I have been following the strange case of the Palestinian woman who the Palestinian Authority claim died of tear gas inhalation as a result of its use by Israeli police in Bil’in.
Now Bil’in is the scene of frequent protests against Israel’ security wall. It not only draws Palestinian protestors but also Israeli left-wing organisations and NGOs and people from all over the world who want Israel to take down the wall to allow terrorists and suicide bombers free passage into Israel. They value the comfort of West Bank Palestinians above the lives of Israelis.
But when I saw the BBC article reporting this death I was puzzled. I could not remember anyone previously dying anywhere in the world from tear gas inhalation.
I googled death from tear gas and the only reported death I could find were pages and pages of reports from various sources about this alleged death, that of Jawaher Abu Rahma.
I noted that Israel said they would investigate this puzzling and, apparently, unique case. I even wondered whether Israeli tear gas had some especially lethal ingredient.
I could see that all the news agencies were reporting this death by tear gas as if it were a proven fact. No-one seemed to have done my simple research and mentioned that it was unusual.
I was hoping to give you a link to the BBC report.
But I can’t.
Because it appears to have disappeared.
If you can find it, I’d like to hear from you.
And then, thanks to the Elder of Ziyon, the scales were lifted from mine eyes.
The Elder reported “Tear gas death” was a hoax.
The Elder had it first hand from very simple initial Israeli security force investigations. You know, the kind of thing that good journalists should do before releasing stories that are clearly suspicious.
This is the basic story:
All evidence points to the fact that Jawaher Abu Rahma was not killed by tear gas.
The number of inconsistencies and the amount of evidence of lies by Palestinian Arab spokespeople is incontrovertible. Here are some of the facts that the security sources mentioned:
* 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.
There is no evidence that Abu Rahma even attended the riot. Her brother is the ringleader of the weekly Bil’in riots and yet there are no photos of her next to him, or anywhere else, on Friday (and possibly ever.)
The tear gas that the IDF used on Friday is exactly the same concentration and type that they have always used, and the same as used by Western countries for years.
Yet the PA had already called it a “war crime”. The entire world had accepted at face value the blatant lies of the PA>
This is not the first nor will it be the last in a long succession of fake incidents designed to demonise Israel.
Two things strike me:
1. the callousness of the Palestinians in using the tragic death from natural causes of a woman related to an ‘activist’ to promulgate a lie to further their political ends
2. the gullibility of the world’s press to accept the story at face value and their willingness, nay, eagerness to vilify and embarrass Israel
I do not see on the BBC News website any report that this was a lie and they fell for it. I do not see an apology.
Meanwhile, all the usual suspects in the Arab and Muslim world and their constituency will see it as another example of Israeli murderous callousness.
The Elder also links to other Israeli sources on this story:
Update: I found a BBC article here which is not the original one and is full of Palestinian propaganda and not one Israeli representative.
The throw-away nature of the commentators reference to the reason for the barrier as being for security purposes and the tone in which this is said is not exactly impartial. It’s as if he has to say this for the sake of impatiality but we all know that this is not the real reason, nudge nudge.