Schoolyard death revisited
February 14, 2005 11:20 by ManagingTeamSt. Petersburg Times columnist Susan Taylor-Martin investigates the death of Nuran Deab and subsequent media coverage. She concludes that Deab’s tragic death was murkier than originally reported, while acknowledging the dearth of media followup. Martin also notes that the PA never responded to an IDF offer to help investigate the matter further.
(Hat tip: Primer)
Anonymous
1:47 pm
Feb 14, 2005
The main point is that the closest Israeli outpost, was about 900 meters away. There were other reports of 600 meters, but even then it still would not have been in M16 range.
also considering this:
“Around 12:30 p.m. on Jan. 31, Norhan Deeb and other pupils lined up for afternoon assembly in the courtyard of their school in the Rafah refugee camp.”
The fact that she was in the schools court yard also makes it highly unlikely. The fact is that the court yard would have also had a barrier (either a fence or wall). Considering that and the distance of IDF troops, the only thing that is even remotely possible is Palestinians shooting guns with wild rebelry.
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Israpundit
7:58 am
Feb 15, 2005
Revisiting the schoolyard killing
Earlier (here and here) I discussed the killing of Norhan Deeb. I thought the case was settled when the Jerusalem Post reported that a Palesitnian had been arrested for her murder. I even wrote to the ombudsman of the NY…
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Soccer Dad
7:59 am
Feb 15, 2005
Revisiting a schoolyard killing
Earlier (here and here) I discussed the killing of Norhan Deeb. I thought the case was settled when the Jerusalem Post reported that a Palesitnian had been arrested for her murder. I even wrote to the ombudsman of the NY…
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0
Steve
9:00 am
Feb 15, 2005
Dear Susan,
Thank you for the clarity you provided in your article mentioned in the subject of this e-mail. I tend to agree with your paper that the original article did provide doubt over who fired the bullet that tragically killed Norhan Deeb. My point I want to make is on the general conflict and the stance that you may not notice you have taken.
I quote from your article:
Should Palestinian refugees be allowed to return to their ancestral homes in Israel?
Should Israel be allowed to keep the huge West Bank settlements that Palestinians say make it impossible to build a viable Palestinian state?
You seem to be slanting towards the Palestinians on both these issues. In the second issue you explain the Palestinian side, saying that they view the issue as critical for their state. In the first issue you also slant towards the Palestinians by explaining what they view as their ancestral homes. Surely in the way you explain the second issue, you could have explained the first issue from Israel’s perspective, saying that they fear being flooded by a 4 million hostile people?
You have explained that the Palestinians view the settlement blocks as an impediment to their building of a viable state (not true according to former US envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross) and so you should then explain it from Israel’s perspective, that returning to the 67 borders makes Israel virtually impossible to defend and invites attack.
Also, on the West Bank settlements, Dennis Ross explains in his book “The Missing Peace” that it is very possible for Israel to keep the large settlement blocks that border the green line. Israel can do this, whilst giving away 94% of the West Bank, which would be contiguous. So peace is very possible in terms of that issue. This issue was not a major stumbling block in Arafat’s refusal of the Clinton parameters.
I just think that both perspectives should be explained whenever it comes to these final status issues. (Like you did with the rest of your article).
Note, you omitted the forth final status issue, which is security.
There are basically 4 final status issues
· Jerusalem
· Territory
· Security
· Refugees
Security is a major Israeli concern, and should at least get a passing mention, just like you mentioned Jerusalem. You mentioned all the Palestinian wants – Jerusalem, territory, and refugees. It’s only fair to then mention the Israeli want – security.
Best wishes
Agree or Disagree:
1 
0
Jane YIS
10:04 pm
Feb 15, 2005
TODAH, Steve! This is wonderful!
Agree or Disagree:
0 
0