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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.