Military steps up use of live 0.22 inch bullets against Palestinian stone-throwers

[Jefferson23]

January 18, 2015

West Bank military commander recently confirmed shift to use of live fire instead of crowd control weapons




Recent months have seen a dramatic rise in Israeli security forces’ use of live 0.22 inch caliber bullets (Ruger rifle bullets, also known by the nickname Two-Two) in clashes with Palestinians in the West Bank. The firing of this ammunition is an almost weekly occurrence in the West Bank in sites of protests and clashes. Most of those injured have been young Palestinians, including minors. Yet, in the last two months, one Palestinian woman, at least three photographers, and a foreign national who was taking part in a demonstration were also hit by these bullets. B’Tselem does not have the full data on the number of people wounded this type of ammunition.

Two-Twos are live ammunition whose impact is less severe than that of “ordinary” bullets (5.56 mm caliber), yet even so they can be lethal and inflict serious injuries. Two-Twos are fired with a 10/22 Ruger rifle, which is often equipped with an integral suppressor, or from a specially converted M4 rifle (“a shortened M16”). Use of this weapon has elicited controversy even within the Israeli military: in 2001, the head of the security department in the Operations Directorate wrote that the Ruger cannot be considered a non-lethal weapon and may be used only in circumstances that justify live fire. In view of the large number of people hit and even killed by 0.22 bullets early in the second intifada, use of this ammunition was suspended from 2001 to 2008. In the time since use of this ammunition was renewed, B’Tselem has documented the deaths of at least two people from these bullets; however, the real number may be higher, as it is difficult to establish whether a person was killed by these bullets or “ordinary” live ammunition, which is very similar in caliber.

In recent weeks, B’Tselem has documented the use of 0.22 bullets in clashes in various locations in the northern West Bank. In these instances shots were fired contrary to the strict open-fire regulations that, as a rule, prohibit live fire against stone-throwers. The only exception to this rule cited in the regulations is immediate, mortal danger. Moreover, in several cases, the soldiers intentionally engaged with stone-throwers in order to fire 0.22 bullets at them. In one instance, which was documented, the soldiers initiated action to provoke Palestinian youths into throwing stones, so that they could respond with 0.22 fire. In one documented case, soldiers took action designed to provoke youths to throw stones, ultimately enabling the soldiers to respond with gunfire, wounding the youths. In another case, a sniper armed with a Ruger rifle waited for a procession of demonstrators even before any stone was thrown.

The most striking of these incidents occurred in the village of a-Nabi Saleh on 5 December 2014. At the end of the weekly demonstration, a handful of village youths threw stones at soldiers. The military had stationed a sniper armed with a Ruger rifle together with a captain in an open area some distance from the village homes. The youths withdrew to a distance some 140 meters away, beyond the effective range of 0.22 bullets, thereby essentially ending the confrontation. Yet, about half an hour later, the captain and sniper walked some 200 meters into the built-up part of the village, for no apparent reason other than provoking the youths into renewing the stone-throwing, as indeed then transpired. The sniper responded by shooting at a Palestinian youth, who was hit in the thigh. The youth, whose injury was termed light, was taken to hospital in Ramallah. At no point were the troops in mortal danger and in any case, the confrontation was intentionally renewed by the soldiers’ who entered the village, apparently on orders from above.

in full: http://www.btselem.org/press_releases/20150118_use_of_live_ammunition_in_wb

[Mnemosyne]

1. Shooting at kids throwing rocks shows great courage. nt

[Jefferson23]

2. Orders from the top, it's important to understand where all that courage is coming from. n/t

[Mnemosyne]

57. It has sickened me ever since I first heard of the rock-throwing kids on the news, years ago. nt

[shira]

15. What do u think about kids being encouraged by adults....

....parents, or anti-zionists to throw rocks at soldiers?

[bravenak]

26. What do you think about shooting them?

[shira]

31. I asked first. You have a problem with my question?

I'll answer you next.

[bravenak]

35. I don't know that they were taught to throw rocks.

I threw them without being told during the riots. Police abuse was prevalent in the Rampart division.
So, I think they had free will and threw rocks. Not a death penalty offense in most places. Gun vs. rock, soldier vs. teenager.

Now, what do YOU think about soldiers shooting unarmed people?

[shira]

37. Kids definitely are encouraged 2 throw rocks - by adults, anti-Zionists, parents...

There are plenty examples of this, if you're interested. This goes well beyond child abuse. It's basically using kids as child-militants.

That's why I asked.

I don't expect any of the usual unhinged Israel bashers to acknowledge this happens, much less condemn the action. I know they don't give a shit about it, and that they actually support it - if it can possibly make Israel look bad in response. That's why I couldn't give a rip what Israel haters have to say.

=========================

To answer you...

Rock throwers are not unarmed people. Throwing rocks not only can kill. They actually have killed people.

I think questioning a military shooting at teen rock-throwers is definitely a legitimate concern - and it requires an answer. I understand the outrage and I also think it's too heavy handed and wrong, but I'd want to hear from the military why they felt they needed to change policy like this. I know the usual haters don't care what the IDF has to say, but objective people do.

[bravenak]

39. They should speak out on the policy and answer the criticisms.

We have teens in our nation who act out and have riots at pumpkin festivals, we do not even consider shooting them, and they burn police vehicles and damage property. We do not claim that their parents taught them that.
Why are you not demanding the same from people about the violence of settlers and their children?(those kids should be shot at too, right?) If settlers and children of settlers throw rocks (dangerous weapons) at Palestinians should the same policy be followed in reference to those children and their parents ( saying their parents taught them and shooting them with live ammunition) or do they get a pass?

This idea that it's permissible to treat the Palestinian (religion notwithstanding) children as inherently and substantially different than Israeli (Jewish) children of settlers is bizarre. It like they are considered savages that don't love or raise their children properly. (It is the same tone used on Black Americans here in this country, like we are naturally criminals [like the crime statistics used to explain why it's okay to profile us, when the truth is that the profiling leads to the difference in crime rates{plainly it's kinda racist to claim that you know that 'those people teach their children to throw rocks', it's a huge broad-brush the size of Alaska}])

[bravenak]

48. I think you read too much right wing publications, Shir.

Really. This idea that everything is a pr stunt if it paints Israeli policy in a bad light is what I expect from people living in a bubble. To me, kids are kids, shooting kids, even kids throwing rocks is evil. Evil, Shira. It's an evil policy that you should not defend if you care about Israel and how tgey appear to the rest of us.
Whether the children are encouraged to throw rocks or not, it's evil to shoot them. Period. Full stop.
And you are broad-brushing a whole group of people based off of anecdotal evidence that 'they' encourage their children to throw rocks. You don't know that. You cannot know that. Just because you believe something does not make it true. I see a great amount of racism in the way you speak of Palestinians. It reminds me if the way Fox News speaks about black people. They think WE raise our children to be criminals and make excuses for authority figures shooting us while we are unarmed. I mean, look at how they said Trayvon was 'armed' with a sidewalk. Same thing. The reason I support Palestine (not the only reason, but one of my biggest ones) is because of the nasty racism I see from Israel and their supporters. Nasty. Palestinians are like the negroes of the middle east. And don't try to hit m with the 'palestinians treat their black bad' bullshit. Because I remember a member of the Knesset at a go home nigg** rally having a grand old time.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

53. That's the narrative that S tries to sell a lot.

In my humble opinion it is very hateful...not helpful.

[bravenak]

54. Not helpful at all. I think it is very dangerous to the area.nt

[TexasProgresive]

3. Just in case anyone cares

.22 caliber is metric 5.56 mm. My guess is that they are firing .22 Long Rifle rimfire rounds which is the standard 22 that we have in the U.S. The 5.56 mm center fire rounds are much more powerful but tell that to the dead people who took a 22 round.

[Jefferson23]

4. Thanks.. I guess there is some solace for the Palestinians there. n/t

[shaayecanaan]

11. 0.22 LR rimfire standard

In the recent Israeli-Palestinian clashes began in 2000, the Ruger resumes it’s original role as a less lethal riot control weapon. However, it’s usage in this role was rather controversial this time. After several incidents involving the death of Palestinians by the Ruger fire, the IDF conducted a field experiment in the Ruger at the IDF Sniper School in Mitkan Adam under the supervision of the IDF Judge Advocate General (JAG). The test showed that the Ruger was more lethal then thought especially in upper body injuries. Also, since it’s suppressed and was considered less lethal by the troops, the soldiers were much more likely to use the Ruger loosely then intended.


http://www.ruger1022.com/docs/israeli_sniper.htm

[TexasProgresive]

12. I remember that.

What I was really pointing out is the writer of the article is ignorant of bullet sizes. .22" is 5.56 mm. If they want to differentiate between rounds and weapons they should use rimfire and center fire. It just irritates me when journalists put out stuff that just proves how ignorant they are of the facts. Whenever I see something like this in an article I begin to wonder what else is made up nonsense.

I remember reading an article in the Houston Chronicle about the Mexican state of Tabasco. It was at least 2 full pages. Near the end the reporter decided to add a little factoid, "The state of Tabasco is famous for its hot sauce." Tabasco hot sauce is from Avery Island, Louisiana, not Mexico. The peppers grown on Avery Island may have their origins in Mexico. Anyway as soon as I read that I discounted the rest of the piece.

Rant over, Thanks

[leveymg]

28. There's only a 5% difference between a .223 and a 5.56mm round. That's not "much more powerful"

Both can be shot from the same rifle.

Five percent is the difference in chamber pressure. Source: http://thearmsguide.com/645/is-there-a-difference-between-223-and-5-56/

The other significant difference is in the weight of the projectile (.55 grain - .223) vs .62 - 5.56 round.

A shot to the same part of the body with a .22 round is just about as likely to kill, regardless.

This is all about perception management, not humanitarian concerns.

[TexasProgresive]

29. You make my point, Thanks n/t

[Jefferson23]

5. What America Learned About Torture From Israel and Britain

One striking aspect of the debate over Bush-era interrogation methods has been the willingness of the program’s defenders to support methods that are routinely described as torture when employed by other countries. “In [Dick] Cheney’s world, nothing Americans do can be called torture, because we are not al-Qaida and we are not the Japanese in the Second World War (whom we prosecuted for waterboarding) and we are not ISIS,” writes the New Yorker’s Amy Davidson. She continues: “t was not really the Justice Department that ‘blessed,’ or rather transubstantiated, torture; it was our American-ness.”



The United States, though, is not the only democracy to have tortured. In fact, in justifying the interrogation program, its architects drew on the experiences of two of America’s closest allies.

As was widely reported in the Israeli media, last week’s Senate report notes that the CIA used Israel as a precedent to justify its use of coercive interrogation tactics. The Jerusalem Post reports:

On November 26, 2001, soon after the September 11 attacks on the U.S., the CIA general counsel wrote that “the Israeli example” could serve as “a possible basis for arguing ... regarding terrorist detainees that ‘torture was necessary to prevent imminent, significant, physical harm to persons, where there is no other available means to prevent the harm.’ ” The internal memorandum also said that “states may be very unwilling to call the U.S. to task for torture when it resulted in saving thousands of lives.”

The use of torture in fighting terrorism has been a recurring subject of debate in Israel. In 1987, following the deaths of two Palestinian prisoners, an Israeli government commission led by former Supreme Court justice Moshe Landau found that in some extraordinary cases “the exertion of a moderate degree of physical pressure cannot be avoided.”

According to the human rights group B’Tselem, Israel’s internal security service, the Shin Bet, used physical force against at least 850 persons per year in the years following the Landau Commission, usually not in the “ticking bomb” scenarios the report had used to justify such methods. These methods include depriving prisoners of sleep, forcing them into “stress positions,” threatening them, subjecting them to extreme temperatures, and blasting them with loud music—all methods that would later become commonplace in CIA interrogations.

snip* Proponents of the U.S. interrogation program took from these examples that government can get away with an awful lot of mistreatment without having to call it “torture.” Israel’s experience is also a reminder that security forces will find ways to exploit the loopholes left open in legal judgments. This is concerning given that the Obama administration is reluctant to launch any prosecutions program and that its legal position on torture leaves some troubling ambiguity on the topic of “black site” prisons. And the British interrogations, still being argued in court four decades later, suggest that even if the U.S. is completely finished with torture, the controversy over the program is far from over.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/12/15/what_america_learned_about_torture_from_israel_and_britain.html

[azurnoir]

6. so IDF is 'stepping up' use of live ammo on what are mostly minors, kids?

[Jefferson23]

7. Yep. If you're confident you won't need to pay a price for your behavior, some governments

will rationalize any actions.

[oberliner]

8. Exactly

Just ask any number of Israel's neighbors.

Or any of numerous countries across Africa.

Or are friends in China, Russia, and Europe.

Or perhaps even the US itself?

[azurnoir]

13. governments and their supporters both

[Jefferson23]

19. Precisely. n/t

[Jefferson23]

9. Some victims can sue, depends on who perpetuated the terror:

U.S. victims' case against PLO opens new chapter in how courts address terror

Recent rulings found that victims can proceed under Anti-Terrorism Act, a more than 2-decade-old law that allows victims of U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations to seek compensation.
By Tom Hays Jan. 20, 2015 | 4:05 PM

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.638071

[azurnoir]

14. I had read a couple of weeks back that Shurat HaDin had brought a case before the ICC

asking that Abbas be charged and tried for crimes against humanity and that he be tried as a Jordanian citizen no less

[shira]

16. What do u think about that?

As to his Jordanian citizenship, the reason is because Jordan is a state member of the ICC.

Palestine is not yet a state.

[azurnoir]

20. I think Shurat HaDins status as an 'N'-go should be closely investigated n/t

[shira]

22. There are politically motivated NGO's on both sides. Some more extreme.....

....than others.

Can we agree that all the extreme NGO's on both sides should be closely investigated?

[Jefferson23]

18. Facts stranger than fiction..no doubt. A Jordanian..no agenda there, eh? lol n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

10. Bullets are cheap. Apparently the IDF believes Palestinian lives are cheaper.

[shira]

17. Encouraging kids to throw rocks at soldiers is arguably worse, don't u think? n/t

[azurnoir]

21. even IF true that does not does not excuse IDF using lve ammo on minors

[shira]

23. You blew it with "IF". There's no question that happens...

That you have a problem acknowledging it happens and you're unable to strongly condemn it speaks volumes.

[azurnoir]

24. seems someone has a problem acknowledging something here

[shira]

34. If you want a real conversation, then answer me first...

I'll then answer you.

That's how it works.

[azurnoir]

36. I did answer your question and that answer was deflected for some reason

can't imagine why though

[shira]

38. Where? n/t

[azurnoir]

40. #21 and how do adults encouraging kids (your claim) justify IDF using live ammo on them

will you deflect from the central issue which is IDF using live ammo on minors ?

I've been reading the entire thread BTW

[shira]

44. LoL. You didn't say it was wrong b/c u question whether it happens at all.

Last edited Thu Jan 22, 2015, 05:46 PM - Edit history (1)

When you're able to at least acknowledge the obvious, you will be closer to answering my question.

Until then, I'm not playing this game where you drill me with questions while deflecting mine.

==========

As to justifying it, that's BS. Look at #37 above....


To answer you...

Rock throwers are not unarmed people. Throwing rocks not only can kill. They actually have killed people.

I think questioning a military shooting at teen rock-throwers is definitely a legitimate concern - and it requires an answer. I understand the outrage and I also think it's too heavy handed and wrong, but I'd want to hear from the military why they felt they needed to change policy like this. I know the usual haters don't care what the IDF has to say, but objective people do.

[azurnoir]

52. nIce try except I did not question whether or not kids throw rocks

I questioned whether or not it was because adults tell them to as you seem to state

shira (23,802 posts)
17. Encouraging kids to throw rocks at soldiers is arguably worse, don't u think? n/t

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=93166

so if not adults just who is encouraging them?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

25. Are you suggesting that it is alright to kill children?

There have been instances where Israelis have been caught on film throwing rocks at the IDF and Israeli police.

Would you have the same opinion of "shoot to kill" if Israeli adults and children were being regularly shot by Palestinians for throwing rocks, destroying olive groves or protesting?

[bravenak]

27. That's what I'm getting out of it.

I wonder what she'd think about a Palistinian military group shooting violent settlers to disburse them from their olive groves.

[shira]

32. I asked a question. You're deflecting, as usual.

I don't mind answering you, but I'd appreciate an answer first.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

41. And I am asking you a question that you are running from.

Once again...

25. Are you suggesting that it is alright to kill children?
There have been instances where Israelis have been caught on film throwing rocks at the IDF and Israeli police.

Would you have the same opinion of "shoot to kill" if Israeli adults and children were being regularly shot by Palestinians for throwing rocks, destroying olive groves or protesting?

[shira]

46. Waiting for you. I asked first, that's why...

Last edited Thu Jan 22, 2015, 05:44 PM - Edit history (1)

I know you don't want to answer & that you'll try deflecting as much as possible.

But when you do respond, I'll gladly give you my answer.

===========

BTW, I already answered in #37 above...

To answer you...

Rock throwers are not unarmed people. Throwing rocks not only can kill. They actually have killed people.

I think questioning a military shooting at teen rock-throwers is definitely a legitimate concern - and it requires an answer. I understand the outrage and I also think it's too heavy handed and wrong, but I'd want to hear from the military why they felt they needed to change policy like this. I know the usual haters don't care what the IDF has to say, but objective people do.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

49. Wow. You really are stuck.

If I were you, shira I would delete your posts on this subject.

They're pretty indefensible.

[NOLALady]

30. Encouraging children to throw rocks

at soldiers is arguably worse than shooting children?

Is that really your position?

By the way, Have you ever met a kid?

[shira]

33. So you wouldn't mind sending your own kids out to throw rocks.....

....at a militia, or have other adults encouraging your children to do so?

I think those adults should be arrested & jailed for deliberately putting those kids in harm's way.

You do realize how bad that is, right?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

42. Your bankrupt position is arguing for shooting children?

Am I wrong?

That really is an undependable position for anybody to have.

[shira]

47. I've stated no such thing. I'm asking a question & I'm receiving....

Last edited Thu Jan 22, 2015, 05:43 PM - Edit history (1)

....nothing but deflections.

I already answered in #37 above...

To answer you...

Rock throwers are not unarmed people. Throwing rocks not only can kill. They actually have killed people.

I think questioning a military shooting at teen rock-throwers is definitely a legitimate concern - and it requires an answer. I understand the outrage and I also think it's too heavy handed and wrong, but I'd want to hear from the military why they felt they needed to change policy like this. I know the usual haters don't care what the IDF has to say, but objective people do.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

51. Yes, you have.

Me
10. Bullets are cheap. Apparently the IDF believes Palestinian lives are cheaper.

You
17. Encouraging kids to throw rocks at soldiers is arguably worse, don't u think? n/t

No, shira, killing children is far, far worse.

And while you're at it please stop with the blanket statements about Palestinians.

[NOLALady]

56. My children are Black.

We had "the talk" when they were kids.

They understand that breathing while black can be a death sentence, let alone throwing rocks at someone.

That said, I do not think a child should be executed for rock throwing.

You do realize how bad that is, right?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

45. I'm usually blown away* by the warped things

that the poster you are conversing with writes.

How can anybody defend shooting children for throwing rocks?

*I'm not blown away in a positive fashion.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

50. Than shooting children? No, shira.

I really can't believe that is your position.

Pretty evil, IMHO.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

55. I would have to say that you post has really attracted some very bigoted responses from the right.

I can't imagine ever having to witness someone being shot let alone a child.

When the three Israeli settlers were murdered people in I/P were screaming about it.


Their reactions WRT Palestinian Children is revolting by comparison.