Disgusting, are we? Disgusting that we grew so tired of being killed and blown up by suicide bombers that we built what is mostly a fence, but yes, in some places, those deemed highly dangerous, it's a wall? And lo and behold, suicide bombings virtually stopped and if some would-be suicide bomber did make it to a check-point, our vigilant IDF spotted them. so we are disgusting that we try to protect ourselves, are we? And not only the IDF but legally, all Israeli citizens have the right to be anywhere in Judea and Shomron, but because of pali hatred and their love of death and bloodshed, there are areas where Israelis are not allowed to go.The right to all the land west of the Jordan river was given to the Jews under the terms agreed upon at the San Remo Conference in 1922. Since the Arabs never accepted the 1947 Partion Plan but attacked us with the aim of destroying us, and since the terms agreed at the San Remo conference were never repealed or annulled, they still stand today, underlying our legal right to the whole of the Land of Israel.

Medical Center.

It doesn't matter where she was. I was merely pointing out the vague reporting. What matters is that she felt sick after inhaling tear gas. Your argument is very weak. The community has a right to protest military orders. After-all, the whole world agrees that the military's presence in that area is illegal. The Palestinians have as much right to protest as the Tunisians do in Tunisia. Period.

you say: " all Israeli citizens have the right to be anywhere in Judea and Shomron" WRONG !! Judea and Shomron is the West Bank, aka the (future) state of Palestine. Means that any Israeli settlements and any Israeli living there are ILLEGAL according to International laws. Only people like you claim that it's legal...

Doug CLAIMS "the IDF is known to frequently lie." So PROVE it. Feel free to show ALL the verifiable and NEUTRAL data that show that the IDF lies FREQUENTLY. As for DISCLOSURE in the interest of the public, you have NOT been honest at all. Eg. last year, you were caught LYING that Israel unilaterally broke a truce with hamas prior to Cast Lead. And you did NOT call out Saeb Erekat's LIE for calling the said VIOLENT protest a "PEACEFUL demonstration". Then again, it is OK for bashers like you to make SWEEPING unproven statements or manufacture FAKE info to pass off as TRUTH.

in judeh and shomron r setelments, gush ezion and hebron r not setelments. go check how old they r and for how long jews lived there you will find more than 100 years.

Not only for the loss of another member for their family ; but having to listen to such an affront by the IDF. In the civilized world if someone is shot and the doctors are able to save them, the murderer doesn't get to blame the doctors for the death. A fool might try such a defense but only a bigger fool would believe it.

The web of lies propagated by you on a sustained and seruial basis is so old by now that your credibiltiy became completely destroyed. You emotional acting ou based on nothing but ideology and decades of manipulative outright LIES from Quebecstan (you know the BLACK HEART of Canada, ouch!) is not only ridiculous, but smokescreen. The IDF did 1/100th of human damage as either the US Armay or Britain's incompetent rag tag rabble. Too bad the honourable Canada still could not muster the necessary civil courage to throw its English seal in the garbage depo.

They must be writhing and grinding their teeth now that the truth is out. I wonder if any of them will apologise? I'm not holding my breath.

What happened to the IDF's first excuse - that she had died of leukemia? The IDF has told so many lies about its victims that nothing it says can be trusted.

They specifically targeted the woman with teargas (no one else got sick), They got the cousin - he was so innocent he did not know "what was coming to him". And all the "other relatives". Hec it would be nice if we knew exactly which families to target. We could avoid all the collateral damage. Ever thought that this family makes a habit of looking for trouble?

Aside for your own inherent, extreme anti-Israel bias, do you have any SOLID grounds for your automatic blaming of the IDF in this case? Do you have any solid evidence to counter the investigation's clear-cut findings? Please illuminate us, with the details of the thorough investigation you have personally performed into this case, from your armchair in Montreal?

International laws say the exact opposite of your moronic claim. Care to produce a single LEGAL claim by the Arabs for Judea and Samaria or Gaza for that matter as well? Bet you can't. Whereas San Remo Treaty 1920, Covenant of the League Nations 1922 and the UN Charter 1945 state that the international boundary is EAST of the Jordan River and that all the land west of there is ours and cannot be given to any other government or group. That asshole is international law.

First it is Sam who QUESTIONED the validity of the IDF finding by INSINUATING that "if (Jawaher) wasn't at the protest, then where was she?". Having been PROVEN his stance to be a DUD, Sam now says "It doesn't matter where she was." And that "What matters is that she felt sick after inhaling tear gas". Which is CROCK cos what REALLY matters is that the palis and supporters like Pollack manufacture a LIE from the very beginning that tear gas is THE CAUSE of Jawaher's death. And having PROVEN that his statement - "She wouldn't have been to the hospital if...." - is totally ILLOGICAL, he sidesides with "The community has a right to protest military orders." First, I did NOT say that people has NO rights to protest. Second, again using Sam's LOGIC, the IDF has every right as the security forces of OTHER countries to react to VIOLENT protests as it deems fit. Just like how UK security react to the VIOLENT protests by students last month. I repeat - logic is NEVER a part of rabid bashers like David and Sam. Period.

He has never been to Israel or Palestine, has seen and witnessed exactly nothing He's a self-admitted plagarist, that use the dubious works of others, to compile a book on alleged Israeli Terrorism, which it turned out, as deserved, a failure--There are 3 million books in Amazon that rank ahead of his book, which reall ranks (Stinks) If anything is said against Israel, he'll be the first in line to parrot it

Reports indicate this woman was being treated for leukemia and she had a medical history that may very well have caused the vomiting incident.

There's where medical professionalism in WB ends. They don't even do their own death certificates. They relied on info from the family - and it states "killed by tear gas from Israeli soldier". No autopsy, no tests. Why should this be considered credible when all rules of the physician (assuming Arabs take the Hippocratic Oath) are ignored? Not one shred of evidence placed this poor woman at the protest, and her doctors killed her and needed a scapegoat. I feel bad for the family which has to be dragged into politics unwillingly and denied justice from the loss of their daughter through malpractice. I know any Canadian wouldn't accept such a crap excuse. Why should this "Palestinian" family?

Not court of public opinion but real intl law based on pre-UN laws (which were not to be changed per UN mandate) and the Geneva Convention. 1) most settlements are built on Jewish lands that were ethnically cleansed of Jews in 1948. That's a war crime, but in your mind acceptable. 2) the land, which was part of the Jewish State through previous conventions and agreements was stolen by Arabs through the 1948 war. According to Intl Law, such land cannot be won by war and annexed....atleast, this is the argument your ilk make against Israel when they won in 1967. 3) After 1948, Jordan flooded the WB with forced Arab immigration which is ILLEGAL per Geneva Convention, after they annexed it, which wasn't accepted by anyone except the UK and Pakistan. 4) Unlike the settlements which are built on old destroyed Jewish villages or barren land, Arabs who immigrated were given (illegally) Jewish property and homes. This must be reversed per Intl Law but your ilk claim having Jews in an Arab village (nevermind the ethnic cleansing) is an affront to Intl Law. 5) and finally, those claiming the WB as their land for a future State have produced no definitive ownership documents, have never had autonomy nor a ruling govt in history, and are not a unique population, unlike those groups who do have all those attributes (and strive for independence): Tibetans, Kurds, E. Timorese, Basques, Black African Darfurians, just to name a few. Had this group wanted independence or claimed the WB was occupied, they would have made the same argument in 1900 to the Ottoman Turks, or 1919 to the British, or in 1950 to the Jordanians. But alas, it was neither their stated agenda at the time nor was it even considered.

If "Palestinians" have the same right to protest as the Tunisians, then they should be targeting their own govt which endorses and funds terror attacks on civilians which make such walls and roadblocks a necessity. So instead of attacking the real problem, which the Tunisians did, the "Palestinians" attack the symptom, which only works to justify IDF presence in the first place. 1) who cares if this woman got sick from tear gas? It was a closed military zone and the protest got violent which both justifies (under Intl Law) an accepted crowd control measure. 2) Under Intl law, the IDF is permitted to be in checkpoints and protect the barrier fence because they are obligated to protect Israeli citizens from a terrorist population which has consistently shown their intentions. Now if the population was peaceful and protests never turned violent, you'd have a strong argument. The so-called "whole world agrees" claim is based mostly on politics and the "court of public opinion", neither of which are steeped in actual law. For example, the Turkel Commission just ruled that the IDF acted properly during the flotilla boarding, and they were monitored by foreigners that approved of the professionalism of the committee. However, the IDF will still be guilty because of "public opinion" and not actual law. Get it?

You said the same thing when the IDF released a report on Cast Lead in 2008 showing close to 1000 of those 1400 killed were infact terrorists and not civilians as Hamas claimed. You called the IDF murderers and war criminals.... then...Hamas in December admitted that the majority of those killed in Cast Lead were infact Hamas terrorists, proving the IDF report was accurate and forthcoming. So, who is it that "frequently lies", Doug?

the early reports of the drug used is the same as that used in blood diseases like leukemia. Then the IDF stated that "we're unsure until we see ALL of the documents and research all of the testimony". Hmmm, so the IDF admitted they didn't have all the information and refused to make a definitive claim without it. The BDS should learn from the IDF. It's called "integrity", douche bag.

Maybe "Jerrold Cohen" really is "Ilan Pappe" trying to revive a career based on manipulated facts and purposeful slander.

Actually, the Intl community which includes the ICRC, deemed Israel's use of tear gas to be "according to Intl law". So, how exactly is it "illegal" again, professor? It is because you NEED it to be, for your own racist narrative. And I am delighted that you brought up the Gaza war. Because you claim there were "massacres" and "human rights violations" but Hamas reported in December that more than 70% of those killed in Cast Lead were Hamas terrorists, and why would Hamas lie about that??? You won't notice it because you can't - it creates a paradox in your mind (truth negating your set bias) and could cause a brain hemorrhage, thus remaining ignorant is more like a self-induced survival mechanism for you. A very well-known scientists did an exhaustive investigation of the "bound and blindfolded cousin" video and found it left out much context and was tampered with. He cited a portion of the video that was cropped to erase the fact that a weapon was discharged into the ground and not the Arab, in order to give a false conclusion. So should we question the motives of a well-known, globally respected scientists in lieu of Steve, the Meat man's opinions?

in the US and in Israel, and I have seen many mistakes at the hands of "Palestinian" physicians. This article, unfortunately, rings true.

and yet they sniffed the same tear gas. Sounds a lot like a pre-existing condition (which one must demand why she was at a protest with tear gas in the first place) and then medical malpractice. Being in New York, I wonder if you would accept the argument that "the restaurant which gave Mr. X a mild case of food poisoning should be charged with murder because Doctor Y gave an overdose of medication which killed him in the end". Do you think the NY State Court, the Insurance Industry, the AMA, and the family would agree with that statement as you claim is equally valid in the Abu Jawaber case?

The article states that the IDF came to this conclusion from studying her medical file. From this they were able to determine the quantity of tear gas ingested to the point where they can make a claim as to the precise amount of Atropine that was to be administered!!! Frankly Tahl, are you that easily duped? Or is it a question of wanting it to be so? Just to clarify your claim of my extreme anti-Israeli bias: My objection is to religious states and countries which have de facto control of a region but do not allow its citizens the right of suffrage. There are many instances of Israeli's seeking justice when the IDF has been in the wrong and these instances are laudable. This, however, is not one of those moments.

wouldn't it have been a permanent structure and not just a chain-link fence? It's not any land holding value - no one lives there, its not farm land, and its partly rocky. Why "rob" this land and not one of more value? What it does do, and both the mayor of Jenin and Palestinian Islamic Jihad admitted, was block both criminals and terrorists from accessing Israel and targeting its citizens. That by itself is justification for the fence and if the Arabs are upset perhaps they should go visit the PA and demand they end terrorism against Israel which is the pretext for such a structure, hmmm? It wasn't there before 2000 and neither was wide-spread, PA endorsed terror either. If it were to "rob land" then why begin removal of barriers like that around Gilo when calm returned? Neither the Intl lawyers or ICRC deemed the IDF use of tear gas as illegal nor does Intl Law disallow the IDF presence which is obligated to protect its citizens. Like a page from the Leftist book, you're all "sound bite", no substance.

There are testimonies of the family saying she was never at the protest but infact was overcome by the tear gas while sitting outside her home with relatives. Now, the village is quite a distance away from the area where the protests are staged and no one has insisted that a tear gas canister was shot into the village, away from the protesters. Judging from weather from that day, including wind direction and intensity, sunlight, etc. the only way a person could get enough tear gas to pass out (and this is determined by tests already performed by different military), either all the gas was blown in her direction from the protest site OR a canister (or several) landed very close to her location. Both of these options are damn near impossible. And if there was so much tear gas around that could make a person sitting in the village sick, some distance away, why did NO ONE else at the protest or in the village get sick? Not only is this a moment where the IDF deserves fair treatment (you claim its "laudable" but deny their right to do so) but so too is it the right of the IDF to go after those who willingly support "Palestinian" lies such as the fabricated civilian death count in Gaza, the "Jenin massacre", etc. Today a report showed proof that the IDF acted responsibly on the flotilla boarding and broke no intl laws. Somehow, despite having intl observers and being deemed very professional, you'll not accept the IDF's right to clear its name.

I already said that I questioned her whereabouts only because the article was vague about it. But it doesn't matter where exactly she stood at the moment she inhaled the tear gas. William, the Palestinian's government is not the PA, it is the Israeli government. The PA is recognized as a "semi-autonomous government". It only has partial jurisdiction over the occupied territories. Israel has the overall control and authority. So, in fact, this is the "real problem", as you put it, and not "the symptom". It was a closed military zone, but not a legal one, under international law. The protests are mostly peaceful, by the way. In case you didn't know, the IDF responds to peaceful demonstrations with tear gas. But even when the protests turn violent, this is supported by international law, as long as Israeli civilians aren't hurt. I'm basing the "whole world agrees" claim on international law, not public opinion. The UN affirms the illegality of the occupation and every single government in the world, including the United States, acknowledges this. Get it?