Israel to Take No Action Against Soldiers

[Scurrilous]

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/ap/ap_story.html/Intl/AP.V4355.AP-Israel-Proteste.html

<snip>

"No action will be taken against Israeli soldiers who shot and wounded a Jewish-Israeli protester during a demonstration over a controversial West Bank barrier, the army said Tuesday.

The shooting caused an outcry in Israel and sparked calls for the military to reevaluate its rules of engagement and the way it deals with unarmed protesters."

<snip>


"In a statement released Tuesday, the army said the incident and its results were ``serious ,'' but no disciplinary steps would be taken against the soldiers who opened fire.

Given all the factors involved, including the fact the soldiers felt they were under a real threat, the lack of accessible riot control gear and the rules of engagement the force was operating under, there was no deviation from the normal rules of engagement,'' the statement said."

[bluesoul]

1. So now it's official

there was no deviation from normal rules. Expect to see such explanations when Palestinians kids are killed...

[La_Serpiente]

2. wow

The shooting caused an outcry in Israel and sparked calls for the military to reevaluate its rules of engagement and the way it deals with unarmed protesters."

If there was an large outcry like the article said, then Sharon will be trusted even less by Israeli populace.

[Gimel]

5. What it didn't say

There is a review of the event and and of the use of live ammo in such circumstances. New riot control equipment has been distributed. It doesn't have anything to do with Sharon, as this is a military matter.

The soldier was ordered to fire, and therefore cannot be held responsible in this situation.

[Aidoneus]

6. "riot"?

Perhaps instead of rushing in a dozen directions to "control" the demonstrations, they should think about what is being said by them.

[Gimel]

9. Not the place

of a soldier to deliberate. The average foot soldier with a high school education, barely 20 years old, and facing a jeering crowd likely to throw rocks or shoot in his direction, is not taking time to meditate.

[mike_c]

8. can you say "Nuremburg Protocols?. I know you can....

How about "Geneva Conventions", which probably don't apply in this case but which Israel has equal disregard for. How about "U.N. Resolutions?"

[Gimel]

10. Did they say that

at Kent State? Students were killed by the National Guard. Was it brought into the jurisdiction of the war crimes tribunal?

[Forkboy]

3. In other news,the sun is hot!

[Scurrilous]

4. Haaretz Article:

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=380028&contrassID=1&subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

<snip>

"The army inquiry by Central Command's Major General Moshe Kaplinski and Colonel Yoav Hareven revealed inadequacies in the army's doctrine for handling civil disorder in the area near the fence, and flaws in the way the Golani soldiers were trained and directed for their mission two Saturdays ago. The report said the troops had riot control equipment back at their base and there was prior information about a demonstration planned for the site - but the information and equipment was not passed onto the patrols in the area."

<snip>

"But the videotape and report presented at the press conference earlier in the day, as well as an independent probe by Haaretz at the scene of the shooting, disprove many of the army's claims. The video shows clearly that while the demonstrators did shake the fence, they were faced from the start by soldiers who were in shooting posture. As for the soldiers' claim that they did not know they were facing Israelis, the videotape makes clear that the claim is at best feeble. From the video one can clearly hear the Hebrew being shouted at the soldiers, "Don't shoot," and as opposed to army claims, only a few were wearing masks and even those were partially masked.

The incident involved demonstrators on one side of the fence, and the soldiers
on the other, with no chance that the demonstrators could get through to the settlement behind the soldiers. While army representatives were saying after the incident that there was about 100 meters between the soldiers and the demonstrators, a visit to the scene Tuesday showed it was about 25 meters and it was easy to hear shouts in both directions.

Another critical question raised by the videotape, edited from three separate cameras that were on the scene, was if the soldiers believed they were in danger why did they allow settlers to cheer and dance beside them in the back of a pickup truck. If they felt they were in danger, why did they allow the Israeli cameramen on their side of the fence and the settlers to remain in the area?

As for the army's claim that Na'amati was "the chief instigator" of violence, the videotape shows Na'amati arrived late on the scene - and as opposed to army claims that he was masked, he is clearly shown without any face covering.

But perhaps most shocking in the videotape is the clear animosity between the soldiers and demonstrators. A soldier is seen throwing rocks at the cursing demonstrators. In another case, when an Israeli cameraman shouts at the soldier, "Why are you shooting? There are Israeli journalists here," the soldier shouts back, "Doesn't matter, I'm shooting in the air to scare the journalists away."

[Resistance]

7. sounds like Na'amati's father was right

The IDF are lying. (gee who woulda thought?)