Israeli soldiers given free reign

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"Israel's attorney general has eased firing regulation restrictions against Palestinians demonstrating at the separation barrier near Jerusalem, a justice ministry official said on Wednesday.

The decision allows border police snipers to fire at protesters damaging the controversial barrier that Israel is constructing in occupied east Jerusalem and across the West Bank, he said.

Under the new regulations, snipers may fire at the legs of adults tagged as "key instigators," according to the mass-selling Maariv daily. Firing on Israeli and foreign citizens remains banned.

Border police snipers armed with Ruger 22 rifles have already started applying the new regulations, and over the past month alone 13 Palestinians have been shot in the legs in the Jerusalem area, the report said."

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=123&art_id=nw20080319145648114C339923

[msmcghee]

1. You learn something new every day.

It seems I was way off in a previous discussion about Israeli sniper weapons - incorrectly thinking they would be similar to US weapons. Who would have suspected that the IDF would choose a sniper weapon for its ability to not kill the target. Those silly Israelis. These use a .22 long rifle cartridge, the kind kids are given as a first gun. Don't they know how to get a war on - like us?

The Ruger 10/22 is a fully suppressed 0.22 caliber semi auto sniper rifle with a 10 rounds rotary magazine.

In 1987, the Intifada - the Palestinian uprising against the Israeli regime in the Occupied Territories - broke out, and involved mass violent clashes between Israeli security forces and Palestinians protestors. As a result, the Israeli security forces needed a weapon with a more potent firepower then the standard riot control metal covered rubber round, but at the same time less lethal then the standard issue 5.56 mm round of the M16/Galil assault rifles. So the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) searched for a 0.22 caliber accurate rifle that will be used to take out the key protest leaders by shooting them in the legs.

The Ruger 10/22, fitted with a X4 day optic, a full length suppressor and a Harris bipod was selected for this role and was due to be issued to all infantry oriented units, including both special and conventional forces. However, as often happens in the shoestring budget IDF, financial problems prevented the weapon's mass distribution, and it was mainly issued to Special Forces (SF) units. Moreover, instead of using the rifle as a riot control weapon, as originally intended, the Israeli SF deployed the Ruger 10/22 more as a "Hush Puppy" weapon used to silently and effectively eliminate disturbing dogs prior to operations.

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.

As a result of this test, the JAG reclassified the Ruger as a lethal weapon. As a lethal weapon, the usage of the Ruger in riot control is much more limited today. In the IDF Center Command it was completely prohibited to use and the IDF South Command it's deployment was cut down dramatically.

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

[bow-tie]

5. .22 Ruger

Incredibly dangerous weapon. The bullet enters the skull and doesn't exit, just bounces around in there pulverizing everything. Yes, the Israelis are really true victims for sure.

[Warpy]

8. It does that when it enters the trunk, too

It bounces off bone and ricochets around inside the person.

Nurses would much rather see somebody come in with a big hole from a .357 than a little hole from a .22. That little hole usually meant a lot of internal damage.

[msmcghee]

9. Yeah, I guess that's why they chose it.

And that's why they ran all those tests. So they could find a weapon that causes more internal damage - bounce around inside the skull instead of the clean, headache causing, through and through - like most 5.27 mm head shots.

Maybe you should write the IDF and tell them you're up to their dirty tricks. Then write NATO and tell them they can save billions a year by going with a .22 long rifle vs the standard NATO 5.27 mm cartridge. And their soldiers can now carry 5 or 6 hundred rounds in their pocket instead of the usual 200. If they only knew of the superior killing power of the .22.

Seriously, is there anything the IDF could do that you and others wouldn't try to turn them into the world's most uncaring demonic monsters?

[Warpy]

20. I didn't say anything about the IDF

so complain about how everybody picks on them to somebody else.

I have just seen the damage that .22s do when they start bouncing around inside the human body.

It's also one of the reasons I refuse to own a gun. I've had to take care of too much of the damage they do.

[Dick Dastardly]

26. Exactly

Israel tries to use a weapon to minimise death and injury and they get bashed for it. I bet they would get bashed if they used spitballs.

Do you remember when Israel/Jews were blamed for making penises shrivel and fall off or not work in some Islamic country.

[Dick Dastardly]

25. The orders are to shoot at the legs

I would rather be shot with a 22 in the leg than a large round which can take the leg off or do more serious damage. They are usinig them to minimise death and injury.

I have a Ruger 10/22 myself. It is a nice inexpensive but well made rifle.



Did you know the 22 round is prefered by 4 out of 5 proffesional hitmen and assasins surveyed :evilgrin: . The powder in the round can be reduced so that when fired it is an easily ignored pop sound but it still has more than enough velocity to do the job by entering the skull,scrambling the brains and leaving a minimal mess.

[shaayecanaan]

11. You're still way off

It seems I was way off in a previous discussion about Israeli sniper weapons - incorrectly thinking they would be similar to US weapons.

They are similar to US weapons. The standard US Army M21 sniper rifle is .30 caliber as well.

[Violet_Crumble]

2. Well, it appears that it is official Israeli policy to fire on civilians...

Unless anyone wants to try and argue that demonstrators aren't civilians?

[msmcghee]

4. The charge was that Israel has a policy of targeting civilians . .

. . with no defensive purpose. Riot control is certainly a defensive function of any government - including occupation governments when the occupation is defending Israeli civilians. Throwing rocks, Molotov cocktails and shooting at the IDF, setting vehicles on fire and threatening the troops takes them out of the civilian category in any case.

Governments are instituted to defend their citizens from attack - even from attacks by those who claim the immunity of civilians.

[Violet_Crumble]

6. 'Defensive purpose' means when the lives of troops are threatened...

It doesn't mean that they can open fire on Palestinian civilians (note that they're banned from shooting Israelis or internationals) who are demonstrating against a wall which is illegal under international law. There is nothing of a defensive nature in doing that...

Those who demonstrate against the barrier or against any other Israeli policy ARE civilians, just the same as any Israeli who demonstrates against those things...

[msmcghee]

10. That's just BS.

Defensive purpose means the same for Israel as it does for any civilized nation. It means when any Israeli's life (soldier or civilian) is in danger - whether behind the Green Line or in the disputed territory of the WB - or any other place in the world, as in Munich.

Israel built a fence / wall to defend its citizens from attack. That fence / wall has saved and is saving many Israeli lives. An attempt to damage or breach that wall is an attack to diminish Israel's defensive capability. Anyone attempting to damage or breach that wall is not a civilian - they are either a combatant or a criminal depending on the situation. The legality of the wall is immaterial. If the UN thinks it is illegal it's up to them to remove it if they wish. Not the Palestinians under legal military occupation who are required to follow lawful IDF orders.

I applaud the IDF for figuring out how to defend their citizens lives without having to kill the attackers.

[azurnoir]

13. The article says nothing about defending Israel's citizens

it speaks of "damage to the barrier wall", to which of course the retort will "look at Rafah" this is a different situation. I will bet the barrier wall is more closely monitored; of course I can not provide a schematic showing all of Israels camera's and positions, so........

And "targeting key instigators"

The decision allows border police snipers to fire at protesters damaging the controversial barrier that Israel is constructing in occupied east Jerusalem and across the West Bank, he said.

Under the new regulations, snipers may fire at the legs of adults tagged as "key instigators," according to the mass-selling Maariv daily. Firing on Israeli and foreign citizens remains banned.

The question that needs to asked is what constitutes damage to the wall, pounding it with a fist, a rock, is a can of spray paint a weapon?
Oh and who are the key instigators? any one in the front line of protesters?

But maybe an attack on Israel's wall is the same as an attack on Israeli's, at least for some.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. Demonstrators are NOT attackers or combatants...

And that applies to all demonstrators, regardless of whether they're Israeli, internationals or Palestinians. It's interesting to note that any claims that it's justifiable to shoot demonstrators are blown out of the water by the ruling only applying to Palestinians. After all, if demonstrating against the West Bank barrier is considered to be a threat to the troops lives, then why is there a ban on shooting Israeli and international demonstrators? After all, if demonstrations against the wall are such a threat to the lives of troops, then they really should be shooting anyone who demonstrates...

Yr correct in saying that defensive purpose means the same for Israel as it does for any nation (as for the 'civilised' bit, that's purely a subjective judgment and allows for an argument that nations considered to be *uncivilised* don't have any right to defend themselves). The thing is that same as it would be for any other nation, official policy that says it's okay to shoot civilians who are demonstrating is not a nation using the right of defence, but a clear-cut policy to shoot civilians...

And the illegality of the wall is material. It's illegal under international law, and most states acknowledge its illegality. And it's not the role of the UN to forcibly remove the wall. The ICJ ruling states that the parts of the wall built in the West Bank must be dismantled and the onus is on Israel to respect international law and do so...

I've found some photos of some damage done to the wall. Thank dog Banksy is British coz if he were Palestinian he'd probably have been shot for doing it...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7125611.stm

[breakaleg]

15. I love those pics. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

16. Yeah, they're pretty powerful statements, imo...

The last one in the series in my fave :)

[msmcghee]

17. As usual you miss the information that . .

. . explains what is actually happening because that would detract form your "Israel kills demonstrators" meme.

Go back and read the story.

"The decision allows border police snipers to fire at protesters damaging the controversial barrier that Israel is constructing in occupied east Jerusalem and across the West Bank, he said."

You are flat out wrong on that one and that covers the first 2/3 of your post.

The remainder is immaterial. Whether Israel dismantles the wall or not - as a legal occupying power they have a right to make damage to the wall - or damage to any infrastructure - a crime as long as it is there. If you don't like that take it up with the UN. In the meantime the Israeli border police will deal with criminal activity and maintain the peace just like any legal occupying power would. It's their responsibility according to international laws of war.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Sorry, but this is an example of official policy that allows shooting of civilians....

There's no disputing that. Where the dispute can come in is in trying to argue that it's justified to shoot civilian demonstrators...

I've read the article. What constitutes damage according to Israel? That's the important question. Seems to me the definition of 'damage' could be as fast and loose as 'self-defence' is...

I know I asked in my previous post, but it's worth asking again. If it's acceptable to shoot demonstrators using the 'defence' argument, then why are they banned from shooting Israeli and international demonstrators?

No, the rest wasn't immaterial. The construction of the West Bank barrier is illegal, and people are well within their rights to demonstrate against it without taking the risk of being shot.

[msmcghee]

22. I've got no problem with peaceful demonstrators.

It seems your argument is now reduced to you suspect that the border police will not use the same technical definition of "damaging" that you would use. I think you need to gather some evidence and show that the Israeli border police are not adhering to your preferred definition. But first I think you need to show exactly what their definition is. Then we can have a discussion as to the appropriateness of their definition under the circumstances if you wish. I know how important these definitions are for you. But there doesn't seem to be anything in the article that says the new ROI will allow border police to shoot peaceful demonstrators - which was your main assertion. Maybe you could point that out if I missed it.

As far as them being "banned from shooting Israeli and international demonstrators" - I think a more appropriate term is the "rules of engagement" that specify permitted targets and how they should be dealt with. I suspect these ROI are rather carefully thought out and implemented by the Israeli border police. I don't have any idea why they selected those rules but I suspect it has to do with balancing their need to protect the fence / wall with their desire to do as little damage as possible to the people who will be there. I think that would apply to any well managed police force that is ultimately controlled by a democratic government answerable to its constituency. As it is it seems they have eliminated most of the potential demonstrators as targets - only permitting shots at tagged instigators, they've limited the weapons to relatively non lethal .22 caliber and they've further limited that to leg shots only.

You acknowledge none of that in your comment but I'd say that's pretty commendable.

VC: No, the rest wasn't immaterial. The construction of the West Bank barrier is illegal, and people are well within their rights to demonstrate against it without taking the risk of being shot.

I agree about being within their rights to peacefully demonstrate. Again, I see nothing in the article that indicates that the border police will be shooting demonstrators that are not damaging the fence / wall. The illegality of the fence / wall is still immaterial to that question though. If the wall was not deemed illegal - it would still be immoral to shoot peaceful demonstrators IMO. Personally, I suspect the border police would be delighted with the prospect of peaceful demonstrations after what went on along the Egyptian border a few weeks ago.

[msmcghee]

24. In my comment above . .

. . I used ROI when I meant ROE - "rules of engagement". Sorry if that was confusing.

[Dick Dastardly]

27. Maybe they should use the pain ray directed energy weapon.

The Active Denial System (ADS) is a non-lethal, directed-energy weapon developed by the U.S. military.<1> It is a strong millimeter-wave transmitter used for crowd control (the "goodbye effect"<2>). Informally, the weapon is also called pain ray.<3> Raytheon is currently marketing a reduced range version of this technology.<4>

The ADS works by directing electromagnetic radiation at a frequency of 95 GHz<6> (a wavelength of 3.2 mm) toward the subjects. The waves excite water molecules in the epidermis to around 130 °F (55 °C), causing an intensely painful sensation of extreme heat. While not actually burning the skin, the burning sensation is similar to that of a light bulb being pressed against the skin.<6> The focused beam can be directed at targets at a range of just under half a kilometer, or about 550 yards<7>. The device can penetrate thick clothing, although not walls<7>. Active Denial utilizes high frequency microwave radiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System

BRING THE PAIN
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001102.html

Police agencies look to Raytheon weapon
'Burning' beam of directed energy marketed mainly to the military
http://www.azstarnet.com/business/215372


Pain Ray Promo Vid
The Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate shows off their pain ray, the Active Denial System
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr3qJ0racd0

Pain Ray Fries Reporter
Watch an AP scribe get zapped by the military's pain ray -- the "Active Denial System
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RewekVjO52M&feature=related



Active Denial System Riot Demo
The military's nonlethal "heat beam" demonstrated in a mock riot situation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpjxjLRKqw8&feature=related




HEAT-RAY CROWD-BUSTER
Intorducing the ARMY's new "active denial system"...the future of crowd contol. It uses millimeter-waves to "cook" it's targets.
more info:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3-SIXCkh5E&feature=related

[azurnoir]

21. How is that flat out wrong?

From the article

The decision allows border police snipers to fire at protesters damaging the controversial barrier that Israel is constructing in occupied east Jerusalem and across the West Bank, he said.

Under the new regulations, snipers may fire at the legs of adults tagged as "key instigators," according to the mass-selling Maariv daily. Firing on Israeli and foreign citizens remains banned.

Spin this anyway you like, you are the one who is "flat out wrong" as proved by your brilliant succeeding post #18

[msmcghee]

23. Just in case there's any confusion . .

. . I was commenting on the artwork VC provided a link to. In those sculptures/paintings there's one of a leg sticking through the wall. I think that's good art - and effective politics too. The last item in the post I was responding to was a link to that artwork. The sculpture of that leg is what I was responding to in my comment.

[msmcghee]

18. I like the leg. n/t

[azurnoir]

12. dupe delete

[Larkspur]

3. Who was it who said "when peaceful means to change goverments are suppressed..

it sparks violent revolution" or something to that affect?

The pro-Israeli advocates in the US complain that the Palestinians prefer violence to non-violent resistance, yet when Palestinians employ non-violent methods to protest Israel's apartheid policies, they are killed or maimed and we do not hear a peep from the pro-Israeli advocates denouncing Israeli violence against non-violent Palestinian resistance.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. Beyond the wall...

This is from 2005, for anyone who doesn't know about the weekly protests in Bilin...

Sheikh Taysir Al-Tammimi, one of the leading Islamic clerics in the West Bank, gently pulls away the barbed wire that has been laid before him. He then spreads out his prayer mat, facing Mecca. A hundred or so Palestinians cross the imaginary line that once demarcated the coiled border and kneel behind him. Fifty Israeli soldiers stand and look. As the prayer ends, two hundred people quietly applaud, some of them foreign activists from the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), most of them Israeli Jews, from different parts of the Israeli peace camp. It is an act of non-violent protest of almost Gandhian simplicity. For the moment, it works. Israel's military phalanx, its iron wall, is rendered politically and morally mute.

We are in Bilin, a minuscule Palestinian village two and a half miles east of the Green Line. Before the demonstrators -- behind the Israeli soldiers -- is a scar of freshly razed white earth, the preliminary ruptures for the next section of the West Bank wall. Behind that is the vast, sprawling settlement metropolis of Modin Illit, which the wall "defends" by devouring 600 of Bilin's 1,000 acres of land.

Since February, Bilin's 1,600 residents have mounted 50 demonstrations against the wall. Two principles govern them. One is non- violence. One day they chain themselves to olive trees, demonstrating that the wall not only steals their land but their lifeblood. Another day they give out letters to the troops, explaining in Hebrew that the struggle is "not against Israel as a state but against Israel as an occupation".

This week they are commemorating the first anniversary of the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) ruling on the wall: that it and the settlements it "effectively annexes" are illegal under every tenet of international law and must be dismantled. A mock up "scales of injustice" has been erected on the back of a truck. On one weight, the lesser one, hangs the world; on the other, the heavier, hangs Israel. Uncle Sam holds the balance. It tells much of what you need to know about the dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The army has not responded in kind. Since the protests began over 100 Palestinians, Israelis and other have been injured from teargas, beatings, rubber coated steel bullets and live ammunition. Dozens have been arrested, including, in June, two of Bilin's brothers, Abdullah and Rateb Abu Rahme, allegedly for throwing stones. An Israeli military judge dismissed the charge after the army's own videotapes showed it to be spurious. The prayers too were eventually dispersed in an explosion of tear gas and rubber bullets, leaving 14 injured, four arrested and an ambulance struck by gunfire.

But the iron fist has not quelled the protests. On the contrary, they have grown -- which brings us to the second principle.

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/751/re1.htm

[pelsar]

28. just some info:

the ruling because it differentiates between Palestinians, israeli etc is controversial....

rubber bullets which are the more "political correct" way are actually very inaccurate and consequently dangerous (eyes have been put out and people killed by them)

Be"lin protests actually have a certain series of events: protestors approach, start slinging rocks (that have put israeli soldiers in the hospital)...and then the response with teargas, rubberbullets etc. Defining slinging rocks as non violent is like "fuking for virginity".... Even so they did succeed in having the placement of the wall moved (further proof that limited violence can and will cause change)

the wall has been the most effective way of saving lives, its destruction is an indirect attempt to endanger israeli lives.
______________________________

[number6]

29. crippling Palestinians

"Under the new regulations, snipers may fire at the legs of adults tagged as "key instigators," according to the mass-selling Maariv daily.

Firing on Israeli and foreign citizens remains banned."

>>Firing on Israeli and foreign citizens remains banned<< !!

from the Ruger web site "the Israeli security forces needed a weapon with a more potent firepower then the standard riot control metal covered rubber round...."

and "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.."


hmmmmm... :hide: