Israeli soldier sorry for not shooting Arab

[DuctapeFatwa]

“I am sorry, I never thought I was shooting at Jews, I would never shoot a Jew,” the soldier reportedly said....

“ I thought the protesters were all Palestinians and non-Jews.”..“I am sure, the soldier didn’t know he was shooting at a Jew,” Moshe Ya’alon said...

However, when another Knesset member further asked Ya’alon if shooting a Palestinian would have been legitimate under the same circumstances, he sought to dodge the question, arguing that “the army deals with differently with the Palestinians.”

“Soldiers feel threatened by Palestinians and open fire when they feel threatened. This is not the same when soldiers deal with Jews.”...


http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D342216D-4EA6-4327-9E39-886A10C88C26.htm

[newyorican]

1. Now that's...

vomitous.

[SwellGround]

11. Yes, aljazeera is enough to make anyone puke.

I can't believe any progressive or Democrat would use their trash to attack Jewish and Israeli people.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. So here's the Haaretz report

"But in the IDF, there is no policy of shooting at protesters. IDF troops shoot only when life is endangered."

Ya'alon said initial results of the Israel Defense Forces investigation of the incident indicated that the soldiers saw a wild and inflamed Palestinian mob of 70 to 80 people, some of them disguised, running along the fence with wire cutters, without knowing that there were Israelis among them. The soldiers, he said, felt their lives were in danger and they must defend themselves and on the settlement of Elkana, located about 100 meters behind them.

The demonstrators did not heed the soldiers' calls to get away from the fence, so they fired 13 shots in the air, said Ya'alon, adding the warning shots did not deter the mob. At that point, he said, the commander in the field received permission from the company commander to shoot at the legs of the head inciter, who was holding wire cutters.
...
Responding to a question by Ran Cohen, MK (Meretz) if the IDF refrains from shooting at demonstrators only if they are known to be Israeli, Ya'alon said no such decision had been made. "There is experience we have accumulated from the past of our forces being the target of gunfire during Palestinian demonstrations. Our forces have not been the target of gunfire during an Israeli demonstration."

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/377826.html

This still implies that any Palestinians armed with wire cutters are a danger to life, while a mixed group of Palestinians and Israelis armed with wire cutters are not. The IDF troops do not base their assessment on what the people are doing, only the nationality of the demonstrator. What would they do to an Israeli Arab? Shoot him, or arrest him?

[madrchsod]

2. can`t tell them apart?

interesting,maybe they should wear a big circle.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bemildred]

4. The headline is grammatically challenged.

One might almost think it is deliberate.

[The Magistrate]

5. Indeed, My Friend

Had my mouth set for regret at not having shot, with all the trimmings....

[bemildred]

6. The semantics are not well done either.

He regrets shooting a fellow countryman, not such a
bad thing when you think about it. You can, of course,
argue that it would be better if he regretted not holding
his fire all together, and that he should take a dim view
of shooting Palestinians in most situations as well.

[Gimel]

7. Extreme bias

I don't think it is an abnormal statement. Friendly fire is a terrible mistake which no soldier wants to commit, either US, British, French or Israeli.

IMHO, it is extreme bias to consider it "not such a bad thing."

[bemildred]

8. I don't think you understood what I wrote. nt

[bemildred]

9. The thing that is "not such a bad thing" is the soldiers regret. nt

[Gimel]

10. Lack of clarity

Thank you for clarifying the statement:

He regrets shooting a fellow countryman, not such a
bad thing when you think about it.

This can be interpreted two ways. The second clause can refer to the shooting as well as to the regret.

[bemildred]

13. FWIW, I am far from being that belligerent.

Your interpretation, while arguable from a grammatical
point of view (after all the second clause can refer to
most anything in the neighborhood) appears perverse. The
notion that a soldier shooting his fellow countrymen is a
good thing, that is, seems perverse to me, and it would be
easy to get offended that you think I would hold such views.
But I suspect it is merely a reflection of the rhetorical
combativeness that you live with, and has little to do with
me.