramallah, and was seen in the background when Daniel Pearl, a Jewish-American journalist, was beheaded by al-Qaeda in 2002.[6] James Fallows writes that no version of the truth about the footage will ever emerge that all sides consider believable. Charles Enderlin has called it a cultural prism, its viewers seeing what they want to see.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_al-Durrah_incident


But not so fast.

5 years later:

"In the following months and years, several commentators questioned the accuracy of France 2's report. An IDF investigation in October 2000 concluded the IDF had probably not shot the al-Durrahs.[4] Three senior French journalists who saw the raw footage in 2004 said it was not clear from the footage alone that the boy had died, and that France 2 cut a final few seconds in which he appeared to lift his hand from his face. France 2's news editor said in 2005 that no one could say for sure who fired the shots"

 

[ddt]

"According to the medical report, there was no clear cause of death, the burial was undertaken via an accelerated procedure, and no post-mortem was performed.
What are the facts?

One fact is for certain: the IDF are a bunch of liars. Let Gideon Levy summarize it for you:

The IDF left little that it did not disseminate about poor Jawaher. It was said that she died at home in peace, and not in hospital. Oops, it was proved that she died in hospital. When the IDF learned that this trick did not succeed, it came up with other stories, a bag full of lies. Jawaher was not at the demonstration. There are no photos of her. She was there, observing from about 100 meters, and was choked by the smoke.

Another lie from the bag of the IDF: Jawaher had cancer, not just any cancer, but leukemia. She stood at the demonstration and suddenly collapsed and died of leukemia.

That's at least three different stories which are all contradictory to each other. So the IDF is at least a two-time liar in this case. Why not a three-time liar?

"The information also reveals that Abu-Rahma was administered an unusual quantity of drugs, used to offer treatment against poisoning, drug overdose, or leukemia. Moreover, her family's report that she was "hurt by Israeli gas" was not corroborated by any other source. "

No really? From another Ynet article:

"I received the patient at the entrance to the road that runs parallel to the fence, while the protest was going on. She was partially conscious and answered questions. She said she was choking from the gas, and I immediately rushed her to the hospital," said Saher Basharet, the ambulance driver that evacuated Jawaher.

and

Dr. Muhammad Iyda, who heads the Ramallah medical center where Abu Rahma was treated, said that in complete contradiction to IDF findings, the woman died from the tear gas sprayed by the soldiers, and not due to a prior illness as claimed by the military.

and from another Ynet article:

However, far Left activist Yonatan Pollack, who attended the rally in question, dismissed the army's claims.

"I saw that Jahawer took an active role in the protest," he told Ynet, while presenting his update on the incident in his Twitter account.

Enough eyewitnesses for you?

An open and shut case of Israeli brutality?

Let's see. First of all, the wall at Bil'in separates the village from half of the surrounding land. Then the Supreme Court ordered the wall to be redirected, which didn't happen. Then just look at the wiki page for the list of injured and dead - the IDF are not beneath using the gas canisters themselves as lethal projectiles. Lastly, we've established already that the IDF are a bunch of lying bastards in this case, spinning tall tales to deny their responsibility. Really, who should I believe?

 

[Mycroft]

...Really, who should I believe?

Your prejudices against the IDF aside, the truth is people don't normally die of teargas, but people do normally die of leukemia. If you think it's more likely to have happened the other way, well, that is your opinion.

As far as witnesses, I bet if the right person were asked any number of witnesses could have been found.

This video is very educational

http://www.seconddraft.org/index.ph...:according-to-palestinians-sources&Itemid=159

 

[ddt]

Your prejudices against the IDF aside,

I note you don't react about the various contradictory spins the IDF has already given on this incident.

the truth is people don't normally die of teargas,

But they can die of teargas, it has happened before, specifically in Israel/OT, and the IDF uses it in quite big quantities at the weekly demonstrations at Bil'in.

but people do normally die of leukemia.

Any evidence Jawaher suffered from leukemia? I haven't seen that yet.

This video is very educational

http://www.seconddraft.org/index.ph...:according-to-palestinians-sources&Itemid=159

It's not the first time I've heard of Pallywood. It's certainly also not the first time you've heard the IDF lying about a (lethal) incident. I don't keep statistics which side is better at "spin", but the evidence I've seen thus far in this case brings me solidly on the side I advocated before.

 

[Doctor Evil]

But they can die of teargas, it has happened before, specifically in Israel/OT.

I never heard of a case. Link?

 

[ddt]

I never heard of a case. Link?

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/049/1991/en/5835f346-ee39-11dd-99b6-630c5239b672/mde150491991en.html

Amnesty International finds such background sufficient to warrant the reporting of deaths following alleged misuse of tear-gas, and to call for adequate investigation of this issue, even in the absence of conclusive medical evidence to prove or disprove the extent to which these deaths were caused by tear-gas inhalation. In June 1988 it issued a report outlining its concerns on the matter.
<snip>
On 29 September 1988 the Israeli Chief of the General Staff reportedly acknowledged in an interview with Israel Radio that people had died as a result of the misuse of tear-gas. He was quoted by The Jerusalem Post as having said: "In very isolated incidents it happens that people died of plastic bullets but that happened also, by the way, from rubber bullets and even by those who inhaled gas." Earlier that month the IDF had issued new orders to soldiers not to use tear-gas in confined spaces, thus acknowledging grounds for concern in its use.

 

[boyntonstu]

Your prejudices against the IDF aside, the truth is people don't normally die of teargas, but people do normally die of leukemia. If you think it's more likely to have happened the other way, well, that is your opinion.

As far as witnesses, I bet if the right person were asked any number of witnesses could have been found.

This video is very educational

http://www.seconddraft.org/index.ph...:according-to-palestinians-sources&Itemid=159

PALLYWOOD - Great educational video by 60 Minutes.


If you are not convinced that French Channel 2 is slightly prejudiced after viewing the dead man walk, you must also believe in the Tooth Fairy.

 

[Doctor Evil]

The amnesty report can not point to any specific case of a person dying from tear gas. Its conclusions seem to be based on the manufacturers warning, which states that using the gas in confined spaces may be dangerous, and a citation from an interview of the IDF commander, which mostly emphasizes other non-lethal weapons such as plastic bullets. I should point out that the interview also refer to the use of gas in confined areas.

Now, I would not be surprised if a very high dose of tear gas in a closed space may be a serious health risk and even lead to death, though I still do not know of any clear case where this has occurred. But, and this is an important point, this is irrelevant for this case, where Abu-Rahma was in an open space, roughly 150 meters away from the area which was targeted by tear gas. Under those conditions tear gas is non-lethal.

It is still possible that she had some severe underlying condition, and the gas has tipped her over the edge. This is impossible to know without releasing her full medical file. But this does not mean that there was improper use of tear gas in this incident.

 

[ddt]

The amnesty report can not point to any specific case of a person dying from tear gas. Its conclusions seem to be based on the manufacturers warning, which states that using the gas in confined spaces may be dangerous, and a citation from an interview of the IDF commander, which mostly emphasizes other non-lethal weapons such as plastic bullets. I should point out that the interview also refer to the use of gas in confined areas.

The original report (which is not online but is extensively referred to online) mentions 40 deaths in 1988 after the use of tear gas. There are no conclusive cases, but the quote from the IDF officer sounds clearly like an admission.

Now, I would not be surprised if a very high dose of tear gas in a closed space may be a serious health risk and even lead to death, though I still do not know of any clear case where this has occurred. But, and this is an important point, this is irrelevant for this case, where Abu-Rahma was in an open space, roughly 150 meters away from the area which was targeted by tear gas. Under those conditions tear gas is non-lethal.

A Haaretz article mentions a 2004 IDF report on the dangers of CS gas:

That study, based on animal experiments, concluded that to kill a person, you would need a dose 800 to 5,600 times larger than the quantities used to disperse demonstrations.

Nevertheless, it added, a high concentration of the gas in a given location could cause serious or even lethal harm, and therefore, the gas cannot be considered innocuous.

Nevertheless, the IDF has indeed begun to increase the concentrations:

Over the last year the IDF has begun using a tear gas grenade launcher in Bil’in, the Ringo, that allows them to shoot six canisters at once into the same place, creating a thick cloud of gas. The Palestinians say Abu Rahmah was caught in such a cloud.

Another Haaretz article has eyewitnesses saying gas came her way:

"But the gas reached us. She was about half a meter from me. There was a lot of gas and I covered my eyes. I didn't see her until Ilham called to me, saying 'Come quickly, help me lift Jawaher.' She managed to call out, 'Call Samir [her brother] to take me to hospital. I'm going to die,'" Aslam said.

It is still possible that she had some severe underlying condition, and the gas has tipped her over the edge. This is impossible to know without releasing her full medical file. But this does not mean that there was improper use of tear gas in this incident.

According to her brother she had:

Abu Rahmah's brother Samir said that for several weeks his sister had complained of bad headaches, mainly near one ear. He said she also had dizzy spells and problems keeping her balance and had unusual marks on her skin.

The doctor prescribed drugs for vertigo, but also ordered a CT scan. This was 10 days before the fatal protest, so I guess the CT scan was never taken.

Still, if "the gas has tipped her over the edge", it's the gas that killed her. Nobody should die from a protest, should they?

 

[Eddie Dane]

Probably died as an indirect result of too many threads with yellow exclamation marks.

Can we reserve use of that icon for more pressing matters?
I'm experiencing yellow exclamation mark inflation here.

 

[Doctor Evil]

The original report (which is not online but is extensively referred to online) mentions 40 deaths in 1988 after the use of tear gas. There are no conclusive cases, but the quote from the IDF officer sounds clearly like an admission.

I do not buy this. For two reasons. First in the whole intifada around 1100 Palestinians were killed. This averages out to 300-400 per year. There is absolutely no chance that 10% of the deaths were due to tear gas, and that there is no accompanying medical literature. (See more on that in the following.) If the numbers you gave are correct I would suspect the methodology of the report.

We next come to the Haaretz article. You bring the following quote:

That study, based on animal experiments, concluded that to kill a person, you would need a dose 800 to 5,600 times larger than the quantities used to disperse demonstrations.

This actually states that the dangerous concentrations are order of magnitudes larger than the concentration which people are exposed to. This is exactly what makes tear gas to be safe and effective agent. What do you think would happen to you if instead of one pill of Aspirin you would take 800? My point is that everything is dangerous at high enough doses and tear gas does better than many medical drugs.

You have tried to claim that the IDF is using high doses, but the new device mentioned only account for a factor of 6 or so. Furthermore, Abu-Rahma was in an open space, roughly 150 meters away from the area which was targeted by tear gas. The gas cloud could have been carried by the wind toward her, but during this time the gas concentration would be reduced by diffusion. So I see no basis to claim that she was exposed to a particularly high dose. I should point out that the demonstrators, which were exposed to a higher dose were fine.

Lets return to the article cited by Haaretz. The original can be found here, though it is in Hebrew. It covers various aspects of tear gas exposure. It says what one can expect, that tear gas can be dangerous for long exposure to high doses in closed space. But the paper does not cite any known death attributed to tear gas. I would have expected such citations in a review on the subject, if this was a known phenomena. In particular if 40 Palestinians were killed by tear gas in 1988 alone, as you claimed.

Still, if "the gas has tipped her over the edge", it's the gas that killed her. Nobody should die from a protest, should they?

This is an appeal to emotion. Of course nobody should die in a protest, but this puts responsibilities on both sides. Once the protest becomes violent, there is a risk of injury and death. Then you should look at effective ways to disperse a demonstration, and it seems to me that tear gas is one of the safest and effective alternatives around. By this I mean that other tools may cause more injury and death? Wouldn't that be bad? (See - I can also appeal to emotion.)

 

[PhantomWolf]

This is an appeal to emotion. Of course nobody should die in a protest, but this puts responsibilities on both sides. Once the protest becomes violent, there is a risk of injury and death. Then you should look at effective ways to disperse a demonstration, and it seems to me that tear gas is one of the safest and effective alternatives around. By this I mean that other tools may cause more injury and death? Wouldn't that be bad? (See - I can also appeal to emotion.)

Sorry, since tasers, bean bags, rubber bullets, pepper spray, and now tear gas can all be lethal, the only permissable way to disperse protesters is by throwing pillows at them.

 

[Skeptic]

Sorry, since tasers, bean bags, rubber bullets, pepper spray, and now tear gas can all be lethal, the only permissable way to disperse protesters is by throwing pillows at them.

If Israel did just that, human rights watch would complain the pillows are of sub-standard softness and dirty, no doubt an evil zionist plot.