The Twilight Zone / Victims of the fence

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"A still-life image: a building covered with Jerusalem stone, a large memorial poster hanging high up on one of the floors, and below, a sign in broken English over the "Paradise Cafe." Second image: a makeshift soccer field, empty, on which a huge puddle formed on Sunday of this week. Across the road a barbed-wire fence encircles the abandoned airfield of Atarot, once touted as "Jerusalem's international airport." Along the fence runs a ditch - into which the boy fell and, according to witnesses, bled for a long time until he died. He was struck by a bullet in the leg and lay there, dying in agony.

Was he only playing soccer? Did he just run to get the ball, which had fallen into the ditch along the fence, as his friends say? Or did he sabotage the fence and try to take the metal for his family's livelihood, as the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said the next day?

What difference does it make? What does make a difference is the appalling question of what prompted a soldier, or a Border Policeman, to open fire from a long way off at the boy and then to leave him bleeding on the ground until he died. What goes through the mind of the shooter, in the moments before and after he takes the life of an adolescent, who was in no way putting anyone at risk - even if he touched a fence that must not be touched? Three fences surround the abandoned airport, and last Sunday we saw no hole in any of them, three days after the unnecessary, criminal shooting.

In this terrible place the children of Qalandiyah and its surroundings are killed like flies. At least eight have been killed here in the past few years, along the death fence. In this space we wrote about 11-year-old Yasser and his brother, Samar, 15, the two children of Sami Kosba, who were killed at the fence a month apart, in February, 2002; about Omar Matar, 14, killed in April, 2003; and about Ahmed Abu Latifi, 13, in September, 2003. And there was Fares Abed al-Kader, 14, killed in December, 2003. Now there is also Taha Aljawi, February, 2007."

more

[Scurrilous]

1. Tair's Palestinian peers

<snip>

"A child a week, almost every week. In recent weeks, I again went out to document the circumstances of the killing of several children and teenagers, shot dead by Israel Defense Forces soldiers. A very ill wind is once again blowing in the army and no one is saying anything about it. An army that kills children does not concern the public. No committee of inquiry has been, and none will be, formed to deal with this matter. But the fact that the IDF kills children with such a light hand, and fully supports its soldiers who do so, should trouble us no less than the reserves of war supplies in the North. The ramifications of such behavior are not only moral -ultimately an army's operational capability will be affected when children are the targets in its soldiers' gunsights.

Jamil Jibji, the boy from the Askar camp who loved horses, was shot in the head after soldiers in an armored jeep taunted a group of children who threw rocks at them. He was 14 years old. Jamil was the fourth child to be shot in that area under similar circumstances. Abir, the daughter of Bassam Aramin, a member of the "Combatants for Peace" organization, was leaving her school in Anata when a Border Police patrol jeep turned around near the school - no one knows why - and tossed tear gas grenades, one of which apparently struck her head. She was 11 years old. Taha al-Jawi touched the fence nearby the abandoned airfield at Atarot and in response, soldiers fired at his legs with live ammunition, and apparently left him to bleed to death. He was the eighth child to die in similar circumstances. He was not yet 17 years old.

All of these children were killed in cold blood; they did not pose a threat to anyone's life. With the exception of Jamil's case, the IDF, as usual, did not even bother to open an investigation into these children's circumstances of death. When it doesn't even investigate, it is obvious that the army has no intention of putting an end to the killing of children. Its commanders are not even troubled by this.

The last case, Taha, is perhaps the most egregious of all: The IDF Spokesman's Office defends the decision to open fire with live ammunition against a group of children who perhaps damaged a barbed wire fence, as the IDF claims, or perhaps played soccer near the fence, as the children claim - all in broad daylight. Not a word of sorrow, not a word of condemnation, only absolute backing for live gunfire from a distance at unarmed children, without issuing a prior warning. Taha died from a bullet in his leg. And, according to his friends, he bled for a full hour in a muddy ditch he fell into. The IDF Spokesman's contention that he received immediate medical attention does not reconcile with the fact that Taha was wounded in his leg, an injury, which is only fatal as a result of a prolonged loss of blood. But even if assistance was extended immediately, as the IDF claims, are we willing to accept rules of engagement that permit live gunfire from a distance at unarmed teenagers? Are there no other means of dispersing "suspicious" teenagers, as the IDF Spokesman refers to them? What goes through the mind of a soldier who aims his weapon at such a group and fires live, fatal rounds at them, taking such young lives? And what chilling message is the IDF sending its soldiers when it backs such inhumane action?

These stories, and similar ones, did not raise a stir among us. Some of them were not even reported in the news. The killing of a Palestinian boy or girl does not disturb the Israeli public. The West Bank is quiet, there are almost no terror attacks, attention is turned to other affairs, and under the cover of this false and temporary quiet our soldiers, our best sons, are killing dozens of children and teenagers on a routine basis, out of the sight of the rest of us."

more

[Violet_Crumble]

2. There's no justification for any of these deaths...

..and the fact that the IDF can't even be bothered investigating most of them speaks volumes...

[Porcupine]

3. As long as only Palestinian children die nobody cares.

When an Israeli child is killed his name is splashed across CNN. This is part of why insugents shoot journalists now in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The horror continues. The blame spreads to anyone associated with Israel breeding little horrors of its own. Somebody has to stop killing kids to protect their stolen lands.

[breakaleg]

4. There is such outrage over the deaths of innocent civilians when they are committed by Palestinians.

Where is the outrage over this death? How is this any different simply because it was committed by the IDF?

I see no difference between the reckless killing of civilians, especially children, killed by both sides. It's about time we started treating the perpetrators the same as well.

[Shaktimaan]

5. There's plenty of outrage

I'm reading it here. I read it in the Haaretz article at the top of this post. I read about it all the time. All of these deaths should be reported and I do think that compared to probably any other single conflict in the entire world this one has more media surrounding every death on both sides. When was the last time a single death of a civilian in Darfur or even Afghanistan had an article attached to it. When was the last time a death of even a US serviceman did? Pat Tillman maybe?

When I critique angry comments directed at Isreal it isn't meant to imply that Palestinian deaths are somehow less important or tragic. Someone who is killed in a car crash has lost just as much as someone who is murdered. But when we talk about the ethics, then motive does count. A drunk driver who recklessly kills someone is not held as accountable or faulted to the same degree as a burglar who breaks into a house specifically to kill a family. The law recognizes this difference and I believe it applies to this discussion.

I don't know if this killing was totally accidental or the result of a kipot srugot soldier with a sadistic streak. It is stupid to speculate as either could be true. All we can rationally discuss is the greater known policy which drives the general actions of either side. And looking at that, it is not Israel's goal to kill as many Palestinians as possible. Killing civilians is not an aim or a policy decision. It is a reality but there is a huge, huge difference between collateral damage, even if it is due to recklessness, and genocide. Now I realize that the Palestinians are not committing genocide, BUT civilians killed in their attacks were targeted on purpose. It is the goal of Palestinian attacks to kill civilians.

So when I react differently to Israeli vs. Palestinian casualties it is because I know that when Israeli civilians have been killed it represents something different than the reverse. It represents a successful military mission and I am revolted. If Israel fucks up or acts irresponsibly, as in Lebanon, I may be angry. And I do feel sorrow for the deaths of any innocent people. But I reserve a different level of anger for people who make civilians deaths their goal. Most people do, which is why everyone views horrific events like Sabra and Shatila or Mai Lai differently than, say, the bombing of Baghdad, even though more innocents surely died there.

That's why I get angry when people judge this conflict according to just the number of deaths. I see people who draw moral conclusions based solely on comparisons of the death percentages all the time. But just because more deaths can be attributed to one side or the other doesn't mean that fault or responsibility should be automatically assigned accordingly. There are very few examples of Israeli's acting according to the same motives as Palestinian militants. The ones that do exist are extremely well known. Outrage against Baruch Goldstein's attack is widespread and loudly proclaimed. Reserving a different level of outrage for him, suicide bombers, and their ilk than we do for things like the example posted here is not an ethical failing. It's proper.

[breakaleg]

6. This child was murdered by a guy wearing an IDF uniform. that should make him MORE

culpable, not less so. And the difference between deaths committed by the IDF is that they aren't called murder as they are excused away or sometimes sanctioned by the state of Israel. Oh, and they don't go to jail or aren't hunted down and killed by the other side.

Whereas when the other side commits murder, they are dealt with accordingly.

You give Israel too much credit. To assume that any deaths they commit are justified in some way is laughable. And I can see why you would say that the numbers don't count, when they aren't in Israel's favor. That Israel may kill more people but it's a result of missions gone bad versus setting out to kill people makes no difference to the dead.

Outrage is all well and good. But are the perpetrators in jail?

[Lurking Dem]

7. Where did he say "justified".

"Israel" does not equal a meshuga soldier. There is not an Israeli policy to kill innocents. Admitting that innocents are indeed killed is not justifying their deaths.

[breakaleg]

8. How about excusable? Some how, some way, there doesn't seem to be IDF soldiers going

to jail for murder. They report what happened, sometimes they investigate, sometimes not, but at the end of the day, what we get is an explanation. Nothing more. That sounds like they are excusing the inexcusable to me.

[Shaktimaan]

11. There's a difference between individual acts and overall policy.

I was not excusing any criminal action or assuming that Israelis merely commit "mistakes" and never "crimes." I was responding to a comment you made that assumed that there's a moral equivalency between accidental killing by the IDF and purposeful killing by Hamas. They are not the same. Intent matters.

Here you are changing the subject and asking, "Why is it that IDF soldiers are never fully investigated or punished, even when they DO commit murder?" There's a big difference there. THIS is a reasonable question and it reflects a policy of actual discrimination. You're right, when IDF soldiers commit murder they almost never go to jail. They are assumed to be innocent or to have made an error unless there's overwhelming pressure and evidence against them.

To a large extent, this happens in most armies. It's hard to prove murder on the battlefield and since all Israelis are soldiers and most soldiers are not professional there is a lot of sympathy for the idea that accidental killings are a sad fact of life. Of course it's also easier to think this than face the sometimes ugly truth. Etc, etc. We all know the many reasons why there's a schism between how Palestinian suspects are treated and IDF soldiers. It's wrong. But here's the thing... I don't know that IDF soldiers do this more than other soldiers. I don't think that Israel is especially corrupt in investigating its military. I mean, look at Haditha or Abu Ghirab for example. In the few short years in Iraq America has racked up some spectacular crimes and cover ups that, honestly, you rarely see in Israel. You are comparing the situation to an imagined ideal, not to other actual countries or situations. Once you compare Israeli practices to other countries' during their wars or occupations things look very different. If America's number of civilian deaths in Iraq more resembled Israel's statistics people would be holding it up as a model of ethical and careful warfare.

And I can see why you would say that the numbers don't count, when they aren't in Israel's favor. That Israel may kill more people but it's a result of missions gone bad versus setting out to kill people makes no difference to the dead.

Fair point. The only friends or family I've lost to this conflict were killed by Palestinians or Hezbollah, never Israel. (But then, Israel never attacked the empire state building, so that's to be expected.) The intent does not matter to the dead, I agree. It does matter to the living though. There is no such thing as perfectly ethical warfare. So the better the intent, the less civilian casualties there are. Israel is actually quite strict with their code of conduct and their rules of engagement. Yes, they could do better. But that does not mean that their efforts are in vain or a failure of policy. Again, comparisons tell a fairer story than blind expectations.

[breakaleg]

12. In terms of moral equivalence,

you talk about intent. When a soldier pulls out his weapon, looks through the sites, aims it at a child, shoots and kills them, that’s intent. And the fact is the soldiers know there are no consequences of such “mistakes” so there is no real reason for them to use the appropriate caution.

What would have happened in this case if that soldier didn’t shoot? A child either would have retrieved his ball or he would have gotten too close to a fence surrounding a patch of empty land. Big deal! Is that enough to warrant his death?

Now, if there were repercussions, then perhaps that soldier would have taken a moment and thought about what he was about to do.

And last week it was a 10 year old girl.

And to compare the actions of the IDF to other armies rather than to what is fair and just in the real world isn’t exactly fair either. The IDF, especially when operating in the occupied territories is basically trying to protect land they’ve stolen from Palestinians. Certainly they should expect them to fight back. And they should be more careful, not less so, than if they were operating on their own land.

[Shaktimaan]

13. 2 quick things

As I said, we can only discuss policy, not individuals. You are making assumptions about what happened to suit your beliefs. Sure, sometimes a soldier commits brazen murder. But it is not POLICY. Policy is the intent of governments, it is what defines the motives of 99% of soldiers. You are choosing to focus on a hypothetically psychotic soldier who kills children for fun as an example of how the IDF operates. Clearly someone who does what you suggest is a criminal. But every military will have some individual rogue criminal soldiers, like it or not. It is not what defines a military's ethics, policy, and how well it is adhered to, does.

Let me ask you, if Israel's POLICY was to kill as many children as possible and every soldier made that their goal, do you feel it would have an appreciable effect on the situation or would things be pretty much the same? Would you judge them differently?

The only reason to focus on single, individual acts as indicators would be if it was the rule rather than the exception. Do not judge Israel as though the exception is in fact the rule. I'll give you an example. In 1997 a lone Palestinian shot up the Empire State Building as revenge for America's support for Israel, hitting several people, a friend of mine among them. Yet this guy was not acting under the directions of any terrorist organization. He wasn't supposed to do this. He was just a mad guy who snapped and even though he was Palestinian and a terrorist it is clear that he is not an indication of Palestinian policies towards America or Americans. This incident was about one guy who acted alone, even if his motive was political. And while tragic, is not Hamas's fault or the PLO's fault or Israel's fault. There's no one to really blame except one guy who is already dead or the situation in general which by all accounts, sucks.

Suicide bombing however, is policy. And therefore I judge it differently, by which I mean far more harshly, even though no one I know was ever killed by a suicide bomber. Do you get what I am saying here?

The second thing is that the issue of land ownership is complicated and not really the focus here. It is far from a case of stolen property and in any case almost all of it is considered occupied anyway. Occupied doesn't mean stolen any more than the Iraq war means that Iraq now belongs to America. Iraq, and most of Palestine is merely occupied. And it is occupied because of the fighting, not the other way around. The occupation exists to stop the fighting. While it may be a convenient excuse to continue the fighting it is not, and never was the actual cause.

There was a time, even very very recently when Gaza was not occupied at all and there were plans to dismantle many West Bank settlements. As I recall "resistance" increased following disengagement. If the Palestinians were truly fighting for the end to occupation, I would expect them to reward withdrawl as that would encourage more of the same. That's what every Israeli I know was desperately hoping for. Something to point to, a reason to leave the territories, a chance for peace, an opportunity to tell the settler movement "Ha! You are retarded and wrong! Leaving is the right thing to do and now we can do it!" Instead they heard the reverse from the settlers, and even worse, they were right. No one could fucking believe it, but they were right. Leaving caused more violence for everyone. And re-engaging and finishing that awful fucking wall brought less. Doesn't that suck?

Israel can't MAKE peace. It can only try and provide the opportunity for it. The settlers all said "You'll see. This is going to cause more violence. You'll be sorry and you'll tell us later that we were right." And I never for a fucking second paid them any heed because they're hateful idiots. And it kills me that they were actually right. And I hate Hamas for making them right when they did not have to, when it would have been helpful, for once, to repay a step towards peace in kind, but NO. Now we all have to eat settler crow and occupation gets expanded. What do you think? That anyone sane really WANTS this?

whew. that was a rant. ok, I feel better, thanks.

[breakaleg]

14. I didn't say the soldier killed for fun and I'm not talking about a hypothetical.

I'm talking about the idiot soldier that killed the child in this case. You are talking about policy, not me. But as with a lot of things in life there's a difference between publicly stated policy and what actually occurs or is overlooked on a daily basis. The actions of many soldiers in the IDF are questionable in a lot of instances that have made the news, like this case. I submit that this kind of killing is important as it goes to what the policy of the IDF is in practice as opposed to on paper. And that is, excessive use of forces is often overlooked. In this case, as in others, it seems to be a shoot now, ask questions later approach.

It doesn't really matter what the stated policy of Israel is if the facts are they kill more people than the other side. Those are the "facts on the ground", so to speak and no amount of double speak can change them.

I disagree with the rest of your post as well, but I won't go into it.

[Shaktimaan]

15. Let's not get carried away.

I'm talking about the idiot soldier that killed the child in this case. You are talking about policy, not me. But as with a lot of things in life there's a difference between publicly stated policy and what actually occurs or is overlooked on a daily basis.

The kid was 16, he wasn't a "child." He was almost the same age as the soldiers. And the article said that eight people have been killed in this manner in the past few YEARS. This isn't a "daily occurance."

But the main thing I don't get is how you equate the casualty disparity into proof of fault. I don't see why you think the casualty difference means something. Sure, if it was a tremendous number it would be different. But it is extremely, extremely low compared to any other conflict that resembles it.

Can you explain why the casualty difference is evidence of Israeli wrongdoing? I mean, isn't it more relevant to look at the percentage of civilians killed by either side? Or the cause of individual deaths in most cases?

[Scurrilous]

9. A Plea for Peace From a Bereaved Palestinian Father

<snip>

"I fought with my daughter on the day she was shot.

On her way out the door to school, Abir announced, in that way children have of doing, that she would be playing with a friend that afternoon rather than coming straight home to study for an exam scheduled for the next day. She was 10 years old, smart, dedicated to her schoolwork and still a little girl.

She wanted to play. I told her to not even think about it.

If I could tell her anything now, it would be: Go. Do whatever you want. Play.

Because now, she never will. She will never laugh again, never hear her friends calling her name, never feel the love of her family wrapped around her at night like a warm blanket.

Abir, the third of my six children, was shot in the head as she left school January 16, caught in an altercation between Israel Border Guard troops and older kids who may or may not have been throwing rocks. She died two days later."

more

[oberliner]

10. allow me to add another excerpt from that article

We know that to serve our people, we must fight not each other but the hatred between us. We must find a way to share this land each people holds in the depths of its soul, to build two states side by side.

<end of excerpt>

I wish there were more discussions here that focused on finding such a solution.

How about the Geneva Accords? I wish progressives in the US would do more to get the word out about that potential starting point towards a resolution of this conflcit.