Amnesty’s Blood Libel Against the IDF (VIDEO)
The film includes this section that is a complete, provable lie.
Watching that video you would think that there was only one minute and nine seconds for the family to flee the house. Amnesty put up a timer and everything! It must be true! There’s no way that a family can escape in such a short amount of time; we must have witnessed their deaths.
But if you look at the original video itself things aren’t quite so clear. Look at the smoke on the side of the house and listen to the background noises – there is a clear edit at 1:16. (It is more obvious at fullscreen.)
The edit proves that there was more time than 1:09 shown in the Amnesty timer. Making this video a lie.
How much was edited out?
From The Independent, July 13, 2014:
A video has emerged showing the extraordinary “knock on the roof” technique used by the Israeli military to warn Palestinian civilians of an impending missile strike.
The footage was uploaded to YouTube yesterday by the Gaza-based Watania news agency, and shows from extremely close quarters a small missile striking the roof of a house across the street.
According to the caption, around 15 minutes later – though most of this time has been edited out of the final clip itself – two fully-armed missiles from an F16 jet strike one after the other, blasting the front of the house away and sending a cloud of debris and rubble into the air.
When the dust settles, the full extent of the damage is slowly revealed, with only the exposed back half of the home still standing.
The Watania agency reported that the home in this case belonged to Samir Nofal, who was able to get out in time along with his family and neighbours.
(Watania‘s description, however, says that Israel called the homeowner first, waited 15 minutes for the “roof knock,” and the larger bomb was 5 minutes later after the family was safely out of the house. Only The Telegraph got it right, showing how lazy reporters are in copying others’ stories. )
Perhaps, you might say, this is an innocent mistake. Somehow Amnesty saw this video without the explanation that was easily available in major news outlets and in the YouTube video that they edited to create their propaganda film.
Perhaps it is possible, but every one of those stories quoted Philip Luther, Middle East and North Africa Director at Amnesty International, saying how Amnesty is against the “roof knock” procedure. Amnesty, like any large organization, follows its news coverage closely. They read each of these news stories that emphasized that the video edited out several minutes of inactivity.
The only conclusion is that this little propaganda film was knowingly deceptive. Amnesty knows the truth and chose to create a film that strongly implies that Israel cruelly bombed houses that they knew still had civilians inside scrambling to grab their belongings.
This is a blood libel.
Amnesty’s on-screen timer is the exact same kind of deception that the entire Gaza Platform propaganda is. They are overlaying their own spin and lies on top of flawed information and presenting it as if it is more accurate than what had been seen before.
But all that Amnesty has proven is that it has no credibility. To Amnesty, bashing Israel is far more important than little details like truth and accuracy.
The Gaza Platform data also includes in many cases the an insulting term for the IDF – it calls the army the “IOF,” or “Israel Occupation forces,” a term used up until now exclusively by Arab media and Arab NGOs. Now Amnesty has adopted that derogatory term as its official terminology, further proving that Amnesty is not an unbiased source.
Amnesty has a halo around it as a reliable, major human rights NGO. Any fair observer, looking at only the evidence I have compiled over the past three days, must conclude that it Amnesty is a travesty.
Every day that they refuse to apologize for and correct this consistent pattern of lies, deception and bias is more proof of that very bias. Newspapers issue corrections, but that is beneath Amnesty.
Amnesty is well aware of my posts which have been tweeted to them hundreds of times, and others including myself have emailed them asking for comment, which they have ignored.
To Amnesty, truth is sometimes just an inconvenience that gets in the way of a good story.
Their donors might be interested in knowing this.
If I am wrong in a single one of my accusations, I invite Amnesty to respond. I promise to print their response in full.