In this May 13 interview by the Committee to Protect Journalists @pressfreedom, Shatha Hanaysha who was next to Shireen when she was killed, said, where the shots came from.
@pressfreedom "We were facing a house and an open space. We were fired upon from an area above us and shots hit the tree I was standing behind from above. It was where Israeli occupation forces were. "
The IDF was down the hill, not above them. The only people above were Jenin snipers.
2/
@pressfreedom On the other side of the open space, to the southeast, was the 3 story house I identified as the most likely sniper spot that shot Shireen.
This is further corroboration.
/end
@pressfreedom Correction: The IDF was at a somewhat higher elevation than the journalists. Not enough to call it "above" and Hanaysha had previously said specifically the shots ccame from a building but I was mistaken saying they were down the hill.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The @washingtonpost did its own "analysis" of #ShireenAbuAkleh's death, and ignores the same evidence that the others did. Because they had already determined the outcome before the "investigation" they ignored the more compelling evidence. @SarahCahlan@mmkelly22@SBHendrix 1/
@washingtonpost@SarahCahlan@mmkelly22@SBHendrix The interview Ali Samoudi, a known Pallywood liar. He says that he knows the bullets came from the IDF convoy. But on May 11, he said they came from roofs of buildings "opposite" from him. WaPo didn't ask him about that.
Here is a summary of what @bellingcat and @CNN got wrong with Shireen Abu Akleh's death:
The only way they have any clue of the distance of the gunshots that killed her came from is the audio study. It is accurate. But they assume that fire can ONLY have come from due south.
1/
@bellingcat@CNN They make the basic error (and I did too!) that since the only videos they had showed only the IDF at (roughly) that distance, that the fire MUST have come from the IDF.
And since it appeared that it was directed at the reporters, they assumed it was purposeful.
2/
@bellingcat@CNN It didn't QUITE add up - the IDF was further away than their estimate (and their estimates were about 20 meters off) but there was no other possible gunmen in that area south, it MUST have been the IDF. Everyone else made LESS sense.
3/
I found the gunshots that @CNN says were the ones that killed Shireen Abu Akleh on video, with the secondary sounds to identify the distance. It starts at :08 of this @DigFind video. There are 7 or 8 high pitched shots.
@CNN@DigFind The secondary sound is indeed about 300 ms from the primary shot sound, and I'll trust the Montana State professor that says that indicates it is 190m away or so
2/.
@CNN@DigFind According to @CNN, these are the shots that killed her, based on witnesses that they are trusting to remember those kinds of details. But we don't know if she was killed before or shortly after.
Then after the Six Day War, when military victory seemed impossible, the "Palestinian cause" was born. It was another means to the same end.
Which is why Palestinians have never accepted a state when it would allow the Jewish state to continue to exist.
2/
Since then, most of the Arab world has realized that there is no benefit to a state of war with Israel. Their support for the "Palestinian cause" evaporated because it was never there to begin with. It was always an excuse.
Rashid Khalidi of @Columbia says on video, "Palestinian journalists have been systematically targeted. It's really important to Israel that nobody see what's going on in the occupied territories."
Really? 1/
@Columbia The publicity when a journalist is accidentally killed in the territories is FAR higher than otherwise. If Israel is trying to block media coverage, this is the EXACT WRONG way to do it!
Khalidi and anyone with two working brain cells knows this.
2/
@Columbia If it was an Israeli bullet that killed Sireen, it is absolutely certain it wasn't from a sniper (different caliber bullet.) But it would be certain anyway because Israel LOSES every time a journalist dies - it makes Israel look bad. And liars like Khalidi take advantage.
3/
The Israel haters have perfected an excellent propaganda technique.
They don't say "Israel killed Abu Akleh." That statement can be disputed.
They say "SINCE Israeli snipers brutally killed" her, the readers automatically accept the lie as they read to the punchline.
1/
The liars don't want there to be any question that their lies are true, so they frame the lies as a given that everyone already knows and accepts. Subconsciously, this makes the reader think, this must be true, because it sounds like accepted fact.
Essentially, they create a narrative - an entire, false story of Israeli snipers targeting a journalist because they want to silence her. The narrative it treated as true without any proof or even attempt at argument. Everything else is inside this fake news universe.