From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
IDF Shootings: Absolutely illegal
There have been dozens of cases during the past four years in which IDF soldiers killed unarmed Palestinian civilians. The circumstances are different from case to case, and in many cases the army provided detailed explanations for the shootings, even if in retrospect the judgment was wrong. Only rarely is the curtain completely lifted on what really took place so that someone who was not there can understand what happened. The leak last night to Channel Two's Fact program, of the tape from the communications radios at the Girit outpost on the Philadelphi corridor provides such an opportunity.
The legal proceedings have only begun, but based on what the tape showed and the indictment against the Givati company commander R. claims, it is possible to cautiously draw a few interim conclusions.
Most of the debate about the incident was over whether the killing of the little girl was "verified," and the debate was based on the conflicting versions of the events as provided by R. and his troops. Last night the tape left no room for doubt - R. himself is heard saying, "I also verified her killing."
But that is far from the key question in the case. At least from the moral aspect, the main question is why the company commander and his soldiers fired at the girl who was 100 meters away from the outpost, was not armed, was not a danger to the soldiers inside the protected outpost, and when at least some of the soldiers knew that it was a little girl. A soldiers is explicitly heard saying "it's a little girl," and that she is "scared to death." Nonetheless, the shooting went on. Moreover, R. himself reports later that he shot "the girl."
No less important is the tone of the voices on the tape. Officers trying to explain what happened constantly said that the areas is dangerous, and that the soldiers were under threat. But that does not come across in the voices of the soldiers. They don't sound worried or pressured, but almost apathetic. They seem to be shooting because those are the orders - to shoot at anyone who comes close, even if some know it's only a girl, and there is no sense of fear. It seems, at least, that the order to shoot is blatantly illegal, and therefore the soldiers should have refused it. The question becomes, therefore, why only the company commander is being prosecuted, and only for illegal use of his weapon and not for manslaughter at the very least.
The Girit affair was one of the reasons for the tension between Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon and the deposed regional commander, Brig. Gen. Shmuel Zakai, who completely accepted the company commander's version of events, persuading Ya'alon to do as well - and then Ya'alon was embarrassed when the Military Police probe discovered a completely different reality.
Now it turns out the original corps level inquiry into the event did not even listen to the communications recordings, which were easily available. If they had, the entire fiasco of the original backing for the company commander could have been avoided. The affair raises questions about the way the IDF investigated other cases of Palestinians being killed.
One prevalent view in the media is that it is impossible to judge the behavior of the soldiers in these cases given the dangerous conditions under which they operate. But that is a dubious argument at best since it has gradually turned into the legitimization of worsening incidents over the years. It's convenient for the IDF to call R. a "rotten apple," but in effect, Iman al Hamas, the little girl killed at Girit, is not alone. There have been dozens of innocents killed in Gaza, under circumstances not much different from those in which she was killed.
During the first two years of the intifada, the rules of engagement allowed shooting at civilians simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, like near a settlement fence, or at night. Since then, the army has tried to crack down, and has toughened the rules of engagement. But there are plenty of hair-raising stories about what happened to civilians during offenses like Operation Rainbow and Operation Days of Penitence.
The first intifada saw Givati trials one and two, which opened the pandora's box for the Israeli public about what soldiers were doing in their name in the territories. If R. insists on going through with his defense and does not work out a plea bargain with the military prosecution, it is entirely possible that this case will yet open the pandora's box to the public about what the army did in its name during the intifada.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/504878.html
Most of the debate about the incident was over whether the killing of the little girl was "verified," and the debate was based on the conflicting versions of the events as provided by R. and his troops. Last night the tape left no room for doubt - R. himself is heard saying, "I also verified her killing."
But that is far from the key question in the case. At least from the moral aspect, the main question is why the company commander and his soldiers fired at the girl who was 100 meters away from the outpost, was not armed, was not a danger to the soldiers inside the protected outpost, and when at least some of the soldiers knew that it was a little girl. A soldiers is explicitly heard saying "it's a little girl," and that she is "scared to death." Nonetheless, the shooting went on. Moreover, R. himself reports later that he shot "the girl."
No less important is the tone of the voices on the tape. Officers trying to explain what happened constantly said that the areas is dangerous, and that the soldiers were under threat. But that does not come across in the voices of the soldiers. They don't sound worried or pressured, but almost apathetic. They seem to be shooting because those are the orders - to shoot at anyone who comes close, even if some know it's only a girl, and there is no sense of fear. It seems, at least, that the order to shoot is blatantly illegal, and therefore the soldiers should have refused it. The question becomes, therefore, why only the company commander is being prosecuted, and only for illegal use of his weapon and not for manslaughter at the very least.
The Girit affair was one of the reasons for the tension between Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon and the deposed regional commander, Brig. Gen. Shmuel Zakai, who completely accepted the company commander's version of events, persuading Ya'alon to do as well - and then Ya'alon was embarrassed when the Military Police probe discovered a completely different reality.
Now it turns out the original corps level inquiry into the event did not even listen to the communications recordings, which were easily available. If they had, the entire fiasco of the original backing for the company commander could have been avoided. The affair raises questions about the way the IDF investigated other cases of Palestinians being killed.
One prevalent view in the media is that it is impossible to judge the behavior of the soldiers in these cases given the dangerous conditions under which they operate. But that is a dubious argument at best since it has gradually turned into the legitimization of worsening incidents over the years. It's convenient for the IDF to call R. a "rotten apple," but in effect, Iman al Hamas, the little girl killed at Girit, is not alone. There have been dozens of innocents killed in Gaza, under circumstances not much different from those in which she was killed.
During the first two years of the intifada, the rules of engagement allowed shooting at civilians simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, like near a settlement fence, or at night. Since then, the army has tried to crack down, and has toughened the rules of engagement. But there are plenty of hair-raising stories about what happened to civilians during offenses like Operation Rainbow and Operation Days of Penitence.
The first intifada saw Givati trials one and two, which opened the pandora's box for the Israeli public about what soldiers were doing in their name in the territories. If R. insists on going through with his defense and does not work out a plea bargain with the military prosecution, it is entirely possible that this case will yet open the pandora's box to the public about what the army did in its name during the intifada.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/504878.html
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
The commander of an Israel Defense Forces company who was indicted Monday on five counts in connection with the killing of a 13-year-old girl from the Gaza Strip has been recorded saying he carried out a "confirmed killing" after another soldier told him the figure approaching the military post was "a little girl."
The officer's remand was extended Monday by two months, Channel 2 reported. The television station aired Monday night the IDF recordings released earlier in the day of communications between soldiers during the incident.
"Confirming a kill" is military slang referring to firing at combatants at close range after they have already been shot to the ground, ostensibly to assure that they present no further danger, but effectively to make sure they are dead.
According to the prosecution, the IDF officer, identified only as Captain R., confirmed that the Palestinian girl was dead by firing a burst of automatic fire into her prone body near an outpost in the southern Gaza Strip.
The girl, Iman Alhamas, was shot dead by soldiers from the Givati Brigade near the IDF's Girit outpost near Tel el-Sultan in western Rafah in the Gaza Strip on October 5.
A spokeswoman for the court said the officer was charged with two counts of illegally using his weapon, and one count each of obstruction of justice, conduct unbecoming an officer, and improper use of authority. The officer had previously been suspended from duty.
According to the indictment, the officer approached the girl after she was shot and fired two rounds at her from close range. He began walking away, then turned around and shot her again.
The tapes of the soldiers' communications at the time of the incident indicate that one of the troops identified Alhamas by saying: "It's a little girl. She's running right now, heading east." After the first shots, another soldier said: "She's behind the ditch and nearby pile of dirt, half a meter away. Scared to death. The [bullets] hit right near her, centimeters away."
At a later stage, the commander reported to his base: "This is the situation: We fired shots and killed her. [She's] dressed in jeans and a tank top. She also had a kaffiyeh [Muslim head covering] on her head. I also confirmed the kill."
According to the indictment, the officer emptied his magazine to make sure Alhamas was dead.
"The accused stood in a similar way to before, when he shot her twice, pointed his weapon downward and shot, this time on automatic, approximately 10 bullets until he emptied his magazine," the indictment says.
Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Moshe Ayalon last month said at a cabinet meeting that Palestinian militants had sent the child toward the outpost to draw out the soldiers so that Palestinian snipers could fire at them, and that intelligence reports had forewarned of actions of this nature.
The case is believed to be the first time an officer is to be brought up on charges of the alleged practice of confirming a kill. Military law lacks a specific statute covering the practice.
The shooting occured a week into the IDF's Operation Days of Penitence, intended to stop rocket fire into Israel from the Gaza Strip.
The soldiers said they thought she was planting a bomb. The girl's family said she was on her way to school when she was shot.
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/504759.html
The officer's remand was extended Monday by two months, Channel 2 reported. The television station aired Monday night the IDF recordings released earlier in the day of communications between soldiers during the incident.
"Confirming a kill" is military slang referring to firing at combatants at close range after they have already been shot to the ground, ostensibly to assure that they present no further danger, but effectively to make sure they are dead.
According to the prosecution, the IDF officer, identified only as Captain R., confirmed that the Palestinian girl was dead by firing a burst of automatic fire into her prone body near an outpost in the southern Gaza Strip.
The girl, Iman Alhamas, was shot dead by soldiers from the Givati Brigade near the IDF's Girit outpost near Tel el-Sultan in western Rafah in the Gaza Strip on October 5.
A spokeswoman for the court said the officer was charged with two counts of illegally using his weapon, and one count each of obstruction of justice, conduct unbecoming an officer, and improper use of authority. The officer had previously been suspended from duty.
According to the indictment, the officer approached the girl after she was shot and fired two rounds at her from close range. He began walking away, then turned around and shot her again.
The tapes of the soldiers' communications at the time of the incident indicate that one of the troops identified Alhamas by saying: "It's a little girl. She's running right now, heading east." After the first shots, another soldier said: "She's behind the ditch and nearby pile of dirt, half a meter away. Scared to death. The [bullets] hit right near her, centimeters away."
At a later stage, the commander reported to his base: "This is the situation: We fired shots and killed her. [She's] dressed in jeans and a tank top. She also had a kaffiyeh [Muslim head covering] on her head. I also confirmed the kill."
According to the indictment, the officer emptied his magazine to make sure Alhamas was dead.
"The accused stood in a similar way to before, when he shot her twice, pointed his weapon downward and shot, this time on automatic, approximately 10 bullets until he emptied his magazine," the indictment says.
Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Moshe Ayalon last month said at a cabinet meeting that Palestinian militants had sent the child toward the outpost to draw out the soldiers so that Palestinian snipers could fire at them, and that intelligence reports had forewarned of actions of this nature.
The case is believed to be the first time an officer is to be brought up on charges of the alleged practice of confirming a kill. Military law lacks a specific statute covering the practice.
The shooting occured a week into the IDF's Operation Days of Penitence, intended to stop rocket fire into Israel from the Gaza Strip.
The soldiers said they thought she was planting a bomb. The girl's family said she was on her way to school when she was shot.
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/504759.html
>>>"The incident [where the remanded IDF officer murdered the 13-year old girl] confirms that the Zionist regime, under the guise of a security operation, is waging a deliberate war of terror against a civilian population."<<<
The author is grasping at evidence that's plainly insufficient to prove his preconceived notion. Obviously, he doesn't hold logic in high regard.
>>>"Israel routinely claims to be responding to a series of unprovoked rocket attacks by the Palestinians."<<<
Again, this author is omitting facts, like the suicide bombings and the mortar attacks on homes of innocent non-combatants.
>>>"But the truth is that vicious attacks and provocations... have led to the desperate use of usually ineffectual home-made rockets and suicide bombings by Palestinian militant groups."<<<
This is patently false, not to mention the obvious lack of proof for this argument.
>>>" These [the Palestinian resort to rockets and suicide bombings] are then used as justification for the next IDF operation aimed at building a Greater Israel."<<<
Nonsense. If that were the case, the IDF would have established a presence in all Palestinian residential areas within the first month into the intifada and used far less humane combat methods to hunt down all Palestinian combatants; Then the Israeli government would transfer many Palestinians out of the disputed territories and pass an annexation law through the Knesset.
>>>"...the current intifada was provoked by Likud leader and now Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Al Aqsa mosque. "<<<
Sharon didn't visit any mosque, nor did he intend to.
The author seems as much as blaming the intifada's outbreak on Sharon's visit, neglecting to say that it was only the excuse for unleashing a premeditated murder campaign that had been prepared more than a month in advance.
>>>"In a separate incident, Ya’alon was forced to order a military investigation into allegations of IDF soldiers tampering with the bodies of dead Palestinians prior to posing for photos with the corpses.
Such incidents, far from being aberrations, are the logical outcome of a war of occupation undertaken by Israel against the Palestinians."<<<
There's no "war of occupation against the Palestinians" but rather a low intensity Palestinian war of murder and mayhem against Israel and its people, nor is the author in a position to determine that such incidents aren't aberrations, or that they're the logical outcome of the military effort to contain the intifada.
>>>"The IDF consists primarily of conscripts, young men and women who are obliged to serve in order to be citizens of the state of Israel."<<<
This is false in a painfully obvious manner. Most Muslims and Christians in Israel don't serve and yet they are Israeli citizens; even quite a few Israeli Jews don't serve, either due to medical disqualification or draft dodging or for conscientious reasons, but aren't denied their citizenship.
>>>"[IDf conscripts are] Fed a diet of lies about their foe, and forced to use the most brutal methods,"<<<
The first claim is also false while the other is yet another painfully obvious lie. Compare the methods the IDF uses to those used by the Sudanese in the Darfur region, or the Russian army's methods in Chechenya, or the Chinese army's methods in Tibet, or even the US military's methods in Iraq and Afghanistan. A fair comparison must lead to the honest conclusion that the IDF's methods are by far NOT the most brutal.
>>>"[The IDf conscripts are] Encouraged to consider the enemy as less than human"<<<
Still another lie.
Brian Smith's "analysis" is laced with disinformation and propaganda of the kind that's apparently favored by socialists.
The author is grasping at evidence that's plainly insufficient to prove his preconceived notion. Obviously, he doesn't hold logic in high regard.
>>>"Israel routinely claims to be responding to a series of unprovoked rocket attacks by the Palestinians."<<<
Again, this author is omitting facts, like the suicide bombings and the mortar attacks on homes of innocent non-combatants.
>>>"But the truth is that vicious attacks and provocations... have led to the desperate use of usually ineffectual home-made rockets and suicide bombings by Palestinian militant groups."<<<
This is patently false, not to mention the obvious lack of proof for this argument.
>>>" These [the Palestinian resort to rockets and suicide bombings] are then used as justification for the next IDF operation aimed at building a Greater Israel."<<<
Nonsense. If that were the case, the IDF would have established a presence in all Palestinian residential areas within the first month into the intifada and used far less humane combat methods to hunt down all Palestinian combatants; Then the Israeli government would transfer many Palestinians out of the disputed territories and pass an annexation law through the Knesset.
>>>"...the current intifada was provoked by Likud leader and now Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Al Aqsa mosque. "<<<
Sharon didn't visit any mosque, nor did he intend to.
The author seems as much as blaming the intifada's outbreak on Sharon's visit, neglecting to say that it was only the excuse for unleashing a premeditated murder campaign that had been prepared more than a month in advance.
>>>"In a separate incident, Ya’alon was forced to order a military investigation into allegations of IDF soldiers tampering with the bodies of dead Palestinians prior to posing for photos with the corpses.
Such incidents, far from being aberrations, are the logical outcome of a war of occupation undertaken by Israel against the Palestinians."<<<
There's no "war of occupation against the Palestinians" but rather a low intensity Palestinian war of murder and mayhem against Israel and its people, nor is the author in a position to determine that such incidents aren't aberrations, or that they're the logical outcome of the military effort to contain the intifada.
>>>"The IDF consists primarily of conscripts, young men and women who are obliged to serve in order to be citizens of the state of Israel."<<<
This is false in a painfully obvious manner. Most Muslims and Christians in Israel don't serve and yet they are Israeli citizens; even quite a few Israeli Jews don't serve, either due to medical disqualification or draft dodging or for conscientious reasons, but aren't denied their citizenship.
>>>"[IDf conscripts are] Fed a diet of lies about their foe, and forced to use the most brutal methods,"<<<
The first claim is also false while the other is yet another painfully obvious lie. Compare the methods the IDF uses to those used by the Sudanese in the Darfur region, or the Russian army's methods in Chechenya, or the Chinese army's methods in Tibet, or even the US military's methods in Iraq and Afghanistan. A fair comparison must lead to the honest conclusion that the IDF's methods are by far NOT the most brutal.
>>>"[The IDf conscripts are] Encouraged to consider the enemy as less than human"<<<
Still another lie.
Brian Smith's "analysis" is laced with disinformation and propaganda of the kind that's apparently favored by socialists.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network