What's new

Pallywood: Debunking Palestinean Lies

Elder of Ziyon found a particularly instructive example of "Pallywood" out of Radio Netherlands last week, and reports on the considerable effort to debunk it:

A reader emailed me about a CBC radio program (originally from Radio Netherlands, link here) he heard recently about Ahmed Masoud, a British writer and playwright who was born in Gaza.

During the program, Masoud told this story that he had written for The Guardian last year:


I had a very happy childhood in a very large family, with five sisters and six brothers. I'm right in the middle, which is a good place to be. But we lived in one of the worst places on Earth – the Gaza Strip in Palestine – and when I was six, in 1987, the first intifada started.
Ahmed-Masoud-005.jpg

...Despite everything going on outside I had a happy childhood. But all this changed when I was 17.

One day I came home from school and turned on the TV. There was a programme about Palestinian refugees and how their families were fragmented because of the troubles, and it talked about how children and babies were mixed up in hospitals.

I looked at my mother and she was electrified – her mouth was open, her eyes were staring and she looked like a ghost. I knew there was something she wasn't telling me. My dad, too, was staring at the screen. I could see that behind his glasses there was a tear coming down. I hadn't seen my dad cry before, and to see his tears falling down his cheek was terrifying to me.

Then he wiped his eyes and held my hand, and my mum's hand, and he started telling the story about what happened when I was born.

At the time, the hospital was being raided and I was evacuated to a special care unit before my mum had even seen me. My dad heard news that the hospital was being bombed and went straight there. When he arrived he was told the room and cot number where he could find me. He ran as fast as he could, but when he got there, he found not one but two babies in the cot. He didn't know which one was his – the one on the left or the one on the right. There was no time to make a decision. He had to take one. He wondered whether the number they had given him was a mistake, but when he looked around all the other cots were crammed with babies too. And he had to make that decision. So he picked me up. Even now, if you ask him, he can't answer why he picked me and not the other baby.

He went back to my mum and she wrapped me up, and they ran with me through the streets back home. He didn't say anything to her until they got home. My mum just put me to her breast and began to feed me. That bond, that love, that motherly feeling was there. The more she looked at me and fed me, the more she was sure I was her son.


Wow...what a story! It is custom made for reader (and listener) sympathy. You can almost feel the heat from the explosions and smell the gunpowder, as you picture Masoud's father desperately trying to save his baby's life from the heartless Israeli air raid at the maternity ward, and the parents' desperate race through the streets of Gaza - with the still recovering mother forced to flee on foot, no doubt barefooted, dodging the falling bombs and debris while tenderly protecting her newborn baby.

Only one problem: Israel didn't bomb any hospitals in Gaza when Masoud was born. It didn't have air raids until the second intifada.

This story happened six years before the first intifada, when tens of thousands of Gazans were peacefully commuting to and working in Israel. Hamas didn't exist. Thousands of Israelis lived in Gaza. More from Israel would go there weekly to buy goods cheaper than they were within the Green Line. Arabs with the proper means would travel to Israel to be treated in hospitals there.

Masoud's birthday is August 27, and I cannot find any possible actions by Israel in Gaza in 1981 or 1982 around that date. Israel was fighting in Lebanon, not Gaza, and the very few protests there were met with riot control methods, not airplanes. (In 1981, there was one highly unusual mass protest in Gaza where one protester was killed, and that was in December. Most of the protests at the time were from the PLO in the West Bank.)


This story is fiction.


Now, it is entirely possible that Masoud's father is the one who made up the story, perhaps because poor procedures in the Gaza hospital caused a possible mix-up. After all, he admits that there were two children in the same bassinet.


Or possibly Masoud himself, who has received awards for his autobiographical fiction and who co-wrote a dramatic and seemingly highly exaggerated BBC radio play link about how he escaped Gaza during Cast Lead, just made it up.


What is not at all surprising is that the media would swallow such a story without the least modicum of fact-checking.


(h/t Tom)

UPDATE: In the Radio Netherlands website, this was brought to the attention of the people who produced the radio show. Here is their response:


Ahmed Masoud’s story was part of an entire show on adoptees and their sense of family. His particular story centres on his suspicion that he was switched at birth and was raised in the “wrong” family. He then goes on to recount how after an initial period of alienation from his parents and siblings, he came to realize that it doesn’t matter whether he’s genetically related to them or not. They are his “real” family, in the end. It is expressly not about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I've found no reason to think his story is a fabrication.

As for the criticism that there were no air raids at the time of his birth, we contacted Mr. Masoud and here is an excerpt from his reply to me: “I have made my position clear to these allegations before: I never made a claim that the hospital was bombed. I mention clearly that my father heard [sic] on the news. The story is about the parent/son relationship and not the Israeli/Palestinian conflict where facts can be muddled up depending on which side of the fence you are. I hope this answers your questions.”

I'm not sure it does. We based our interview on an article in The Guardian newspaper Saturday 19 March 2011. Mr. Masoud describes how as a teenager he’d come home from school. His parents were crying as they watched a TV program about children who were mixed up at birth in the hospital. Mr. Masoud describes his father at that moment: “Then he wiped his eyes and held my hand, and my mum's hand, and he started telling the story about what happened when I was born. At the time, the hospital was being raided and I was evacuated to a special care unit before my mum had even seen me. My dad heard news that the hospital was being bombed and went straight there…”

The passage is ambiguous. On the one hand, it implies that the raid is a matter of fact. On the other, it mentions that the raid was his father’s perception, one based on his hearing a news report. So was the raid real or not? Here is part of Mr. Masoud’s response: “As you can read from the article, I never make the allegation of the hospital being bombed which seems to be the focus of the complaints. Raided doesn't mean bombed.”

I’ve tried to verify independently if there were any Israeli raids of any sort on hospitals in Gaza in the early 1980s. This much we know: Israel occupied the Gaza Strip and had a military presence there. The Lebanon war was on. In 1981, Israel bombed Iran. Israeli fighter jets flew low over Gaza. Things were extremely tense, so it’s understandable why Mr. Masoud’s father could believe that a hospital had been raided. But to my mind, Mr. Masoud’s use of the term “raid” is misleading: it’s treated more like a background fact rather than a perception or misperception. We’ve therefore altered the language describing his story on our website.


Here is where Radio Netherlands falls short. Now that we know that Israel hadn't dropped any bombs on Gaza in 1981, or indeed at any time since 1967, the idea that the father immediately believed that a hospital (!) was being bombed is fantastic enough. But to go beyond that and say that he ran to the hospital, presumably saw that the rumor was completely unfounded, and still chose a nearly random baby to take in his rush is beyond belief. Moreover, that he would then take his still recovering wife to flee, on foot, away from a completely safe hospital goes way beyond plausibility, no matter how sympathetic you want to be with the father.

CAMERA found a similar story about a fictional Israeli raid -this one a tank attack in 1948 - that was reported in the media in 1998 as background to a different story. In that story as well, the main point of the story wasn't the fictional raid, it was a different topic entirely, where Israeli disregard of the lives of civilians is taken to be understood, retroactively, in the context of the modern revisionist narrative.

And we've seen this happen a lot - for example, Mahmoud Abbas offhandedly describing his family's eviction from Safed, when in fact they never saw an Jewish soldier. It is a subtle rewrite of history that is meant to cast Palestinian Arabs as eternal victims of Jewish aggression rather than as people who were actively involved in the events at the time. And when innocent sounding details like these are placed as background facts in writings on different themes, they are generally believed by the reader subconsciously, far more effectively than if it was a straight narrative of events where the reader is on guard for explicit bias.

This is why this is a big deal, and why the lies of a playwright who is practiced in creating drama need to be called out.


(h/t The Dude)
 
. .
Everyone needs to read this book, if only to see how and why the Arabs succeed at media manipulation:
51rKIwD20FL.jpg

David and Goliath: The explosive inside story of media bias in the Israel-Palestine conflict

Excerpt:

“Hezbollah has been tightly controlling the news coverage and is not permitting photographers free access to these areas,” a veteran newsman told me. “Instead, photographers were brought in by bus and Hezbollah PR reps took them to various locations where Arab actors were pre-positioned.” This same wailing woman, he told me, was used on at least four separate occasions. Of course, the average media consumer has no idea about any of this behind-the-scenes manipulation. Who has the time and inclination to pour over every photo, looking for subtle alterations and analyzing the back story? That unscrutinizing consumption is exactly what Arab propagandists are counting on. Hassan Ezzieddine, head of the Hezbollah media relations department, explained: “We believe that the media have an important role in the conflict with the Israeli enemy, as important as the military wing.”[875]


Simmons, Shraga (2012-02-11). David & Goliath: The explosive inside story of media bias in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Kindle Locations 2936-2943). Emesphere Prod.. Kindle Edition.
 
. .
^^^^^
Google search says not found on CNN but on Facebook site, "Islam is the Religion of Peace". No links, no source. Context? Photoshop? Tatoo? Where's the rest of the picture?

David and Goliath is a long book with many examples, all properly referenced. The above post serves as a good example of "Pallywood".
 
.
^^^^^
Google search says not found on CNN but on Facebook site, "Islam is the Religion of Peace". No links, no source. Context? Photoshop? Tatoo? Where's the rest of the picture?

David and Goliath is a long book with many examples, all properly referenced. The above post serves as a good example of "Pallywood".

u do know that websites can be edited?
its a classical example of "JEWLLYWOOD"

its jut tat jewllywood is better than pollywood, tats why it is rear finding.
 
.
u do know that websites can be edited?
its a classical example of "JEWLLYWOOD"
So to keep the mind-set you treasure all evidence must be part of a larger conspiracy. Thus your rant can be classed as either paranoid delusion or lying manipulation much more easily than it can be considered as something truthful.
 
.
Another quote from the book:

The old Chinese proverb says, “A picture is worth a thousand words.” That applied back in the days before Photoshop. In the Middle East today, with sophisticated multi-media editing tools and the ever-present specter of fraud, a picture is worth a thousand weapons.[896]

Simmons, Shraga (2012-02-11). David & Goliath: The explosive inside story of media bias in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Kindle Locations 3002-3004). Emesphere Prod.. Kindle Edition.
 
.
Another excerpt:

Pallywood

The PR bonanza sparked by Muhammad al-Dura gave birth to Pallywood, a cottage industry dedicated to producing Palestinian propaganda films. When Palestinian officials alleged that Israel was using radioactive uranium and nerve gas against civilians,[952] official PA television broadcast fake “news footage” of “victims” plagued by vomiting and convulsions.[953] Another clip from state-run Palestinian TV used actors to depict Israeli soldiers “raping and murdering” a Palestinian girl in front of her horrified parents.[954]

When Mohammed Bakri set out to make his documentary film Jenin, Jenin – “to tell the Palestinian truth about the Battle of Jenin” – he created the illusion of “atrocities” by intersplicing footage of Israeli tanks with pictures of Palestinian children and “eyewitness testimony” describing “war crimes.” When questioned about one manipulative scene that suggested Israeli troops had run over Arab civilians, Bakri admitted to constructing the footage as an “artistic choice.”[955] This cinematic farce – rather than being rejected by film critics – was awarded Best Film at the Carthage International Film Festival, and received the International Prize for Mediterranean Documentary Filmmaking and Reporting.

On another occasion, when the Palestinian PR plan called for some footage of dead bodies, Arab actors staged a “funeral” for unsuspecting journalists. This Pallywood production – secretly videotaped by an Israeli drone – shows a man walking over to a stretcher, lying down, being wrapped in a shroud, and being carried in the “funeral procession.” When the “dead body” falls off the stretcher, he stands up and climbs back on. And when the “corpse” is dropped a second time, he stomps off angrily – apparently regarding his own funeral as too dangerous to his health.[956]

When confronted with this hoax, the Palestinian Human Rights Society quickly invented an alibi: “A Palestinian producer was shooting a film at the same site” where the journalists just happened to be. “What was perceived as a staged ‘burial’ was actually acting for a film.”[957]

That excuse was so laughable that Palestinians had to revert to their old standby: blame Israel. “What the footage actually shows is a group of children playing ‘funeral’ near the cemetery,” the Palestinian Human Rights Society said. “It is not uncommon... to witness Palestinian children playing a game where they pretend they have been killed. It is part of a phenomenon raising fears among child experts that a generation in the Palestinian territories has suffered serious psychological damage from Israeli violence directed against the Palestinian civilian population.”[958]

Putting aside the psycho-babble, here’s what really happened: This staged event is part of a precise formula – death, destruction and children – guaranteed to get the most airtime on the evening news. That’s why Palestinian PR operatives are quick to exploit an event, sensationalize it, and construct an anti-Israel scenario that caused it all. They’re not concerned about getting caught, because by the time Israel is able to gather its wits and unravel the truth, the damage has already been done. And they know that Western journalists – no matter how many times they’ve been burned before – can always be counted on to promote the narrative of “Israeli aggressors.”


Simmons, Shraga (2012-02-11). David & Goliath: The explosive inside story of media bias in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Kindle Locations 3191-3218). Emesphere Prod.. Kindle Edition.

So this is what Israel is fighting against: Palestinians generate video footage of “Israeli atrocities,” then obscure the evidence to ensure that Palestinian “eyewitnesses” remain as the only source of information. The media then pronounces Israel guilty until proven innocent. Gaza Beach, al-Dura, Jenin, Tuvia Grossman (“the photo that started it all”) all fit the pattern. By the time Israel can gather the facts, the party is over. With today’s news so image-driven – and Palestinian stringers providing the majority of information and images – Palestinians are holding a lot of cards. These iconic images create a “record of events” that forms the historical narrative for generations to come.

Simmons, Shraga (2012-02-11). David & Goliath: The explosive inside story of media bias in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Kindle Locations 3290-3295). Emesphere Prod.. Kindle Edition.
 
. .
yup its all bunch of crap made up Palestanians. Just like the Turks made stuff about the attack on an unarmed boat.
 
.
Israellycool.png

Latest Example Of Pro-Palestinian Fauxtography

Aussie Dave | May 06, 2013 | 10 comments

A number of anti-Israel sites have posted the following photo as an example of the humanity of palestinians.

boston-boys-550x412.jpg

For example, Students for Justice in Palestine -UNSW - which I mentioned in this post last week, posted the following on their Facebook page:

boston-post.jpg

It is also included in this blog post criticizing “Zionists” for posting photos and video purportedly of palestinians celebrating after the Boston Bombings, but which had nothing to do with it.

geller-ilk-550x408.jpg

However, the problem (and irony) is that the evidence suggests the two boys are from Iraq, not the palestinian territories!

The photo seems to have appeared online first on the America Loves Iraq Facebook page, a day after the bombings.

The following comment thread, directly on topic, appears beneath the photo.


comment11.jpg

comment2.jpg


The boys are from Iraq. Those sites claiming they are palestinian either know the children are from Iraq or do not know where they are from. Either way, they are being patently dishonest.

So there you have it, folks. Yet another example of the anti-Israel crowd pulling out all stops to garner sympathy for their cause.

Update: The MPT in the boys’ banner stands for Muslim Peacemaker Teams (hat tip: Judge Dan):

The Muslim Peacemaker Teams (MPT) is an Iraq-registered nonprofit organization. MPT began in January of 2005 in response to the violence that had erupted in Iraq since the US-led invasion in 2003. MPT has no political ambition or religious agenda, though it was inspired by the Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT), which have been active in Iraq since 2002. MPT is located in Najaf, Iraq and operates as partner organization to IARP, located in Minneapolis, USA.​

 
.
logo_new_eng.png

May 20, 2013

The Palestinian industry of lies
133572415724298706a_b.jpg

Dror Eydar

The Muhammad al-Dura affair has been one of the cornerstones of a lengthy delegitimization campaign against Israel, whose sole purpose is to portray Israel as a nation that kills children and perpetrates genocide. Once this premise has been accepted, at least by some among the Western elite and the international media, acts of terror against Israel have been legitimized all the more forcefully.

Just look at how mundane the reports of daily stoning attacks across Judea and Samaria have become. The legitimization of such acts of terror, even by some Israelis, has somehow been accepted with relative calm. After all, every action is legitimate when you are going up against the country that, according to every news network worldwide, is responsible for al-Dura's murder.

The official report exonerating Israeli security forces in this case is too soft and it comes too late, but it is better than the helplessness demonstrated by past Israeli government vis-à-vis the Palestinian industry of lies ("Pallywood").

Some journalists among us claimed that the attempts to debunk the reports saying that al-Dura was killed by IDF fire were meant to distract from the debate surrounding the deaths of 850 Palestinian children. Nothing can be further from the truth! If anything, this case proves that the deaths of other children should also be investigated. Every report by these liars should be taken with a grain of salt. This is a culture that perceives lying as a legitimate measure in its fight against the Yahud -- the Jew.

Former Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat pointed the way, when he said "We will abide by the Oslo Accords just like the Prophet Muhammad kept the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah," referring to the treaty which represented a defeat to the Muslims, but that Muhammad presented to his followers as a victory.

The Internet is overflowing with videos showing how the media is indiscriminately gobbling up the Palestinian industry's productions. The media prefers to see Israel as "the bad guy" and to justify the Palestinians, as part of the West's capitulation to the creeping occupation by Islamofascism.

It is important to remember that the al-Dura lie was spread by a Jewish man, a Zionist who immigrated to Israel and whose children served in the military. This is not the first time that useful idiots can be found in historical junctions, but this is not a case of naivety, but a case of moral corruption that does not distinguish between good and evil. The al-Dura affair, like the Goldstone Report on Operation Cast Lead, fed and justified the terror inflicted on Israeli civilians.

In light of these clear findings, which have now been made official, we must ask why some journalists insisted on depicting the investigators in this case as "weird" and "delusional." Here is a possible answer: in April 2001, Israeli author Ronit Matalon came back from a visit to Gaza, called up a friend in B'Tselem and told him, appalled, how Palestinians were sending their children to face off with Israeli soldiers. He said, "Yes, but don't write that. It's bad for the cause."
 
.
cif-watch-978x288-2-copy.jpg


May 19, 2013

A blood libel is born: Fisking the Guardian’s original report about Mohammed Al Durah


Today, an Israeli Government Review Committee published a long-awaited report on the Mohammed Al Durah incident, determining that the Palestinian boy was in fact not harmed by Israeli forces and did not die in the exchange of fire on September 30, 2000 at the Netzarim Junction in Gaza.

The Israeli committee arrived at the conclusion which had been reached by other serious observers who have studied the incident (and its tragic consequences) over the years: The incident was in all likelihood a hoax.

The report was released just three days before a French court is to rule on a defamation case involving the producer who broke the story for France 2, Charles Enderlin, and the French media analyst who accused Enderlin of fabricating the story, Philippe Karsenty. (You can learn more about the background, evidence, and consequences of the Al Durah incident here.)

The following is my fisking of the original report in the Guardian on the Al Durah incident, written by Suzanne Goldenberg and published on Oct. 3, 2000 and titled ‘Making of a martyr’:

goldberg.jpg

Suzanne Goldenberg begins her Oct. 3, 2000 Guardian account of an incident which had taken place three days earlier, near the Netzarim Junction in Gaza, ‘Making of a martyr’, thus:

“A circle of 15 bullet holes on a cinder block wall, and a smear of darkening blood. That is what marks the spot where a terrified 12-year-old boy spent his final moments, cowering in his father’s arms, before he was hit by a final shot to the stomach, and slumped over, dead. Those last minutes in the life of Mohammed al-Durrah, captured in sickening detail by a Palestinian cameraman working for French TV, have taken on a power of their own. His death, aired around the world on Saturday night, has become the single searing image of these days of bloody rioting.”​

Goldenberg, as with nearly every journalist who reported on the incident, was relying entirely on a one minute, deceptively edited, France 2 video, as well as uncorroborated Palestinian “eyewitness” accounts.

While the the video purported to show the boy’s final moments – filmed by stringer named Talal Abu Rama, and which was cut by France 2 producer Charles Enderlin – the last few seconds showed a clearly alive boy lifting his hands and peeking out through his fingers and then slowly putting his arm down.


There is no video or still photos – despite the numerous journalists at the scene – of the boy being carried away in a stretcher, or being loaded onto an ambulance.

Additionally, despite claims that the IDF fired on the boy and his father for 40 minutes – which somehow only managed to produce a dozen or so bullet holes in the wall and barrel – and supposedly died of a stomach wound, it evidently didn’t seem odd to Goldberg that there was only a “smear” of blood?

Goldenberg:

“The pictures of Mohammed’s death seemed not just to encapsulate the horror of these last five days but also to have become its motor.

Though more Palestinians have been killed since Mohammed’s death – including a two-year-old yesterday – it is his image that haunts Israel. For all of the claims of the prime minister, Ehud Barak, and other officials that their soldiers only fire to protect Israeli lives, Mohammed’s death seems an irrefutable reply.”​

Here, any semblance of objective reporting is shrewn to pieces. Not only in the last sentence of this passage is Goldberg determining Israeli guilt in the boy’s death, but imputing malice to the entire army – all based on 63 seconds of video.

Goldenberg:

“By the end of the weekend the evidence was pointing to a still more chilling conclusion: that the 12-year-old boy and his father were deliberately targeted by Israeli soldiers.”​

The blood libel begins.

Goldenberg has now established – a mere four days following the incident – that the 12-year-old Palestinian child was deliberately targeted by Israeli soldiers.

“Caught in a burst of firing, the pair sought shelter behind a concrete water butt, about 15 yards to the east of the Palestinian post, diagonally opposite the Israeli position. The father gestured frantically towards the Israelis, as if pleading with them to stop firing. They did not.

They were cleaning the area. Of course they saw the father,” says Talal Abu-Rama, the camera man who watched the horror unfold. “They were aiming at the boy, and that is what surprised me, yes, because they were shooting at him, not only one time, but many times.”​

Goldenberg takes the hideous claim that the IDF decided to fire mercilessly at a young boy until he was dead at face value, without even a hint of journalistic skepticism. It didn’t occur to the Guardian journalist to ask why, if the the camera man was filming for 40 minutes, there is no footage of the IDF shooting at the boy and his father, no footage of the Israeli position – and, thus, no evidence even demonstrating where the fire was coming from.

Goldenberg:

“The result of that salvo is visible on the cinderblock wall. Aside from the circle of bullet holes – most of them below waist level – the expanse of wall is largely unscarred. This appeared to suggest that the Israeli fire was targeted at the father and son.”

The ballistic tests had proved that the three bullets shown in the filmed sequence by Abu Rahma came from the Palestinian side and not from the Israelis. The bullets kicked up dust in a way that could not come from a 30-degree angle of a bullet shot against the wall behind the barrel. Furthermore, given the protection provided by the barrel, it would have been nearly impossible for the Israelis to have hit either father or son once, yet alone over a dozen times.

Goldenberg:

“Inevitably, the Israeli army version of Mohammed’s death is rather different.”​

“Inevitably”? You can see her eyes rolling. Her mind was made up. Judgement was passed.

Goldenberg:

“Although the army expressed regret about the boy’s death, it said the soldiers in their armoured post had been under fire.”

The incident occurred on the Jewish New Year, so it took a few days for a proper investigation to get under way.

However, Nahum Shahaf, an Israeli physicist, later conducted a thorough investigation and concluded that the killing of Muhammad al-Durah was staged.

Goldenberg:

“Abu Rameh also believes it unlikely that the Israeli fire could have been directed further down the road from the water butt where the al-Durrahs sought shelter. “In that whole area, there was nobody except me, the boy and his father,” the camera man says.

“Whatever the truth about the circumstances surrounding his death, Mohammed’s terrified face has now entered the grim gallery of images that have come to symbolise – and often to powerfully influence – a conflict.

“Nothing good will come of this. We will have many more martyrs, and nothing will change.”"

The image had a spectacular effect, inflaming Palestinian-and Israeli Arab-violence and justifying the Intifada and the insidious use of suicide bombings, to the West.

There was a mass demonstration in Paris on Oct. 6, 2000. There were large banners, including one indicating that a Star of David = a swastika = a picture of the father and the son behind the barrel, with ‘They kill children too‘ written over it. The crowd shouted ‘Death to the Jews’ and ‘Death to Israel’ for the first time since the Holocaust.”

place-de-la-republique-cropped.jpg

Goldenberg’s protagonist in the story, Abu-Rama, was correct about one thing: Nothing good would come of this media manufactured event, for Israel, Jews or the West.

Related articles
  • The Guardian’s lethal narrative about snipers who murder innocent children (cifwatch.com)
  • One more devastating blow against propagandists still advancing the Al Durah hoax (cifwatch.com)
  • Backgrounder on Mohammed Al Durah (CAMERA)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Poor besieged Gazans can pay thrice more for junk food than a majority of Israelis can for their daily food. Wow..Aid dollar at work..I think the aid goes long way to keep the conflict alive as Palestineans struggle not for their homeland but for the sustenance of hostilities to keep their bread and butter flowing. I will go a step forward to suggest their cutting off all aid will bring Pallys to negotiating table and make peace once for all.

At the time, the hospital was being raided and I was evacuated to a special care unit before my mum had even seen me. My dad heard news that the hospital was being bombed and went straight there. When he arrived he was told the room and cot number where he could find me. He ran as fast as he could, but when he got there, he found not one but two babies in the cot. He didn't know which one was his – the one on the left or the one on the right. There was no time to make a decision. He had to take one. He wondered whether the number they had given him was a mistake, but when he looked around all the other cots were crammed with babies too. And he had to make that decision. So he picked me up. Even now, if you ask him, he can't answer why he picked me and not the other baby.

He went back to my mum and she wrapped me up, and they ran with me through the streets back home. He didn't say anything to her until they got home. My mum just put me to her breast and began to feed me. That bond, that love, that motherly feeling was there. The more she looked at me and fed me, the more she was sure I was her son.

A bunch of artistic bull which smells perfectly of pallywood. These people have become so shameless they dont even bother putting an element of belief in their nonsense stories. Parentinity can be easily traced in this age of technology using DNA. Beside babies in cots are always tagged with crucial data along with the cot so to avoid mix-ups. Even if there are multiple babies in the cot, the individual tag on foot or wrist can be read. I am yet to see a baby cot big enough to accommodate two babies without cramming them in a hazardous manner.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom