"fired in self-defense after they were attacked with rocks by dozens of rioting Hamas supporters.” is the real headline, but the AP goes with some guys uncle who literally admitted he didn’t even witness the confrontation.
That is the settlers’ unsubstantiated claims, alongside the uncle’s unsubstantiated one. Considering that no one else saw these “dozens” of people when the shooting happened in an olive field in a Palestinian town that the settlers had no reason to be at in the first place.
So, multiple questions are raised. Why did the settlers even go here? Why were they armed? The people living there clearly weren’t armed.
Let’s say a white cop kills a black man. Witnesses say that the black guy was peacefully walking down the side of the road and refused to stop when police tried to pull him over. The cops say the black guy was reaching for a weapon. There is video footage of the man trying to walk away from the police, but from the footage alone it’s not entirely clear whether or not he had a gun.
Fox will report “man shot by police was fleeing and reaching for a gun”
HuffPost will report “Walking While Black: White cop kills peaceful black man on the side of a road”
AP will report “Man shot by police at [location]”
Notice how the settler shot a Palestinian, but in your example the man was shot by police? Usually they would have said “Palestinian shot by Israeli settler” instead.
What were armed Israelis doing 50km inside the internationally recognized territory of Palestine in the first place? These were not innocent civilians enjoying a music festival or resting in their lawful home, so who started this particular confrontation is immaterial.
"fired in self-defense after they were attacked with rocks by dozens of rioting Hamas supporters.” is the real headline, but the AP goes with some guys uncle who literally admitted he didn’t even witness the confrontation.
You don’t get to claim self defense after you invade someone’s home and they attack you.
That is the settlers’ unsubstantiated claims, alongside the uncle’s unsubstantiated one. Considering that no one else saw these “dozens” of people when the shooting happened in an olive field in a Palestinian town that the settlers had no reason to be at in the first place.
So, multiple questions are raised. Why did the settlers even go here? Why were they armed? The people living there clearly weren’t armed.
He was attacked by dozens of rioting Hamas supporters and ended up shooting the one guy harvesting olives on his land?
Also, why was he even there with a gun in the first place?
To create a situation where he’d need to “defend himself”.
Why is that the real one? AP tool the parts that are true, a guy got shot dead and didn’t include any of the opinions / unproven claims
Yeah, AP tends to stick to what is known.
Let’s say a white cop kills a black man. Witnesses say that the black guy was peacefully walking down the side of the road and refused to stop when police tried to pull him over. The cops say the black guy was reaching for a weapon. There is video footage of the man trying to walk away from the police, but from the footage alone it’s not entirely clear whether or not he had a gun.
Fox will report “man shot by police was fleeing and reaching for a gun”
HuffPost will report “Walking While Black: White cop kills peaceful black man on the side of a road”
AP will report “Man shot by police at [location]”
I’m just surprised AP didn’t use passive voice.
Notice how the settler shot a Palestinian, but in your example the man was shot by police? Usually they would have said “Palestinian shot by Israeli settler” instead.
What were armed Israelis doing 50km inside the internationally recognized territory of Palestine in the first place? These were not innocent civilians enjoying a music festival or resting in their lawful home, so who started this particular confrontation is immaterial.