Its not just the "kids" who face incredibly fearful situations -- I was a 30-something reservist who on a couple of occasions found myself with a handful of guys in the midst of an almost riot of several hundred arabs wondering if I needed to use my rifle in order save my life or if firing my rifle would touch off an actual riot. For those armchair quarterbacks raised on Hollywood movies and TV shows who know when trouble will break out because the background music changes, gets tense and sometimes characters give long soliloquies ... real life is a whole lot different ... very hard to predict the next 5 minutes.
"What did he leave out?" A question not just for McCann, but for Gordis. As much as I am a fan of Daniel Gordis, what he left out that this was not just a "fog of war" situation. That this was a prominent journalist clearly marked as a journalist and not standing near anyone firing a weapon. And, critically, that Israeli soldiers in the West Bank of late are not consistently the moral force of yore, but include soldiers and commanders who believe it's OK to beat up, harass and maybe threaten the lives of other Israeli Jews whose politics they think are too leftist, much less Palestinians, much less a prominent journalist who exposes misconduct. I am not, here, arguing about the morality of the occupation or even the morality of this specific mission. I am saying, in this specific instance -- not in general, in this specific mission -- what Gordis leaves out is the evidence and context that suggests why this was intentional. I don't know that if means prosecuting one soldier or not. I do know that examining the rogue behavior of too many Israeli soldiers -- which alarms many patriotic Israelis -- could and should be the lesson here, beyond what one soldier did. It's a shame that Gordis put his thumb on the scale of evidence.
Unfortunately, there are many cases of journalists dying in the line of fire while clearly wearing such clothing. So that in itself is not proof that Israeli soldiers deliberately killed her. I am not sure what Israeli soldiers beating up other Israeli Jews has to do with this, but the Israeli soldiers in that region had a justification for armed combat against Palestinian militants in Jenin sponsoring a recent wave of terror. You say that there is evidence and context "suggesting" intentionality... could you expand on this further?
First, a word of context. The My Lai massacre in Vietnam was real. It didn't mean that the American military was the moral equivalent of the Vietcong or that the U.S. was a corrupt place. It did mean that the behavior of that group of soldiers was clearly wrong and had been covered up. The same goes here. If any criticism of any action by any Israeli soldier strikes you as unfair, then the specifics of any particular incident don't matter. The beating up of other Jews is given as an example of the chain of command losing control over right-wing Jewish soldiers' actions. The evidence about the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh being deliberate is substantial, from independent sources. You or Daniel Gordis or whomever can do "what about-ism" forever, but just as the American military was better for facing up to My Lai (and, yes, I know the stresses that caused it -- but it still needed facing), so will Israel be better for facing up to when it violates its own moral code.
By the way, if you support Israel, "no matter what," that means whether the prime minister is a right-wing extremist or a left-wing socialist? Love of a nation cannot be blind.
Thanks for the article. I reviewed it and note that the conclusion isn't far from what I already suspected: that IDF soldiers were probably responsible for the shot that killed Akleh (though Bellingcat notes the possibility of other militants between the stated positions of the IDF and the Palestinian militants, and that both were using a similar kind of weapon). They could have noted that the Palestinian investigation shortly after her death was inconclusive, which included a review of the fatal (and heavily damaged) bullet by the US State Department. One physicist and ballistics expert, Nahum Shahaf, notes that the kind of weapon used by the IDF would not be lethal at over 100 metres; this may help give context to Bellingcat's quoted analysis of the potential bullet speeds, which were heavily bracketed by caveats. Even then, this analysis was based on a man's activity after the death of Abu Akleh. That certainly deserves a review, but won't really determine the kind of fire on Abu Akleh herself. (Their conclusion doesn't actually state that the speed of the bullet definitely indicates deliberate fire on Abu Akleh, as this clearly cannot be determined.)
"clearly marked as a journalist" - yea, no armed palestinian has ever disguised themselves as a journalist..
by the way, have you ever asked yourself if this/these soldiers are as heinous as you claim, why was 1 person shot? Wouldn't you have expected hundreds of palestinians to be gunned down? You're telling me these horrible soldiers you refer to only killed 1 person? Not 100? Not 1000? Just 1? but somehow they're as crazy and bloodthirsty as you claim?
Doesn't make sense, I think your coffee may be too strong.
Well, Abu Akleh was definitely a journalist and she was covering the IDF raid on Jenin. It is a tragedy that she was killed. I do not, however, believe it was intentional.
The problem is not the righteous or mistaken actions of one or more soldiers, the problem is the ongoing occupation, subjugation and oppression of Palestinian living in the occupied territories. All of which results from the settlement by hundreds of thousands of Jewish Israelis in those territories. Such mistakes and resulting loss of innocent Palestinian lives will continue ad nauseum as long as the settlement and occupation continue.
Jews have been living in Judea and Samaria for several millennia, including before the Jordanian invasion and occupation of between 1949 to 1967. So they cannot occupy a place which is intrinsically connected to their national and ethnic history. A partition resolution in the 1930s had offered these regions to the Arabs as a state, even though the international community had already accepted rights of Jewish settlement there. The Arabs rejected it, and have subsequently rejected later offers, such as those of Ariel Sharon and Ehud Barak, giving over 90% of those regions to the Palestinians for a state. A so-called "Deal of the Century" under the last US administration likewise offered up the territories, to be met with a no. The Jewish Israelis currently living in Judea and Samaria mostly occupy Area C, as designated by the Oslo Accords that the Palestinians signed. The Palestinians mostly inhabit Areas A and most of B, but many Palestinians travel into Area C (which is still mostly unoccupied) for work. So to characterise this as occupation and subjugation is stretching the truth at best, distortion at worst.
As I read this article, I thought about how horrifyingly easy it can be for soldiers to mistakenly kill someone. When I first heard the news of Shireen Abu Akleh's death, I was appalled; this was yet another example of the dangers that journalists face while doing their jobs. But I immediately rejected unfounded claims that Israel had 'murdered' her. I only said that if Israel's soldiers were responsible, then Israel should admit this quickly, as failure to be transparent would only lead to more anti-Israel attacks. Granted, Israel has now come forward and said it was likely that an Israeli soldier hit and killed Abu Akleh, but the anti-Israel attacks predictably continue. Should Israel review its rules of engagement? I am all for accountability and transparency, and there have been times when Israel has been slow on both. Yet, as Naftali Bennet rightly said, 'our hand is not quick to the trigger'. There are many cases of Israeli soldiers showing immense restraint before launching attacks. This is provably part of military training. So no, Israel's rules of engagement are fine. This was a horrible tragedy, which I hope will never be repeated again.
5:40am for minyan...do you ever get tired of praying? I'm not religious, but if I was, you could not catch me going for minyan at 5:40am. I wonder if I'd feel differently if I was religious.
A comment on "rules of engagement": When I served in the reserves [1980s, 1990s] we were five times likelier to spend our month of reserve duty on garrisoning rather than on the "line". Our rules of engagement were: If we saw something suspicious we were to say: Stop. Then Stop again. Then we were to load a shell into the breech [we patrolled and stood guard duty without a shell ready to fire], then we were to again say Stop, then we could fire, once, over the head, then say Stop and then we were allowed to fire at the feet. And there were times we were issued rubber bullets and not metal ones. I once got court martialed and fined for standing guard duty with a bullet in the breech of my rifle which was against the standing orders. One year we were at Kitziot, a pimple in the Negev about 2km from the Egyptian border: First night I was in a tower and noticed that while there was a machine gun with two cans of ammo there was also a bolt welded onto the bottom of the machine gun to prevent it from being depressed enough to bring fire on anyone -- the army was more worried about a soldier going berserk and shooting civilians., the gun was just for "show." Another year, one of our posts was around a refugee camp which got hit with a 48 hr curfew. The next morning there was a steady stream of guys walking out the back of the camp [its not a concentration camp ... no surrounding fence] and down to the road to catch rides to their jobs in Netanya, Yafo, etc. So we yelled at them that there was a curfew and they were not allowed to leave to which they responded by saying they needed their jobs, needed to put food on family's tables, they were unarmed not looking for trouble; so we didnt stop them.
I have been told something similar by an IDF soldier living in Britain, and also from the YouTube channel of another IDF soldier. The level of restraint that the IDF usually demonstrates is admirable. I think the British Col. Richard Kemp said that from what he had seen, the IDF was the most moral army in the world, doing as much as possible to avoid these kinds of tragedies. So while the death of Abu Akleh is an enormous tragedy, it is not a normal occurrence during military engagement.
In McCann's description of the trial of the soldier who shot the child, the judge determined that the fear was fake. The shooter's commander does all the speaking. The judge calls for a reenactment at the scene and is convinced that the jeep could not have been stoned at that position. Imagined fear is worse than real fear. It is conditioning. Made dangerous by feelings of guilt. The shooter, in Bassam's words, was a victim as was his daughter.
Its not just the "kids" who face incredibly fearful situations -- I was a 30-something reservist who on a couple of occasions found myself with a handful of guys in the midst of an almost riot of several hundred arabs wondering if I needed to use my rifle in order save my life or if firing my rifle would touch off an actual riot. For those armchair quarterbacks raised on Hollywood movies and TV shows who know when trouble will break out because the background music changes, gets tense and sometimes characters give long soliloquies ... real life is a whole lot different ... very hard to predict the next 5 minutes.
"What did he leave out?" A question not just for McCann, but for Gordis. As much as I am a fan of Daniel Gordis, what he left out that this was not just a "fog of war" situation. That this was a prominent journalist clearly marked as a journalist and not standing near anyone firing a weapon. And, critically, that Israeli soldiers in the West Bank of late are not consistently the moral force of yore, but include soldiers and commanders who believe it's OK to beat up, harass and maybe threaten the lives of other Israeli Jews whose politics they think are too leftist, much less Palestinians, much less a prominent journalist who exposes misconduct. I am not, here, arguing about the morality of the occupation or even the morality of this specific mission. I am saying, in this specific instance -- not in general, in this specific mission -- what Gordis leaves out is the evidence and context that suggests why this was intentional. I don't know that if means prosecuting one soldier or not. I do know that examining the rogue behavior of too many Israeli soldiers -- which alarms many patriotic Israelis -- could and should be the lesson here, beyond what one soldier did. It's a shame that Gordis put his thumb on the scale of evidence.
Unfortunately, there are many cases of journalists dying in the line of fire while clearly wearing such clothing. So that in itself is not proof that Israeli soldiers deliberately killed her. I am not sure what Israeli soldiers beating up other Israeli Jews has to do with this, but the Israeli soldiers in that region had a justification for armed combat against Palestinian militants in Jenin sponsoring a recent wave of terror. You say that there is evidence and context "suggesting" intentionality... could you expand on this further?
First, a word of context. The My Lai massacre in Vietnam was real. It didn't mean that the American military was the moral equivalent of the Vietcong or that the U.S. was a corrupt place. It did mean that the behavior of that group of soldiers was clearly wrong and had been covered up. The same goes here. If any criticism of any action by any Israeli soldier strikes you as unfair, then the specifics of any particular incident don't matter. The beating up of other Jews is given as an example of the chain of command losing control over right-wing Jewish soldiers' actions. The evidence about the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh being deliberate is substantial, from independent sources. You or Daniel Gordis or whomever can do "what about-ism" forever, but just as the American military was better for facing up to My Lai (and, yes, I know the stresses that caused it -- but it still needed facing), so will Israel be better for facing up to when it violates its own moral code.
By the way, if you support Israel, "no matter what," that means whether the prime minister is a right-wing extremist or a left-wing socialist? Love of a nation cannot be blind.
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2022/05/14/unravelling-the-killing-of-shireen-abu-akleh/
Thanks for the article. I reviewed it and note that the conclusion isn't far from what I already suspected: that IDF soldiers were probably responsible for the shot that killed Akleh (though Bellingcat notes the possibility of other militants between the stated positions of the IDF and the Palestinian militants, and that both were using a similar kind of weapon). They could have noted that the Palestinian investigation shortly after her death was inconclusive, which included a review of the fatal (and heavily damaged) bullet by the US State Department. One physicist and ballistics expert, Nahum Shahaf, notes that the kind of weapon used by the IDF would not be lethal at over 100 metres; this may help give context to Bellingcat's quoted analysis of the potential bullet speeds, which were heavily bracketed by caveats. Even then, this analysis was based on a man's activity after the death of Abu Akleh. That certainly deserves a review, but won't really determine the kind of fire on Abu Akleh herself. (Their conclusion doesn't actually state that the speed of the bullet definitely indicates deliberate fire on Abu Akleh, as this clearly cannot be determined.)
Thanks. Would be interested in Gordis weighing in.
"clearly marked as a journalist" - yea, no armed palestinian has ever disguised themselves as a journalist..
by the way, have you ever asked yourself if this/these soldiers are as heinous as you claim, why was 1 person shot? Wouldn't you have expected hundreds of palestinians to be gunned down? You're telling me these horrible soldiers you refer to only killed 1 person? Not 100? Not 1000? Just 1? but somehow they're as crazy and bloodthirsty as you claim?
Doesn't make sense, I think your coffee may be too strong.
Well, Abu Akleh was definitely a journalist and she was covering the IDF raid on Jenin. It is a tragedy that she was killed. I do not, however, believe it was intentional.
BS.
Jurnalists die all the time in war zones. No one gives a shit…
If it’s not jews, it’s not news.
12 AZ reporters died in war zones, can you name any of the other 11?
Do people care? Depends on the circumstances
The problem is not the righteous or mistaken actions of one or more soldiers, the problem is the ongoing occupation, subjugation and oppression of Palestinian living in the occupied territories. All of which results from the settlement by hundreds of thousands of Jewish Israelis in those territories. Such mistakes and resulting loss of innocent Palestinian lives will continue ad nauseum as long as the settlement and occupation continue.
Jews have been living in Judea and Samaria for several millennia, including before the Jordanian invasion and occupation of between 1949 to 1967. So they cannot occupy a place which is intrinsically connected to their national and ethnic history. A partition resolution in the 1930s had offered these regions to the Arabs as a state, even though the international community had already accepted rights of Jewish settlement there. The Arabs rejected it, and have subsequently rejected later offers, such as those of Ariel Sharon and Ehud Barak, giving over 90% of those regions to the Palestinians for a state. A so-called "Deal of the Century" under the last US administration likewise offered up the territories, to be met with a no. The Jewish Israelis currently living in Judea and Samaria mostly occupy Area C, as designated by the Oslo Accords that the Palestinians signed. The Palestinians mostly inhabit Areas A and most of B, but many Palestinians travel into Area C (which is still mostly unoccupied) for work. So to characterise this as occupation and subjugation is stretching the truth at best, distortion at worst.
As I read this article, I thought about how horrifyingly easy it can be for soldiers to mistakenly kill someone. When I first heard the news of Shireen Abu Akleh's death, I was appalled; this was yet another example of the dangers that journalists face while doing their jobs. But I immediately rejected unfounded claims that Israel had 'murdered' her. I only said that if Israel's soldiers were responsible, then Israel should admit this quickly, as failure to be transparent would only lead to more anti-Israel attacks. Granted, Israel has now come forward and said it was likely that an Israeli soldier hit and killed Abu Akleh, but the anti-Israel attacks predictably continue. Should Israel review its rules of engagement? I am all for accountability and transparency, and there have been times when Israel has been slow on both. Yet, as Naftali Bennet rightly said, 'our hand is not quick to the trigger'. There are many cases of Israeli soldiers showing immense restraint before launching attacks. This is provably part of military training. So no, Israel's rules of engagement are fine. This was a horrible tragedy, which I hope will never be repeated again.
5:40am for minyan...do you ever get tired of praying? I'm not religious, but if I was, you could not catch me going for minyan at 5:40am. I wonder if I'd feel differently if I was religious.
GIVE THE IDF SOLDIER A MEDAL!
A comment on "rules of engagement": When I served in the reserves [1980s, 1990s] we were five times likelier to spend our month of reserve duty on garrisoning rather than on the "line". Our rules of engagement were: If we saw something suspicious we were to say: Stop. Then Stop again. Then we were to load a shell into the breech [we patrolled and stood guard duty without a shell ready to fire], then we were to again say Stop, then we could fire, once, over the head, then say Stop and then we were allowed to fire at the feet. And there were times we were issued rubber bullets and not metal ones. I once got court martialed and fined for standing guard duty with a bullet in the breech of my rifle which was against the standing orders. One year we were at Kitziot, a pimple in the Negev about 2km from the Egyptian border: First night I was in a tower and noticed that while there was a machine gun with two cans of ammo there was also a bolt welded onto the bottom of the machine gun to prevent it from being depressed enough to bring fire on anyone -- the army was more worried about a soldier going berserk and shooting civilians., the gun was just for "show." Another year, one of our posts was around a refugee camp which got hit with a 48 hr curfew. The next morning there was a steady stream of guys walking out the back of the camp [its not a concentration camp ... no surrounding fence] and down to the road to catch rides to their jobs in Netanya, Yafo, etc. So we yelled at them that there was a curfew and they were not allowed to leave to which they responded by saying they needed their jobs, needed to put food on family's tables, they were unarmed not looking for trouble; so we didnt stop them.
I have been told something similar by an IDF soldier living in Britain, and also from the YouTube channel of another IDF soldier. The level of restraint that the IDF usually demonstrates is admirable. I think the British Col. Richard Kemp said that from what he had seen, the IDF was the most moral army in the world, doing as much as possible to avoid these kinds of tragedies. So while the death of Abu Akleh is an enormous tragedy, it is not a normal occurrence during military engagement.
In McCann's description of the trial of the soldier who shot the child, the judge determined that the fear was fake. The shooter's commander does all the speaking. The judge calls for a reenactment at the scene and is convinced that the jeep could not have been stoned at that position. Imagined fear is worse than real fear. It is conditioning. Made dangerous by feelings of guilt. The shooter, in Bassam's words, was a victim as was his daughter.