| Submit your comments on this article |
| Israel-Palestine-Jordan |
| Two Israeli Journalists Attacked By Palestinian Mob |
| 2014-05-17 |
| [Ynet] Paleostinian security forces extricate news hound, photographer from Beitunia after masked Paleostinian men assault them. Two Israeli journalists had to be extricated by the Paleostinian security forces in Beitunia on Friday after they were attacked by a Paleostinian mob. Avi Issacharoff, who writes for Hebrew news site Walla and English news site Times of Israel, was one of the journalists attacked. "Was attacked and beaten by Paleostinian mob. Near Ramallah. Just because I'm an Israeli journalist," he wrote on his Twitter feed shortly after the incident. Issacharoff was "hit and kicked from behind" by "a mob of Paleostinian masked men," according to his first person account on the Times of Israel website. "I'm not prone to exaggeration. It was a case of life and death, and I was within moments of falling victim to the kind of lynch that saw two Israeli soldiers who strayed into Ramallah in 2000 beaten to death by a baying mob," he wrote. "I was there to report on the Nakba Day protests with a cameraman colleague from Walla News. He was some distance from me, when he was approached by several Paleostinian journalists who told him to get out," Issacharoff recounted. "I walked towards them, and told them that if they had a problem, they should be talking to me. One of the Paleostinian journalists, a young woman, then called over to a group of masked men, who swiftly surrounded me and began attacking me." Issacharoff, an experienced and well respected journalist who has been covering the Paleostinian territories for many years, said that while he has been in "no shortage of sticky situations," this incident was "totally unexpected." Following the incident, the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories Yoav Mordechai spoke to the head of the Paleostinian intelligence on the mutual interest that lies in security coordination. |
| Posted by:trailing wife |
| #6 ahhh for the day when "Journolists" were just stupid elitists seeking a higher moral ground for the sake of their sacred calling.... bahhhh they were never American FIRST. Lying treasonous fucks |
| Posted by: Frank G 2014-05-17 20:06 |
| #5 The best action is to empty the magazine in a circular motion, then with nobody else standing, leave. Do NOT apologise to the murderers. Bet the "Riots" Stop. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2014-05-17 19:55 |
| #4 Damn Pappy, just Damn. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2014-05-17 10:33 |
| #3 In the late 1980s, public television stations aired a talking head series called Ethics in America. For each show, more than a dozen prominent thinkers sat around a horseshoe-shaped table and tried to answer troubling ethical questions posed by a moderator. [An] episode was sponsored by Montclair State College in the fall of 1987. Its title was "Under Orders, Under Fire," and most of the panelists were former soldiers talking about the ethical dilemmas of their work. The moderator was Charles Ogletree, a professor at Harvard Law School, who moved from expert to expert asking increasingly difficult questions in the law school's famous Socratic style. During the first half of the show Ogletree made the soldiers squirm about ethical tangles on the battlefield. Then Ogletree turned to the two most famous members of the evening's panel.. Peter Jennings of World News Tonight and ABC, and Mike Wallace of 6o Minutes and CBS. Ogletree brought them into the same hypothetical war. He asked Jennings to imagine that he worked for a network that had been in contact with the enemy North Kosanese government. After much pleading, the North Kosanese had agreed to let Jennings and his news crew into their country, to film behind the lines and even travel with military units. Would Jennings be willing to go? Of course, Jennings replied. Any reporter would-and in real wars reporters from his network often had. But while Jennings and his crew are traveling with a North Kosanese unit, to visit the site of an alleged atrocity by American and South Kosanese troops, they unexpectedly cross the trail of a small group of American and South Kosanese soldiers. With Jennings in their midst, the northern soldiers set up a perfect ambush, which will let them gun down the Americans and Southerners, every one. What does Jennings do? Ogletree asks. Would he tell his cameramen to "Roll tape!" as the North Kosanese opened fire? What would go through his mind as he watched the North Kosanese prepare to ambush the Americans? Jennings sat silent for about fifteen seconds after Ogletree asked this question. "Well, I guess I wouldn't," he finally said. Even if it means losing the story? Ogletree asked. "Even though it would almost certainly mean losing my life," Jennings replied. "That's purely personal, and other reporters might have a different reaction." Immediately Mike Wallace spoke up. "I think some other reporters would have a different reaction," he said, obviously referring to himself. "They would regard it simply as a story they were there to cover." "I am astonished, really," at Jennings's answer, Wallace saida moment later. He turned toward Jennings and began to lecture him: "You're a reporter. Granted you're an American"-at least for purposes of the fictional example; Jennings has actually retained Canadian citizenship. "I'm a little bit at a loss to understand why, because you're an American, you would not have covered that story." Ogletree pushed Wallace. Didn't Jennings have some higher duty, either patriotic or human, to do something other than just roll film as soldiers from his own country were being shot? "No," Wallace said flatly and immediately. "You don't have a higher duty. No. No. You're a reporter!" Jennings backtracked fast. Wallace was right, he said. "I chickened out." Jennings said that he had gotten so wrapped up in the hypothetical questions that he had lost sight of his journalistic duty to remain detached. As Jennings said he agreed with Wallace, everyone else in the room seemed to regard the two of them with horror. Retired Air Force general Brent Scowcroft said it was simply wrong to stand and watch as your side was slaughtered. "What's it worth?" he asked Wallace bitterly. "It's worth thirty seconds on the evening news, as opposed to saving a platoon." Ogletree turned to Wallace. What about that? Shouldn't the reporter have said something? Wallace gave his most disarming grin, shrugged his shoulders and spread his palms wide in a "Don't ask me!" gesture, and said, "I don't know." He was mugging to the crowd in such a way that he got a big laugh-the first such moment of the discussion. Wallace paused to enjoy the crowd's reaction. Jennings, however, was all business, and was still concerned about the first answer he had given. "I wish I had made another decision," Jennings said, as if asking permission to live the last five minutes over again. A few minutes later Ogletree turned to Marine colonel George M. Connell, in full uniform, jaw muscles flexing in anger, with stress on each word, Connell looked at the TV stars and said, "I feel utter . . . contempt. " Two days after this hypothetical episode, Connell Jennings or Wallace might be back with the American forces--and could be wounded by stray fire, as combat journalists often had been before. The instant that happened he said, they wouldn't be "just journalists" any more. Then [American forces] would drag them back, rather than leaving them to bleed to death. "We'll do it!" Connell said. "And that is what makes me so contemptuous of them. Marines will die going to get ... a couple of journalists." The last few words dripped with disgust. Not even Ogletree knew what to say. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2014-05-17 09:07 |
| #2 Why do I see pictures of wildlife photogs being eaten by wolves or bears that were thought to be non-threatening? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2014-05-17 07:40 |
| #1 Why I don't feel either sorry or outraged? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2014-05-17 05:57 |