Not guilty. The Israeli captain who killed Palestinian schoolgirl

PFL

An Israeli army officer who fired the entire magazine of his automatic rifle into a 13-year-old Palestinian girl and then said he would have done the same even if she had been three years old was acquitted on all charges by a military court yesterday.

The soldier, who has only been identified as "Captain R", was charged with relatively minor offences for the killing of Iman al-Hams who was shot 17 times as she ventured near an Israeli army post near Rafah refugee camp in Gaza a year ago.

The manner of Iman's killing, and the revelation of a tape recording in which the captain is warned that she was just a child who was "scared to death", made the shooting one of the most controversial since the Palestinian intifada erupted five years ago even though hundreds of other children have also died.

After the verdict, Iman's father, Samir al-Hams, said the army never intended to hold the soldier accountable.

"They did not charge him with Iman's murder, only with small offences, and now they say he is innocent of those even though he shot my daughter so many times," he said. "This was the cold-blooded murder of a girl. The soldier murdered her once and the court has murdered her again. What is the message? They are telling their soldiers to kill Palestinian children."

The military court cleared the soldier of illegal use of his weapon, conduct unbecoming an officer and perverting the course of justice by asking soldiers under his command to alter their accounts of the incident.

Capt R's lawyers argued that the "confirmation of the kill" after a suspect is shot was a standard Israeli military practice to eliminate terrorist threats.

Following the verdict, Capt R burst into tears, turned to the public benches and said: "I told you I was innocent."

The army's official account said that Iman was shot for crossing into a security zone carrying her schoolbag which soldiers feared might contain a bomb. It is still not known why the girl ventured into the area but witnesses described her as at least 100 yards from the military post which was in any case well protected.

A recording of radio exchanges between Capt R and his troops obtained by Israeli television revealed that from the beginning soldiers identified Iman as a child.

In the recording, a soldier in a watchtower radioed a colleague in the army post's operations room and describes Iman as "a little girl" who was "scared to death". After soldiers first opened fire, she dropped her schoolbag which was then hit by several bullets establishing that it did not contain explosive. At that point she was no longer carrying the bag and, the tape revealed, was heading away from the army post when she was shot.

Although the military speculated that Iman might have been trying to "lure" the soldiers out of their base so they could be attacked by accomplices, Capt R made the decision to lead some of his troops into the open. Shortly afterwards he can be heard on the recording saying that he has shot the girl and, believing her dead, then "confirmed the kill".

"I and another soldier ... are going in a little nearer, forward, to confirm the kill ... Receive a situation report. We fired and killed her ... I also confirmed the kill. Over," he said.

Palestinian witnesses said they saw the captain shoot Iman twice in the head, walk away, turn back and fire a stream of bullets into her body.

On the tape, Capt R then "clarifies" to the soldiers under his command why he killed Iman: "This is commander. Anything that's mobile, that moves in the [security] zone, even if it's a three-year-old, needs to be killed."

At no point did the Israeli troops come under attack.

The prosecution case was damaged when a soldier who initially said he had seen Capt R point his weapon at the girl's body and open fire later told the court he had fabricated the story.

Capt R claimed that he had not fired the shots at the girl but near her. However, Dr Mohammed al-Hams, who inspected the child's body at Rafah hospital, counted numerous wounds. "She has at least 17 bullets in several parts of the body, all along the chest, hands, arms, legs," he told the Guardian shortly afterwards. "The bullets were large and shot from a close distance. The most serious injuries were to her head. She had three bullets in the head. One bullet was shot from the right side of the face beside the ear. It had a big impact on the whole face."

The army's initial investigation concluded that the captain had "not acted unethically". But after some of the soldiers under his command went to the Israeli press to give a different version, the military police launched a separate investigation after which he was charged.

Capt R claimed that the soldiers under his command were out to get him because they are Jewish and he is Druze.

The transcript

The following is a recording of a three-way conversation that took place between a soldier in a watchtower, an army operations room and Capt R, who shot the girl

From the watchtower "It's a little girl. She's running defensively eastward." "Are we talking about a girl under the age of 10?" "A girl about 10, she's behind the embankment, scared to death." "I think that one of the positions took her out." "I and another soldier ... are going in a little nearer, forward, to confirm the kill ... Receive a situation report. We fired and killed her ... I also confirmed the kill. Over."

From the operations room "Are we talking about a girl under the age of 10?"

Watchtower "A girl about 10, she's behind the embankment, scared to death."

A few minutes later, Iman is shot from one of the army posts

Watchtower "I think that one of the positions took her out."

Captain R "I and another soldier ... are going in a little nearer, forward, to confirm the kill ... Receive a situation report. We fired and killed her ... I also confirmed the kill. Over."

Capt R then "clarifies" why he killed Iman

"This is commander. Anything that's mobile, that moves in the zone, even if it's a three-year-old, needs to be killed. Over."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/nov/16/israel2

This is shocking - I can never see a peaceful solution found for this conflict not when incidents like this and others on both sides are so raw in peoples minds.

mikom

PFL wrote: »

The Israeli captain who emptied his rifle into a Palestinian schoolgirl

Was Ron Jeremy in that one?

galwayrush

Here we go again, this thread will end badly....:rolleyes:
Anyways, why can't they act like Christians.............:pac::pac:

PFL

mikom wrote: »

Was Ron Jeremy in that one?

Might edit that thread title - blame the Guardian.

King Felix

In the recording, a soldier in a watchtower radioed a colleague in the army post's operations room and describes Iman as "a little girl" who was "scared to death". After soldiers first opened fire, she dropped her schoolbag which was then hit by several bullets establishing that it did not contain explosive. At that point she was no longer carrying the bag and, the tape revealed, was heading away from the army post when she was shot.

That's disgusting. And he shot her 17 times?

Wtf?

Micky Dolenz

Sounds like there may be more to that story. Was there above normal tension in that area that day and what caused it.

PFL

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Sounds like there may be more to that story. Was there above normal tension in that area that day and what caused it.

EDIT - actually this was back in Nov 2005 was posted the link and never looked at the date. Why would tensions in the area account for the shooting of a 13 year old Girl?

galwayrush

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Sounds like there may be more to that story. Was there above normal tension in that area that day and what caused it.

A good point, i don't take any particular side in this saga, but i get fed up with sensational one sided arguments.
I feel sad for the girl killed, i also feel sad for Israeli families who can't for e.g .go to a restaurant together for fear that the entire family could be wiped out in a terorist attack.
I like to think that the vast majority of people from both sides are peace loving decent people, sadly fanatics and their supporters make it impossible for a peaceful solution.

Micky Dolenz

Because young women can be suicide bombers too. I am not supporting any side, and any innocent life lost is terrible, but I sure won't jump on a band wagon without hearing all the facts.

AckwelFoley

PFL wrote: »

EDIT - actually this was back in Nov 2005 was posted the link and never looked at the date. Why would tensions in the area account for the shooting of a 13 year old Girl?

Suicide bombers

King Felix

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Sounds like there may be more to that story. Was there above normal tension in that area that day and what caused it.

His own soldiers went to the press after the military cleared him, it says. That's were these charges came from.

It just looks like murder to me.

Poly

Nothing could justify this statement:

"This is commander. Anything that's mobile, that moves in the zone, even if it's a three-year-old, needs to be killed. Over."

Evil and depraved.

PFL

Fair point so.....I'd also make it a point not to subscribe to one side or the other. The non conviction of the Solider when it was proven the girl didn't prove a threat to his unit or the installation is the salt in the wound. No different from a terrorist who kills and isn't killed / brought to justice.

If this was an English Solider in NI or an US Solider in Iraq or a Solider anywhere else for that matter you'd have to believe justice would be served - for professional Soldiers there are rules of engagement and when abandoned should have consequences - the Solider was found not guilty.

Sticky_Fingers

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Sounds like there may be more to that story. Was there above normal tension in that area that day and what caused it.

The situation in the area has no bearing on the actions of the soldier. AFAIK these guys are supposed to be professional, the girl posed them no immediate threat and she was gunned down, not by some freaked out private but an officer who was supposed to be in charge of the situation. At the very least the IDF should have the decency to drum this dangerous incompetent (at the very least) out of thier ranks.

Micky Dolenz

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

The situation in the area has no bearing on the actions of the soldier. AFAIK these guys are supposed to be professional, the girl posed them no immediate threat and she was gunned down, not by some freaked out private but an officer who was supposed to be in charge of the situation. At the very least the IDF should have the decency to drum this dangerous incompetent (at the very least) out of thier ranks.

It has a bearing, people are just people and a lot of choices are made on a emotional basis regardless of professionalism.

Now I am not defending the soldier by any means.

As a nation our instinct compels us to support the down trodden and hate the oppressor, with this in mind I like to reserve judgement and not take a single journalistic writings as fact.

PeterIanStaker

Stop criticising Israel you Holocaust - denying Nazis!!


*goes back to watching Fox News*

PFL

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

It has a bearing, people are just people and a lot of choices are made on a emotional basis regardless of professionalism.

Now I am not defending the soldier by any means.

As a nation our instinct compels us to support the down trodden and hate the oppressor, with this in mind I like to reserve judgement and not take a single journalistic writings as fact.

There's direct quotes in the piece taken from the military hearing along with establishing the girl was not a threat -

From the watchtower "It's a little girl. She's running defensively eastward." "Are we talking about a girl under the age of 10?" "A girl about 10, she's behind the embankment, scared to death." "I think that one of the positions took her out." "I and another soldier ... are going in a little nearer, forward, to confirm the kill ... Receive a situation report. We fired and killed her ... I also confirmed the kill. Over."

Regardless of how he felt at the time - his feelings were wrong and as such should face justice for his actions - Justice must be seen to be done - if this was an Irish girl approaching a check point in Armagh in the 80's would you post the same response?

Micky Dolenz

PFL wrote: »

Regardless of how he felt at the time - his feelings were wrong and as such should face justice for his actions - Justice must be seen to be done - if this was an Irish girl approaching a check point in Armagh in the 80's would you post the same response?

Exactly the emotionally response expected from an Irish person. This is why I like to gather facts and not allow my heart takes over.

However, in this case the guy seems like he lost it.

PFL

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Exactly the emotionally response expected from an Irish person. This is why I like to gather facts and not allow my heart takes over.

However, in this case the guy seems like he lost it.

So should face justice or if he

lost it

there are padded places for him. I don't think you're understanding my point this solider clearly was wrong either mentally lost it or in judgement - however if/when a solider trained steps over the line of engagement he should be held to account.

By being acquitted how can that family/community move on - if anything he just contributed to the recruitment of xx number of Palestinians taking up arms...and so the cycle continues.

galwayrush

PFL wrote: »

Regardless of how he felt at the time - his feelings were wrong and as such should face justice for his actions - Justice must be seen to be done - if this was an Irish girl approaching a check point in Armagh in the 80's would you post the same response?

It's easy to say afterwards that it was a mistake, but how he felt under the circumstances at the time is another matter, it may have been a situation of extremely high tension and under that , a person has to make an immediate decision, fight or flight kicks in.

PFL

galwayrush wrote: »

It's easy to say afterwards that it was a mistake, but how he felt under the circumstances at the time is another matter, it may have been a situation of extremely high tension and under that , a person has to make an immediate decision, fight or flight kicks in.

He wasn't face to face with this girl he left his command post and continued to fire after the girl lay wounded.

His own unit complained and pleaded with him to stop firing - while I understand the flight or fight concept, his actions still need to be accounted for - BBC report on the story;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3733638.stm

Israelis probe Gaza girl shooting

Doctors said Iman al-Hams was hit by about 20 bullets
Israel's top military prosecutor is investigating an army commander accused of repeatedly firing at the lifeless body of a young Palestinian girl.
Soldiers said they pleaded with the officer to stop as he sprayed Iman al-Hams, 13, with automatic gunfire.

She had been shot by Israeli soldiers after straying into a restricted area near Gaza's border with Egypt.

Hundreds of Palestinian children have been killed by Israeli troops during the Palestinian uprising or intifada.

It is unusual for the army to launch an investigation into the circumstances of such incidents.

But the death of Iman al-Hams is different because soldiers have complained publicly about the behaviour of their commander - who has not been named.

Close range

Without revealing their identities, soldiers from the Givati brigade platoon told Israeli television how Iman al-Hams had been shot on 5 October in the Tel Sultan neighbourhood of Rafah.


[The officer] was hot to take out terrorists and shot the girl to relieve pressure
Israeli soldier
"We saw her from a distance of 70 metres. She was fired at ... from the outpost. She fled and was wounded," a soldier said.

While Iman was lying, wounded or dead, about 70m from the Israeli guard post, the platoon commander approached her and fired two bullets from close range at her head, the soldiers said.

He then went back a second time, put his weapon on the automatic setting and - ignoring their objections on the walkie-talkie - emptied his entire magazine into her body.

"We couldn't believe what he had done. Our hearts ached for her. Just a 13-year-old girl," one soldier said.


Heavily-armed Israeli outposts line Gaza's border with Egypt
"How do you spray a girl from close range? He was hot for a long time to take out terrorists and shot the girl to relieve pressure," the soldier added.

It is not clear from reports whether the investigation will focus on the initial shooting of Iman al-Hams or the officer's subsequent behaviour.

"Confirming the kill" - as Israeli troops call shooting combatants at close range to make sure they are dead - goes against Israeli military regulations governing the rules of engagement, Haaretz newspaper reported.

Palestinian witnesses say it was more than an hour before the Israeli troops would let medics get to the body in an ambulance.

Sniper fire

Initially the Israeli army had said Iman al-Hams was shot because she was suspected of carrying a bomb to the army outpost.


Will this bring her back to life? They are murderers and they killed her in cold blood
Ihab al-Hams
It was reported that the Israeli troops had initially thought her satchel contained explosives - although it was found only to contain school books.

Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Moshe Ayalon defended his troops on Sunday, telling the Israeli cabinet that Iman al-Hams had been sent towards the outpost to draw out the soldiers so that Palestinian snipers could fire at them.

Her brother Ihab al-Hams angrily brushed off news of the investigation.

"Will this bring her back to life? Will this bring her back home? Will this heal our wound?" he told reporters.

"They are murderers and they killed her in cold blood."

Israel's army has occupied the Gaza Strip since 1967. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon wants to pull troops and settlers out of the territory, while retaining full control of its borders, coastline and airspace.

Sticky_Fingers

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Exactly the emotionally response expected from an Irish person. This is why I like to gather facts and not allow my heart takes over.

However, in this case the guy seems like he lost it.

Even if it was a moment of madness born of fear then this guy should still have been at the very least kicked out of the army. The region is violent enough without giving nutjobs like this a weapon let alone the authority to use it with impunity. The whitewash that was this judgment just adds fuel to the fire and reinforces the perception that the IDF is a law onto themselves and can shoot down unarmed innocent civilians without any repercussions. You would expect an act like this from the terrorists they are supposed to be fighting and the armies inability to impose discipline or punish wrongdoing make them appear no better than Hamas.

galwayrush

PFL wrote: »

He wasn't face to face with this girl he left his command post and continued to fire after the girl lay wounded.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3733638.stm

Looks like he totally lost the plot then, as someone said above.. a padded cell is where he should be after being found not guilty.

It's such a sad situation for all decent people in those parts, impossible to see a resolution any time soon.

Sanjuro

It doesn't matter what side you're on, what politics you follow, or what god you believe in. It takes a sick fucking mind to be able to unload a magazine into a thirteen year old child.

PFL

galwayrush wrote: »

Looks like he totally lost the plot then, as someone said above.. a padded cell is where he should be after being found not guilty.

It's such a sad situation for all decent people in those parts, impossible to see a resolution any time soon.

That's what should have happened............he got a promotion and received compensation for loss of earnings and a libel case taken against a news channel.

galwayrush

PFL wrote: »

That's what should have happened............he got a promotion and received compensation for loss of earnings and a libel case taken against a news channel.

I've read up a lot on the story in the past hour. That ruling definitely sent out the wrong signals.

Wibbs

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Exactly the emotionally response expected from an Irish person. This is why I like to gather facts and not allow my heart takes over.

However, in this case the guy seems like he lost it.

Eh MD it's one thing to let ones head overrule ones heart, its quite another to try to find some moral equivalence for such an act without recourse to both.

Sticky_Fingers

The more I read and think about it the more people disgust me, how could anyone with any decency do this to a child. What really pisses me off though is that a thread that deals with the senseless slaying of a little girl has less responses in the same time frame as one about someone drowning some puppies, 27 posts in just under an hour and a half from a small handful of posters who could be bothered to post. People have got their priorities all f'cked up if they think the death of a few animals is more important topic of discussion than the slaughter of a child:mad:

Wibbs

Puppies are cute, people, even children of those people are less so if you have no connection. How many times do we hit the remote when yet another ad or report comes on about some dark skinned child dying as a bundle of sticks in it's mothers arms? Too many times for comfort.

ShadowGal

Sanjuro wrote: »

It doesn't matter what side you're on, what politics you follow, or what god you believe in. It takes a sick fucking mind to be able to unload a magazine into a thirteen year old child.

seconded, and after reading his comrades statements it looks like the guy was way too hot headed and and had itchy fingers

Micky Dolenz

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh MD it's one thing to let ones head overrule ones heart, its quite another to try to find some moral equivalence for such an act without recourse to both.

True, i meant more in a general way with regard to the conflict.

After reading up more on the story it is quite harrowing and heartbreaking.

Horsefumbler

galwayrush wrote: »

i also feel sad for Israeli families who can't for e.g .go to a restaurant together for fear that the entire family could be wiped out in a terorist attack.

Yes I'm sure there are many in this boat... :rolleyes:

ascanbe

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

The more I read and think about it the more people disgust me, how could anyone with any decency do this to a child. What really pisses me off though is that a thread that deals with the senseless slaying of a little girl has less responses in the same time frame as one about someone drowning some puppies, 27 posts in just under an hour and a half from a small handful of posters who could be bothered to post. People have got their priorities all f'cked up if they think the death of a few animals is more important topic of discussion than the slaughter of a child:mad:

Think the dearth of responses has more to do with a general Israel/Palestine thread fatigue; also the nature of this story has probably dissuaded the blindly pro-Israel contingent of Boards from getting involved.

Daroxtar

The israeli soldier should be locked up for life for murdering a child. Simple as that. He's dirt and any court who lets him go free is a joke of a court.

Einhard

I think that people read stories like this with to a preconceived bias which generally tends to be anti-Israeli, their reaction is coloured by this, all context is thrown out the window, and said bias is confirmed and strengthened. That's why I tend to enter these threads with a degree of trepidation.

However, in this instance I think there can be little doubt but that the actions of the soldier were abhorrant, and the fact that he was acquitted of all charges scarcely less so. As Micky Dolenz pointed out, none of this happened in a vacuum, and context does have to be accounted for, but even so, this was, in my opinion anyway, a shocking and inexcusable action.

It also makes it that bit more harder for people who aren't reflexively anti-Israeli to get their point across, and bring some balance to the debate.

Doublin

The talk of context is often used as an excusing factor for the victors but always ignored in their wanting to punish the losers; from Nazi's to Serbia & Iraq today.

Horndawg

Mickey Dolenz.

Quite simply. You're a c**t.

You were pretty much saying that while what happened was sad, or some other such empty platitude, you were reserving judgement as essentially there are two sides to an argument. Utter horsesh*t in this case.

Granted there can be knee jerk, over the top and indeed one sided reactions to the activities of the IDF. But irrespective of where this occured, a supposedly highly trained, professional soldier, in charge of other armed men was, judging by the testimony of some of the soldiers who were present, trigger happy and wound up.

This is not some "civilian" scared out of his mind as he is tasked with defending a position for which he has no training. It is his training as a soldier and an officer that is supposed to enable him to deal with these situations in a manner that is appropriate to his position, situation and armed capabiltities. It's a prime example of pure hatred, a sense of irrefutable justification and a knowing guarantee of a finding of infallibility, as to do otherwise would open up a can of worms for the Israeli Government regarding other questionable actions carried out by their armed forces.

This Israeli Officer murdered a child in cold blood.

So Mickey, to refer to another post as a typical example of a reaction you'd expect from an Irish person on this subject matter is beyond ignorant, dismissive and arrogant with regard to the facts of the subject matter of the discussion.

Einhard

Horndawg wrote: »

Mickey Dolenz.

Quite simply. You're a c**t.

Whoa, down with that sort of thing. MD wasn't condoning what happened, merely pointing out that there is quite often another angle from which to view events, and which might give a different perspective. Too often in reports on Israeli actions this is ignored in the reflexive rush to condemn Israel. That was not the case in this instance however, and Micky Dolenz clearly acknowledged it.

Horndawg

Einhard wrote: »

Whoa, down with that sort of thing. MD wasn't condoning what happened, merely pointing out that there is quite often another angle from which to view events, and which might give a different perspective. Too often in reports on Israeli actions this is ignored in the reflexive rush to condemn Israel. That was not the case in this instance however, and Micky Dolenz clearly acknowledged it.

I'm aware of that and acknowledged in my own post. Besides, Micky's a big boy and I'm sure he can either reply or ignore my post or even ban me. Either way, rightly or wrongly, my post was directed at him and it isn't necessary for you to speak on his behalf.

"Whoa, down with that sort of thing"

Not sure if you're kissing Moderator ass or being sanctimonius there?

El Horseboxo

No matter what side of the fence you are on you can not deny that this was the action of a pure scum bag.

Sticky_Fingers

Horndawg wrote: »

I'm aware of that and acknowledged in my own post. Besides, Micky's a big boy and I'm sure he can either reply or ignore my post or even ban me. Either way, rightly or wrongly, my post was directed at him and it isn't necessary for you to speak on his behalf.

"Whoa, down with that sort of thing"

Not sure if you're kissing Moderator ass or being sanctimonius there?

It'll probably be a ban...

All Mickey Dolenz was suggesting that when dealing with Israel and Gaza there are two sides to the conflict We in Ireland only really hear, or choose to hear about the death of Palestinians and seem to have a blindspot when it comes to the murdered Israelis.
For example I wonder how many people knew that 4 Israelis were murdered earlier today by Hamas, you'll probably hear a bit more in the near future as Netanyahu has "ordered the security forces to act without diplomatic limitations in order to catch the murderers" and will certainly hear about the victims of the Israeli response as they will more than likely go overboard and end up killing innocent civilians as often happens. I am in no way condoning their actions any more than those of Hamas but there has been death and suffering on both sides and each must take a share of the responsibility.

Einhard

Horndawg wrote: »

I'm aware of that and acknowledged in my own post. Besides, Micky's a big boy and I'm sure he can either reply or ignore my post or even ban me. Either way, rightly or wrongly, my post was directed at him and it isn't necessary for you to speak on his behalf.

I was speaking on my own behalf actually. When I see someone personally abused for what I believe to be a misrepresentation of his position, and by extension that of anyone else who happens to share a similar outlook, I tend to do that.

"Whoa, down with that sort of thing"

Not sure if you're kissing Moderator ass or being sanctimonius there?

Oh kissing his ass for sure. Nothing like sucking up to someone you've never met before, especially if he's an all powerful Mod. Hopefully he'll notice and deign to acknowledge my puny existence...

Super-Rush

Horndawg wrote: »

Mickey Dolenz.

Quite simply. You're a c**t.

You were pretty much saying that while what happened was sad, or some other such empty platitude, you were reserving judgement as essentially there are two sides to an argument. Utter horsesh*t in this case.

Granted there can be knee jerk, over the top and indeed one sided reactions to the activities of the IDF. But irrespective of where this occured, a supposedly highly trained, professional soldier, in charge of other armed men was, judging by the testimony of some of the soldiers who were present, trigger happy and wound up.

This is not some "civilian" scared out of his mind as he is tasked with defending a position for which he has no training. It is his training as a soldier and an officer that is supposed to enable him to deal with these situations in a manner that is appropriate to his position, situation and armed capabiltities. It's a prime example of pure hatred, a sense of irrefutable justification and a knowing guarantee of a finding of infallibility, as to do otherwise would open up a can of worms for the Israeli Government regarding other questionable actions carried out by their armed forces.

This Israeli Officer murdered a child in cold blood.

So Mickey, to refer to another post as a typical example of a reaction you'd expect from an Irish person on this subject matter is beyond ignorant, dismissive and arrogant with regard to the facts of the subject matter of the discussion.

Banned.

wes

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

For example I wonder how many people knew that 4 Israelis were murdered earlier today by Hamas, you'll probably hear a bit more in the near future as Netanyahu has "ordered the security forces to act without diplomatic limitations in order to catch the murderers" and will certainly hear about the victims of the Israeli response as they will more than likely go overboard and end up killing innocent civilians as often happens. I am in no way condoning their actions any more than those of Hamas but there has been death and suffering on both sides and each must take a share of the responsibility.

Well, if you want to play the context game, surely it applies to Hamas as well. Sure I could point out the context of them being killed near a Israeli settlement in the West Bank, near Hebron, where Israeli settlers have made the average Palestinians lives hell in that city. Then there is the fact that Israeli's settlers are in the West Bank to steal Palestinian land. Doesn't change the fact that Hamas killed some people, now does it?

sdanseo

Horndawg wrote: »

"Whoa, down with that sort of thing"

Not sure if you're kissing Moderator ass or being sanctimonius there?

Probably just being an ordinary person who had more respect than the call a moderator a cu*t rather than just saying "I disagree"...

Edit: Oh, he's been banned. Carry on...

Sticky_Fingers

wes wrote: »

Well, if you want to play the context game, surely it applies to Hamas as well. Sure I could point out the context of them being killed near a Israeli settlement in the West Bank, near Hebron, where Israeli settlers have made the average Palestinians lives hell in that city. Then there is the fact that Israeli's settlers are in the West Bank to steal Palestinian land. Doesn't change the fact that Hamas killed some people, now does it?

Hold up, are you trying to justify the murder of 4 unarmed innocent civilians, one of them a pregnant woman? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that I have somehow misread your post because otherwise the only possible explanation is that your callous disregard for the lives of people who you feel in some way have it coming is matched only by your sympathy for one side of the conflict.

That can't possibly be right because then by your reckoning the psycho who opened fire on a defenseless unarmed girl would have been equally justified if he applied the same logic except from the other side of the equation. But you can't be proposing that can you, since thats just insane.

wes

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

Hold up, are you trying to justify the murder of 4 unarmed innocent civilians, one of them a pregnant woman? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that I have somehow misread your post because otherwise the only possible explanation is that your callous disregard for the lives of people who you feel in some way have it coming is matched only by your blind devotion to one side of the conflict.

That can't possibly be right because then by your reckoning the psycho who opened fire on a defenseless unarmed girl would have been equally justified if he applied the same logic except from the other side of the equation. But you can't be proposing that can you, since thats just insane.

Interesting reaction. You clearly missed my point. I was just pointing out that the context argument could easily apply to Hamas, but that regardless of the context they still killed people, and I will quote myself here:

wes wrote: »

Doesn't change the fact that Hamas killed some people, now does it?

I think the above shows very clearly that I was arguing against such reasoning. Basically, I could just as easily talk about context for the other side as well, but it doesn't change what was done.

Sticky_Fingers

wes wrote: »

Interesting reaction. You clearly missed my point. I was just pointing out that the context argument could easily apply to Hamas, but that regardless of the context they still killed people, and I will quote myself here:



I think the above shows very clearly that I was arguing against such reasoning. Basically, I could just as easily talk about context for the other side as well, but it doesn't change what was done.

Apologies for the misunderstanding

KyussBishop

Seriously, what 'context' or 'other point of view' does anyone propose, which warrants downplaying condemnation of a solider shooting dead a 13 year old girl, 100 yards away and of no immediate threat, and then going up to her dead body and emptying the rest of his clip into her? (and then getting completely let off by the court later; is that not completely inexplicable?)

I mean wtf; does anyone downplaying the condemnation, and attempting to diminish the callousness of the shooting (through fabricating justifying 'points of view' which do not fit the facts written in the article), not pause for a moment and have second thoughts about what they're saying, think that maybe it's a bit callous/cold in itself?


I really don't understand that at all, even if someone has little/no knowledge of the Israel/Palestine mess, they should be able to easily see how fúcked up the events are in the article (and a person who is knowledgable about Israel/Palestine even more so).

What motivates anyone to seek ways to explain away/diminish what happened here (or condemnation of it), when all the available information points towards it being a very nasty killing, without any obvious starting point for explaining how it could be justified or a mistake?

Admittedly, through reading threads about Israel/Palestine before, I have become quite cynical towards people who take that stance; I really don't understand it though, so I actually would like to know what motivates it.

Wagon

if the girl had a bomb strapped to her and was confirmed as a threat, id understand. but she was scared, so it was a bad bad move on the soldiers part. should have been jailed for a good few years.
i think every army the world over has its bad apples. you can train a cúnt to fire a gun, but they're still a cúnt.

then again what do we know in Ireland? We've never been involved in a war where terrorosts strap bombs to children so we don't know how to react if faced with that possibility.

arybvtcw0eolkf

The actions of the IDF soldier appear questionable, esp. given the evidence provided by recordings and and eye witness accounts from the soldiers under his command.

Also emptying a full magazine at the girl, well it takes some time to accurately fire that many rounds at a target, that would give the impression of a lunatic. But does it matter if the girl was shot once or 17 times?.

She entered an area controlled by the Israeli Defence Forces, and I know from experience its not an easy thing to do. Its also a tactic used by terrorists to draw out a patrol.

Also the report in the articule states the girls schoolbag was shot, and it didn't explode. Meaning it wasn't a bomb, this is false.. Firing at the bag would most likely have disabled a bomb, the fact that it didn't explode mean's little.

From the outset, to me, it would appear as though the officer was following standard operating procedures by targeting an individual entering a security zone, what he was probably negligent of was noting using a little 'cop on' - giving that the child was clearly retreating from the area and was clearly identified as a young child - however shooting a retreating target doesn't make this a murder.

Its hard not to get emotional about the killing of a young child in this manner, esp. when people don't know the situ on the ground.

But the court will have had a lot more evidence to consider than a few paragraphs from a newspaper, and the Israeli's do have a record of prosecuting and convicting their soldiers so I can only believe that the soldier was indeed innocent of the childs murder.

Its just a pity he didn't take on board what his troops were telling him and let the poor child retreat to a place of safety.