Harry's Place

“Good friends tell the truth. Bassem Abu Rahmeh was murdered last week by the Israeli Defence Forces.”

Better friends don’t sprint to premature conclusions.

Chas – read the second paragraph. If we had to wait until the trial (which, in cases like this, often isn’t forthcoming) before commenting on cases, we’d never be able to say anything. People should be agnostic enough to know that we can only go on the information we’ve got. Based on the information we’ve got, including what the IDF has said, I stick by the comment of murder (although not murder in the first degree).

Today, ever soldier is an accomplice to murder.

This is a conclusion divorced from even the most basic logic.

Self-important shits like you are busy trying to catalyse the dismemberment and further politicisation of our venerable police force in the UK.

One or even a few bad eggs does not a collective responsibility entail.

HB is fuming and sputtering now. You’re not playing your assigned role as the source evil in the world. Your honestly is a Jewish conspiracy which must be crushed by the light of Nazism or something.

Is there a documented I.D.F. interim report?

Glaring Ommission – not sure what the UK police force has to do with any of this, but if you’ll cut down on the ad hominems (self-important shits) and deal with the points I made to back up my conclusion, I’ll be happy to respond.

Alec – I don’t think we can expect a report after only a few days!

Then, Ale*x*, let’s hang fire (hoho) before rushing head-long into embarrassment. I imagine, though, it would be relatively access the full footage of events.

As I said earlier, I am prepared to believe things they wouldn’t believe in Salt Lake City. Is shown the evidence.

*If [shown the evidence).

Alec – see the point I made to Chas. In the words of Morrissey, These things take time…

“I have never been particularly opposed to the notion of collective responsibility”

“How many more will die before we realize the transparent insanity of our current policies?”

You are right, sorry. I did not see before.

Now my only question is what the fuck is doing Bilin so near the fence? Lets send all those Arabs, collectively responsible for the Intifada to rot in Nablus and then we will not have protests against the fence.

ALEX
Nearly twenty Palestinians have now been killed at protests against the( Separation Barrier ?) over the past few years…….and hundreds of israeli lives have been saved!!

Fabian – just to check; were you proposing forcibly removing Palestinians from their homes? If so, shame on you.

Funkyyaya – no connection, I’m afraid. The lives would have been saved just the same (and probably more) if the barrier had been built closer to the green line.

BTW, I had a great day yesterday in Park Canada, Alex. And I didn’t see any protest over there.

A large group of Arabs were happily mangelim away with their children too. The latter were playing soccer.

Maybe we should build a Park Canada over Bilin too.

Parks over villages seem to calm people down for good, Arabs and Left-wingers equally.

“Fabian – just to check; were you proposing forcibly removing Palestinians from their homes? If so, shame on you”

Are they not collectively responsible for the Intifada, Alex? More than 1000 Jews dead? You said that you weren’t opposed to the notion of Collective Responsibility. I am just adopting it because it looks tasty.

Alex – just to check; were you calling every Israeli soldier a murderer? If so, shame on you.

Sorry Alex, but sometimes things need to wait for trial.
It gets reported that Israel bombed a U.N. school. The libel traveled the world and was broadcast as fact everywhere. The truth is still unheard by most.
You want a bigger list.
Al Dura
The Gaza beach incident
Soldiers talking about inaccurate hearsay
The Jenin “massacre.”

The condemnations are fast and furious. The facts need to be researched, which takes time and thought. You are part of the tactic of demonization of Israel. I can see it clearly in what you wrote. If it is true (and I will not rush to judgment) a soldier committed a murder, your first reaction is to condemn every soldier in the IDF. This is nonsense.
And lets be honest here. The demonstrations are not about the security barrier. The demonstrations are about provoking. The so called “peace movement” is always looking for the reaction that you can hold up to the world and say “Israel is evil.” This is a tried and true tactic of the Hamas and Hizbulah and adapted by their useful Jews. Bomb Sderot, get the Israeli reaction and demonize Israel world wide.
Self loathing Jews, continue to act as dupes, against there own interests. While the elected government of the Palestinians openly calls for genocide and the murder of you and your family, you are ready to call all IDF soldiers murderers on the basis of the actions of a single soldier. I am sure your statements will work to help recruit more dupes. They do not work on me.

Stan

“There, someone showed me one of the canisters. It was a dense rock of blackness…”

Lee Jasper’s signed up with the IDF? Fuck me

Fabian/Stan – saying that the army bears some sort of collective responsibility is not the same as saying that every soldier should be imprisoned for the crime. What I meant was that the shame that accrues from the event is collective.

Stan – as for the rest of what you wrote, the IDF has already said what happened, which is largely in keeping with how I described the event, which in turn is backed up by the video footage. As for your descriptions of the protests, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Today, ever soldier is an accomplice to murder.

That’s very silly, and at various levels.

I wrote it and meant it. I have never been particularly opposed to the notion of collective responsibility;
Then it cuts both ways, goose and gander….ergo the Arab protesters in Gaza are proxies for Hamas, ergo they are fair game, which rather negates your outrage in a puff of logic….see the problem?

if the idea of the nation’s army has any meaning then one soldier’s actions bring the entire structure into disrepute.

True enough, but it doesn’t make every soldier in an Army an accomplice to Murder when one or a few soldiers is knowingly or ignorantly reckless, simply makes a mistake or doesn’t follow standing orders, Standard Operating Procedures or commits a crime.

The bad apple theory can only be used to explain so much, particularly in the case of Bil’in. When a battalion wins a crucial battle the entire army celebrates its victory as its own. What’s the difference here?

Significant. Can’t you see it…..really?

The British national health service can celebrate improving healthcare outcomes when they occur without celebrating the poor procedures that allowed Harold Shipman, an NHS doctor, to get away with murdering old people for so long. The test is how the feedback loop works once these things do come to light.

What happened to NHS procedures after Shipman? What happened after the US Army itself proactively started investigating Abu Ghraib? What will happen now with the IDF and their training and standing orders with regards to the discharge of tear gas canisters? There is a feedback loop that works, sometimes it’s slow, sometimes it’s less than perfect, but it’s there.

Now contrast that with Hamas, who do celebrate atrocity, whose MO is one of systemic atrocity. There is no comparison.

No, a very silly post. You should be focusing on getting an effective change to any errant policy, not bloviating hyperbole.

Of course the army has collective responsibility for its abuses of power.

Glaring Ommission – not sure what the UK police force has to do with any of this, but if you’ll cut down on the ad hominems (self-important shits) and deal with the points I made to back up my conclusion, I’ll be happy to respond.

Sorry Alex (bit late now), ’self-important shits’ was totally uncalled for and unjustified. I’m a shit for what it’s worth (see my bad spelling – ommission).

This looked pretty horrific to me and, were this attack proved to be deliberate, the soldier responsible would rightly be called a ‘murderer’. However, I just can’t see how every last member of the IDF could be held responsible for putative acts of murder such as this. Surely ‘collective responsibility’ is consonant with some sort of centralised co-ordination of action – something of which I have seen no proof. Even if this were to have been the case, is every member of an organisation accountable for the actions of a few if such actions contravene the overriding mandate of the organisation?

This would be a bit like tarring all Muslims with the jihadist brush just because they subscribe to the same basic theology as those commit acts of violence in the name of Islam. Not a perfect analogy, I’ll grant you, given that Islam is a religio-political ideology and the IDF are not a ‘Jewish’ defence force.

My comparison with those who seek the destruction of the British police force was also inaccurate and simplistic (and certainly misleading). You, after all, are supportive of Israel, whereas many of those who seek to use the events of the G20 for their own cultural hegemonic agenda hate the UK.

I have never been particularly opposed to the notion of collective responsibility

How relieved Pontius Pilate, Martin Luther, Hitler, Sir Oswald Mosley, the pre-war Mufti of Jerusalem, Yusuf Qaradawi, Osama Bin Laden, President Ahmadinejad and all the great anti-semites of the world would have been to hear you say that. All those Jews are so ready to scream “anti-semitism” just because they’re held to account for lying, cheating, moneylending, poisoning wells, drinking blood, stealing Isalmic land, shooting Mohammed Al Dura and now this latest Palestinian protester out of hand.

So helpful of you to reveal the quality, depth and judiciousness of your analysis and conclusions, and the meticulous evidence base from which you’ve produced them.

“Fabian/Stan – saying that the army bears some sort of collective responsibility is not the same as saying that every soldier should be imprisoned for the crime. What I meant was that the shame that accrues from the event is collective”

1. You said “Every soldier is complicit in murder”. I am sorry, but people complicit in murder go to jail. You are trying now to downplay the extent of what you wrote before.

2. Nobody asked you this most obvious question: Why the fuck did you write that statement in Hebrew? So only Israelis would understand it? Did you think that was wise? Did you think what you did would start a “national debate and conscience-searching” and wouldn’t be translated?

3. “When a battalion wins a crucial battle the entire army celebrates its victory as its own. What’s the difference here?”
Not just the entire army. Put me in for the celebration. I could not bear to think what could happen if Israel lose a crucial battle. Now I am an accomplice of murder too. Add my wife and my daughter.
Are you beginning to understand how idiotic is the notion of collective responsibility?
Will you keep digging?

Fabian/Stan – saying that the army bears some sort of collective responsibility is not the same as saying that every soldier should be imprisoned for the crime. What I meant was that the shame that accrues from the event is collective.

To clear up the Hebrew translation: Today, ever soldier is an accomplice to murder. I wrote it and meant it.

Please, everyone be *very* careful about the X and the C!!!

These things take time…

Indeed. So, shall we wait until accusing soldierim of murder? Maybe if we saw fuller footage. And, an interim report can be produced in a couple of days, surely.

chaialim, not soldierim, Alec.

“To clear up the Hebrew translation: Today, ever soldier is an accomplice to murder. I wrote it and meant it. I have never been particularly opposed to the notion of collective responsibility; if the idea of the nation’s army has any meaning then one soldier’s actions bring the entire structure into disrepute. The bad apple theory can only be used to explain so much, particularly in the case of Bil’in. When a battalion wins a crucial battle the entire army celebrates its victory as its own. What’s the difference here?”

The difference is enormous. It’s akin to saying there is no difference between when the police celebrate the arrest of a mob boss and then don’t when a few cops are arrested for getting sex in return for not arresting prostitutes and pretending they are the same. The army’s goal, the training of soldiers, everything is to execute missions so when it is done, it is celebrated. The army does not teach how to shoot canisters at civilians. Israeli society doesn’t celebrate when this man was killed. There are always bad apples everywhere, especially in positions of power. Even if it is say, 5% of soldiers of the roughly 175, 000 active soldiers, it would still be almost 9000 soldiers (and forget about reservists) who have no problem killing. . There is definitely much more that the army brass can do to discipline soldiers who are bad and even to instill a different type of mentality. This notion of collective responsibility is just absurd. I mean, is every American (or Russian, Brit, etc..) an accomplish to murder because of what their government has done? Is every Palestinian an accomplice to murder? If so, there can be no such thing as collective punishment because they are all collectively guilty of murder anyway. This logic just spreads and spreads until everyone in the world is responsible for murder.

“Whoever is responsible for dealing with the demonstrations at Bil’in isn’t doing their job properly. This, and not anti-Semitism, is the reason Israel’s image is dragged through the mud.”

This is even sillier. You are seriously suggesting that the reason Israel is the most hated country in the world is because 20 civilians have been killed at demonstrations over the past few years? That if not for Bil’in, everyone would treat Israel like they treat, say Spain? Israel certainly does not do itself any favours with its actions, but to pretend that antisemitism isn’t a major factor in the world criticism of Israel is absurd. It’s the tired “whatever bad thing Israel is doing now is the real reason why it is hated by everyone” nonsense.

I was being irreverent and playing with Heblish, Fabian, but that’s a new word, thanks.

Alex,
It is interesting. As with the death of Rachel Corey, this death is a victory for the so called “peace movement.” The death is mourned in Israel, and celebrated by Hamas and Israel’s enemies. Only through an event like this death does your “protest” have any weight or power. How quickly you seize the opportunity. If these constant demonstrations were peaceful and lawful demonstrations, they would have faded out a long time ago. Only through incitement are they successful.
I congratulate you on your victory. While you pop the cork in celebration of the tragedy, I will mourn the loss of another human being.

Stan

Nick/Glaring Ommission – my post didn’t deal with Hamas. And nowhere did I say that IDF soldiers were suddenly fair game. See what David T wrote.

Judy – I’m not sure what anything you wrote has to do with anything that I wrote, and I’m not sure you do either.

Fabian – nothing of the sort. I was making a series of moral points, not legal ones. As for the Hebrew, sometimes it’s important to address one’s own, which can be hard when addressing a site primarily populated by hulniks. As for the notion of collective responsibility, you should also read David T’s point. And I’m not sure what you mean by the last point.

“To clear up the Hebrew translation: Today, ever soldier is an accomplice to murder. I wrote it and meant it.”

“Saying that the army bears some sort of collective responsibility is not the same as saying that every soldier should be imprisoned for the crime.”

Which?

Gabriel – the stuff about collective responsibility is getting tiresome; I hope what David T has written makes it clearer.

As for the rest, obviously anti-semitism plays a role. In this case, though, I was talking about this case. I’m sorry that wasn’t clear.

“saying that the army bears some sort of collective responsibility is not the same as saying that every soldier should be imprisoned for the crime.”

Except you explicitly did not say that. Had you said “the army” I would agree, but you said “every soldier”. That’s an enormous difference between an institution and hundreds of thousands of individuals.

An institution is the sum of its parts; I’m not sure if the difference is so enormous. Every soldier bears a responsibility, although obviously it is not comparable to the responsibility of the original perpetrator and/or whoever was responsible for them.

Chas – both. As I said (and as I thought was clear), I am writing on a moral, abstracted level, and not a legal one.

Judy – I’m not sure what anything you wrote has to do with anything that I wrote, and I’m not sure you do either.

It seems you want to present yourself as somewhat lacking in the ability to understand a series of inferences from the statement you made about your lack of opposition to the concept of collective responsibility. I don’t share your uncertainty about the relevance of what I wrote to what you wrote.

Others can draw their own conclusions.

Your response to me has confirmed my view of the way you see yourself and those who have the temerity to point out some of the shortcomings of your arguments.

Judy – if you’re suggesting that my notion of collective responsibility somehow justifies genocide, then you’re nuts.

An institution is much larger than the sum of its parts. It’s fine to say “Enron was a corrupt company” but saying “all the employees of Enron were corrupt” is simply false. It’s fine to say “the LAPD has a racist past” but saying “every LAPD officer has a racist past” is an outright lie. A reserve soldier patrolling the Lebanese border bears zero responsibility for what happened at Bil’in while the commanding officer of the unit might. (If he commanded the soldier to shoot the canister, he would be a murderer, if he did not know and could not have foreseen, then he is innocent.) Responsibility to varying degrees lies with the direct command structure and with the institution itself, not with everyone who puts on a uniform.

I’d also say that it’s fascinating that most of the respondents here seem more concerned by my notion of collective responsibility than the original, heinous act.

“I’d also say that it’s fascinating that most of the respondents here seem more concerned by my notion of collective responsibility than the original, heinous act.”

Which is an inevitable result of how you made your points.

Judy – if you’re suggesting that my notion of collective responsibility somehow justifies genocide, then you’re nuts.

Once again, you display your impeccable and judicious reasoning processes in relation to my mental state.

Genocides usually arise because there has been a very long and unrelenting process of ascription of collective guilt and evil to the people concerned. No doubt many of those who made and continue to make statements about collective Jewish or Israeli guilt would hold up their hands in horror at the thought that anything they said could provide the propaganda which paths the way to genocide. There are still those today who celebrate the prospect of Israel and the rest of the Jews being eliminated. And some of them use precisely the process of ascribing guilt, usually of murder, in the way you’ve done, to Israel, the IDF etc.

Of course, in your view, anyone who sees some sort of similarity between their modes of ascribing guilt and yours just has to be “nuts”, as you so charmingly put it.

Alex, as somebody equally appalled by the murder in Bi’ilin and by just about each and every point you have made, I am politely asking you to take back this ridiculous point about collective responsibility and about every IDF soldier being now an accomplice to murder. Recognising that your emotions and moral outrage caused you to use an inappropriate phrase will not diminish you: to the contrary.

David T:

Of course the army has collective responsibility for its abuses of power.

‘Collective responsibility’ is a rather loaded term that, as well as being ambiguous in this context. I’d prefer to say that the Army held ‘command responsibility’ or ‘overall responsibility’ or had a ‘duty of care’.

But that’s not really the point as that’s not what Alex wrote, that’s a mere eye brow raiser; he went far beyond that. He wrote

Today, ever soldier is an accomplice to murder. I wrote it and meant it. I have never been particularly opposed to the notion of collective responsibility;

Notice the ‘every soldier’.

That’s frothing mouthed nonsense worthy of the worst kind of vein popping, barking Stopper.

OK let’s try again, sorry about the buggered up blockquotes….

David T:

Of course the army has collective responsibility for its abuses of power.

‘Collective responsibility’ is a rather loaded term that, as well as being ambiguous in this context. I’d prefer to say that the Army held ‘command responsibility’ or ‘overall responsibility’ or had a ‘duty of care’.

But that’s not really the point as that’s not what Alex wrote, that’s a mere eye brow raiser; he went far beyond that. He wrote

Today, ever soldier is an accomplice to murder. I wrote it and meant it. I have never been particularly opposed to the notion of collective responsibility;

Notice the ‘every soldier’.

That’s frothing mouthed nonsense worthy of the worst kind of vein popping, barking Stopper.

I have never been particularly opposed to the notion of collective responsibility;

and

This, and not anti-Semitism, is the reason Israel’s image is dragged through the mud.

So, sir, you hold all Muslims responsible for the actions of Hamas? No? What about all Palestinians? What about Lebanese for the actions of Hezbollah? And lest you forget, these groups are rather popular. So, their supporters are responsible for their actions in your view? And if so, does that make them subject to military reprisal? And if not, why not?

Alex:

I’d also say that it’s fascinating that most of the respondents here seem more concerned by my notion of collective responsibility than the original, heinous act.

I’ve seen nothing to indicate that it was anything other than an unfortunate accident. The likes of which are statistically inevitable in this sort of scenario, just as deaths from batton rounds in Northern Ireland’s troubles were. There would have been more deaths without batton rounds.

The unfortunate fellow appears to have been hit by a lobbed tear gas canister, not an aimed bullet.

Do you know something we don’t?

Surely you should be arguing for better training, the abandonment of tear gas canisters, an investigation as to the circumstances of this unfortunate death, rather than shooting from the hip as it were, hurling murder accusations against every soldier in the Israeli army?

An institution is much larger than the sum of its parts. It’s fine to say “Enron was a corrupt company” but saying “all the employees of Enron were corrupt” is simply false. It’s fine to say “the LAPD has a racist past” but saying “every LAPD officer has a racist past” is an outright lie. A reserve soldier patrolling the Lebanese border bears zero responsibility for what happened at Bil’in while the commanding officer of the unit might. (If he commanded the soldier to shoot the canister, he would be a murderer, if he did not know and could not have foreseen, then he is innocent.) Responsibility to varying degrees lies with the direct command structure and with the institution itself, not with everyone who puts on a uniform.

Precisely.

I’d also say that it’s fascinating that most of the respondents here seem more concerned by my notion of collective responsibility than the original, heinous act.

You’re confusing empathy with projection. I’m quite sure that everyone here was shocked by the incident portrayed on the video, but projecting your feelings about what happened and apportioning blame accordingly to fit your own narrative are quite distinct phenomena from displaying emotions concomitant with the death of a fellow human being.

Many HPers were only too willing to show just how much they hate the UK and the police force (collectively) when the short video of Ian Tomlinson was posted. With a few honourable exceptions (most notably Mike), everyone was poised to join in the feeding frenzy and prejudge an autopsy, enquiry and subsequent analysis based on a short ambiguous video clip.

I appreciate your intentions are honourable Alex and accept your motivation for bringing this to everyone’s attention, but I feel a bit like the police officers involved in the Stephen Lawrence case felt after some turdbrained shitweasel had consorted with the worst elements of the racist race hustler industry to pronounce a sentence of ‘institutionally racist’ on the entire police force.

There is no such thing as zero risk riot control. Which is kind of the point of rioting, isn’t it?

The incident is terrible, but please stop with the “murder” stuff.

Google “Rachel Corrie” and every site that comes up describes her as being “murdered”. Noone would ever guess that she actually jumped in front of the bulldozer.

“Self loathing Jews, continue to act as dupes, against there own interests.”..

And, unfortunately, the interests – and in some cases, safety – of many Jews around the world.

I’m all for transparency – but, with respect, Alex, why must Israel be the only nation in the world asked to exhibit it to such a degree?
You don’t see other countries under such a microscope.

I can’t imagine many who support incidents of unwarrented aggression, but the Israel thing is becoming a rather bizarre obsession that takes the spotlight over and above, say, Sudan, where hundreds of thousands are dying. To say nothing of millions in the Congo.

When Al-Bashir was indicted by the ICC, Hamas popped a couple of representatives on a plane to go support the poor man – on the same day that he kicked out 13 aid agencies, leaving 200,000 people in need without medical care and with 48hrs supply of water left. Where were the demonstrations? The moral outcries? The ‘Viva Palestina’ convoys? The student sit-ins? The reporters such as Jeremey Bowen?

I’m bewildered by this obsession with one country when millions around the world might actually benefit from a bit of this moral concern and their turn in the spotlight.

Alex Stein hasn’t been at this particular demonstration and hasn’t witnessed the event. He, of course, doesn’t now what was going on in the soldier’s mind when he decided to shoot the canister. Nor is he familiar with Bassem Abu Rahmeh actions at the time he was shot. He calls them “beckoning” (speaking of whitewashing) but the IDF spokesman claims that he, or at least the people around him, where throwing rocks at the soldiers. Basing himself on some rather shaky evidence he has managed to gather (his testimony on what another soldier told him at a different demonstration is the most pathetic one) he convicts a soldier (whose face he has never seen and whose identity he doesn’t know) of murder! Moreover, by some rather wild guilt by association arguments he lays the blame on the shoulders of every IDF soldier. Perhaps even I, as a reserve soldier share some of the blame. Perhaps even he, if he cares to pay his duty to the country he lives in.

Just like Alex I can only speculate, but there are, of course, some other scenarios, at least as reasonable as the one in which the soldier maliciously kills a protester without provocation:

1. The soldier was hit hard by a rock and lost his temper. If this is the case then at most this is manslaughter, but most probably only negligence.

2. The soldier just meant to frighten the protesters, he knew that he shouldn’t fire the canister directly into the crowd but he did not think that it would kill anyone. He does not follow the news like Alex does, and his commanders have never warned of the dangers.

There are, of course, many other possible “factual findings” and “conclusions of law” one can think of. A disgrace? Alex’s column is a disgrace to HP. He should have used some self-restraint before spewing his venom so articulately.

Darfur survivors stage protest.

This is a case in point. Here it is survivors staging a demo outside Downing Street with a ‘don’t you forget’ message. What hope have they got?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090419/tuk-darfur-survivors-stage-protest-6323e80.html

There is a feedback loop that works, sometimes it’s slow, sometimes it’s less than perfect, but it’s there.

The “feedback loop,” in the case of the IDF, is merely part of the Israeli fig-leaf donning process. Without leaving Ni’ilin, whatever happened to the Israeli commander who last year ordered a soldier to shoot a blindfolded and bound prisoner in the foot? Find out…

Only if those monsters were effectively punished could you rightfully talk of a checks and balances process that works.

I wrote a lengthy response to Alex Stein’s accusations in my blog
http://dvardea.blogspot.com/2009/04/elucidating-elucidation-alex-steins.html
though he may not response given the length of the commentary he already generated here.

p.s.
The English may be lacking.

While I didn’t agree with everything he said,I must say he has a point. For those who don’t live here you wouldn’t get it……….it’s a mentality in the army, mainly the battalions but has spread to the citizens esspectially in tence times……..a kind of vibe in the air, like durring the Gaza oppertaion people signed a petition against Yonit Levi the news ancour who expressed simpathy for children dying in Gaza…………..I’m not saying this is a good reason to destroy the entire country or something, but anyone living hear can’t deny this vibe. All I can say is that I don’t like it, not one bit.

Another article on the issue with a much longer clip of the incident. See the second clip. It’s certainly not clear that the fellow was deliberately hit. What is clear, and perhaps critical in this instance, is that no one at the scene knew diddly squat about even the most rudimentary first aid.

It also seems as if the IDF have in their inventory, from the linked article, a 40 mm CS grenade which reach out 4-500 metres fired from a under barrel grenade launcher on a normal service rifle. I certainly wouldn’t like to be hit by one of those. It would be a bit like being hit by a full coke can thrown full-on by a county cricketer from about 5 metres!

Interestingly, during the Northern Ireland ‘Troubles’, the Brits abandoned tear gas very early on. It was deemed too indiscriminate and bad PR. Bayonets were abandoned very early on too, newscopy with troops with fixed bayonets didn’t go down too well! They went to batton rounds (plastic bullets), which were extremely effective and rarely lethal.

Picture of FRG – single shot Federal Riot Gun used in Northern Ireland by RUC and Military to fire plastic bullets.

Picture of Northern Ireland plastic bullet, actual projectile, the complete cartridge looks like an oversized shotgun shell.

I think the Israelis could learn alot from British Military riot control in NI. The Israelis do seem rather clumsy.

An aside – UK mainland police forces firearms units have in their inventory riot guns and baton rounds to this day, they are currently regularly deployed in mainland Britain..

Fabian – “nothing of the sort. I was making a series of moral points, not legal ones.”

Then you should learn English better. Make an effort, like me. Instead of saying “every soldier is complicit in murder” you should have said: “I am ashamed as an Israeli that this thing happened”.

“As for the Hebrew, sometimes it’s important to address one’s own, which can be hard when addressing a site primarily populated by hulniks.”

This is stupid. Even if you were discussing in a talkback in Haaretz Hebrew edition someone might just translate what you are writing in Hebrew. Globalization, hello? And you are discussing this in an English blog!

“As for the notion of collective responsibility, you should also read David T’s point. And I’m not sure what you mean by the last point.”

That if your criteria for extending the responsibility is “who gets happy if a crucial battle is won” then you have to include me in those “responsible” for whatever the army does.
Others have given you the example of the police.

Come on.

And Judy has a good point. You are -I am sure with the best of intentions- promoting antisemitic ways of thought. If every soldier is complicit in murder, why not every citizen? why not every Jew? Why not every Jew who lived in the past or those who will live in the future?

Take the the premise that Stein and HB hate Jews. All their reasoning processes start and end with that. A forgone conclusion follows.

“I think the Israelis could learn alot from British Military riot control in NI. The Israelis do seem rather clumsy.”

Nick, google this, but in the first days of the Second Intifada, many countries refused to sell non-letal anti-riot equipment to Israel. Maybe even the UK. Supposedly as a “pro-Palestinian” stance.
Soldiers were forced to use other, more letal means by the good souls in the world.

Whoever is responsible for dealing with the demonstrations at Bil’in isn’t doing their job properly. This, and not anti-Semitism, is the reason Israel’s image is dragged through the mud.

Here’s Qatar TV very recently airing a Sheikh who clearly forgot to follow Alex Stein’s guidance on why he’s anti-Israel.

No doubt once Alex drops him an email, the Sheikh will change his line. As will Mohammed “We will never recognise the zionist enemy entity” Al-Zatar, “Foreign Minister” of Hamastan.

I take it that everyone who plays Cricket or Baseball is also a murderer, given that CC is the most common form of death that results from playing these games.

Nick, google this, but in the first days of the Second Intifada, many countries refused to sell non-letal anti-riot equipment to Israel. Maybe even the UK. Supposedly as a “pro-Palestinian” stance.
Soldiers were forced to use other, more letal means by the good souls in the world.
Well the Israelis have used .22 LR rimfire rounds in riot control!

Yup that’s absurd. That said this is I suspect strongly partly an attitude and training problem.

As for kit, surely your not arguing that it is beyond the kin of IMI – Israeli Military Industries, designers and manufacturers of the Uzi, Galil and TAR-21, Makeva tank and much else besides, to make a smooth bore, oversized flare gun, which is all a riot gun is!

The Israelis have been using .22 LR rimfire rounds from commercial Marlin rifles in riot control; that’s reckless in the extreme, I think they have a problem – see here.

“Judy – if you’re suggesting that my notion of collective responsibility somehow justifies genocide, then you’re nuts.”

In justifying their collaboration with the Nazis in the Holocaust, I have often heard Lithuanians, Ukrainians and Poles say that such behaviour was understandable given that many of Stalin’s very worst henchmen were Jews.

Alex, two points you make and my answers to them:

1) “..If we had to wait until the trial (which, in cases like this, often isn’t forthcoming) before commenting on cases, we’d never be able to say anything…”

Anyone commenting before any trial has an ethical duty surely to be crystal clear about where what they are saying deviates from what is known to be objective fact as opposed to what is conjecture and may therefore technically untrue or not yet proven. In such cases, it’s far better not to say anything, as you put it.

Far too often in the rush to “say anything” many journalists and writers on blogs simply don’t bother to distinguish between supposition and fact (as per al Durah) and a lie can get half-way around the world before the truth can get its pants on, can’t it?

2) “This, and not anti-Semitism, is the reason Israel’s image is dragged through the mud.” I am not quite sure what you mean here. Israel’s reputation as a country among other countries should be dragged through the mud if it is found to be culpable in criminal activities against unarmed civilians.

However, aren’t you ignoring that any infringement by Israel far too often results in the usual conflation of hatred of her and hatred of her Jewish citizens and Jews elsewhere? Are you disagreeing that such infringements are used by the stupid and ignorant as an excuse for Jew-bashing generally? If you are, then perhaps you should revisit CiF.

“If every soldier is complicit in murder, why not every citizen? why not every Jew? Why not every Jew who lived in the past or those who will live in the future?”

A veritable St. Matthew in our midst:

“When Pontius Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands and said: ‘I am innocent of the blood of this Just person. You see to it.’ And all the people answered and said: ‘His blood be upon us and on our children.’ ” — Matthew 27:24-25

“I think the Israelis could learn alot from British Military riot control in NI.”

Very wise words:

http://tinyurl.com/qk6qv

Alex -I’m still waiting for your reply to my post of 9:08 on the other thread. The questions I raised there are, I think, the real issue here.

In the meantime, I guess -given your declaration that ‘every soldier is an accomplice to murder’ -that your own position is no longer tenable. If I felt like that I wouldn’t be able to stay in Israel a moment longer.

Alex, I’m afraid that more will die unless the threat of suicide terror stops and until the protesters desist from the crack-brained stupidity of persisting in doing what patently hasn’t worked for them previously.

Now I am NOT against peaceful demonstrations, but even you will agree that these are often hijacked, and a series of violent ones sets up expectations that every succeeding one will be.

If as reported, they were throwing stones and trying to destroy the fence (collective responsibility works both ways), I can’t get upset that the guy died.

And if the “inevitable” response by the army to rock throwing, is a lethal response, then the rock throwers assume the risk.

You don’t stint on the hyperbole, do you Alex?

Serendipity, how do you know that throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers, thereby increasing the risk of the demonstrators being seriously injured or even killed, isn’t working for them? After all, if it bleeds it leads, obviously in this case.

Just did a google news search to get an update on Tristan Anderson. Except for the indy, pro terrorist news rags, and brief articles in the NYT and Independent because of Bilin, nobody really cares. Anderson’s lobotomy achieved nothing. The man is pushing 40, doesn’t work for a living, and just runs around getting in trouble. I have no sympathy for him or his parents who undoubtedly support, both emotionally and financially, his anti-Israel activities.

I think a problem is that green soldiers are charged with civil issues of crowd control. You need police for that, with crowd control gear, not soldiers with guns, albeit fitted with CS and rubber round launchers.

As long as border issues are not agreed or fixed this will be a problem, because the West Bank has the problem of being both foreign hostile nation state and partial Israeli control.

The barrier in a sense seeks to rectify that by erecting a de facto border which can be guarded by soldiers treating hostiles as de facto foreign nationals.

Israel needs to guard and protect its borders, as Moshe Dayan said, or it will have no borders. But as long as there is no genuine separation, these problems will persist.

To have any meaning, the notion of collective responsibility has to be apportiioned equally to all parties. One could say that the citizens of Gaza, having “democratically elected the Hamas govt,” as we keep hearing ad nauseam, surely bears an even GREATER degree of collective responsibility for the acts of said “government.” One might even say they are complicit in the deaths and injuries caused by the rockets.

Of course, any sane person realizes that applying notions of collective responsibility to individual actions is silly and counter to any notions of Western law and morality. Unless applied to Israelis of course.

Israel needs to guard and protect its borders, as Moshe Dayan said, or it will have no borders.

Israel has no official borders, Zkharya, that’s part of the problem. The security barrier is supposed to stop terrorist incursions (and there is little doubt that it has contributed to alleviating terrorism inside Israel), but it was also used for a massive land grab in the West Bank: Bi’ilin is a case in point,

I also agree that using combat troops, rightly trained for aggressive mode of operation, against unarmed civilians on a largely peaceful protest invites disaster. Sadly, Israeli Police hasn’t got a sterling track record in that regard (which police has, the Met?) and the Border Police is the worst of the lot.

Look, Zkharya, I know how things operate in IDF. There is a very simple way of dealing with all this. Make the rules of engagement clear and explicit, drill then into the soldiers time and again before their deployment and make it clear that (a) whoever breaks them will be punished with the full rigour of the law, and (b) whenever rules of engagement are broken, everybody up the chain of command will pay, from the squad commander all the way to whoever has been overseeing the operation.

If, the first time a soldier aimed a tear-gas cannister into the body of a demonstrator, he goes to Military Jail 4 for a good number of years for attempted member, his company commander loses his rank and the battalion commander is kicked out in disgrace, this will also be the last time.

As things stand, rules of engagement exist, are obeyed in the breach and there is a nod-and-wink culture throughout the command chain. And this is the real disgrace.

attempted member => attempted murder

Must have been Freudian, apologies…

kmag, a lobotomy of the sort undergone by this person may well have saved his life but it definitely won’t achieve anything.

The frontal lobes are vital for insight and impulse control, analysis of cause and effect, differentiation between good and bad actions and the suppression of unacceptable social behaviour.

Poor bloke. He’s in more of a mess than he ever was, isn’t he?

To, erm, almost everyone.
I regret translating shutaf lretzach as accomplice to murder. It has far stronger connotations than I intended. Such are the perils of rapid blogging. To make myself clearer, I meant it two senses: 1) everyone in the IDF should be ashamed and saddened, and not simply pass it off as the abberation of a rotten apple. 2) The imaginary leap of empathy, in much the same way as us Jews are enjoined to see ourselves as if we went out of Egypt. This is how we learn to treat strangers well (for we were also strangers in Egypt). And so it goes here.

I maintain, however, that the original incident, which is far from the only of its kind, is of far greater concern than my poor choice of words. The occupation remains the greatest strategic threat to the State of Israel.

Needless to say, the virulent abuse has been beneath contempt, particularly those who would question my love for my country and equate me with our most despicable enemies. At the end of the day, I’m just a humble blogger, trying to find his voice.

I also agree that using combat troops, rightly trained for aggressive mode of operation, against unarmed civilians on a largely peaceful protest invites disaster.

Completely and utterly wrong. Not if they are properly trained, and engendered in the appropriate ethos. By way of example, look at the superb record of British Commandos in NI 1969-2002.

Being able to toggle between low intensity ops and high intensity ops, even on the same day, is the bread and butter of modern soldiering.

kmag, a lobotomy of the sort undergone by this person may well have saved his life but it definitely won’t achieve anything.

MITNAGED – Allow me to quote myself: Anderson’s lobotomy achieved nothing. However, I’ve met a few people who had lobotomies due to brain tumors and they were very happy child like people, but did lack impulse control. I believe the theory is that people with frontal lobe injuries, as opposed to lobotomies, are the ones criminally/anti-socially inclined, though I take that with a grain of salt, since it is a common defense tactic.

Kidding aside, I really take no pleasure that this man suffered a brain injury. I’m just not going to blame the IDF for his and Rahmen’s injuries. You know people like Anderson and Rahmeh got thrills from doing what they were doing and knew the risks.

SayWhat???’s observation is that if it bleeds it leads, therefore, they achieved the publicity they were seeking, though I bet they hoped it was the other guy who would get the bullet/cannister in the brain, and not them.

OK, SOMuffin, if proper training and setting an example works, fine.

I’m sorry, Alex, but I really don’t care for your wagging your finger at me or to have to bystand while you do so at others, whether you think they deserve it or not. It’s a very long time since I was five years old.

And as for the “I’m just a humble blogger…” bit, do give over. I am immune to that sort of author self-pity. I used to post to CiF.

I would not equate your writing here or elsewhere to some of the poisonous/incitatory rubbish put out by others, (who would also no doubt refer to themselves as equally “humble bloggers” who are trying to find their voice), but if you blog in haste and without thinking carefully about how others may react to what are, after all, your opinions, then why are you surprised at some of the reactions?

“…everyone in the IDF should be ashamed and saddened, and not simply pass it off as the abberation of a rotten apple… “

Perhaps, perhaps not, but why the hyperbole? Are you seriously suggesting that my cousins’ children, who are doing their military service probably nowhere near Bilin, should feel as responsible for what happened as the soldiers who were at the receiving end of what you refer to as “potentially lethal weapons” from crazed protesters hyped up by the special squad flown in from abroad?

And, as Serendipity has asked above, why do you think that the protesters of Bilin (apart that is from the usual crack pots from outside the country) continue in a confrontation which every previous experience has shown them that they cannot win?

What are you yourself doing, given your love of your country, as regards registering your disagreement about how it conducts itself with the IDF itself? If you have done so and you have received an answer, then I am sure others as well as myself would be interested to hear it.

Alex shutaf lretzach is accomplice to murder.!

“…these things take time…” and “….I don’t think we can expect a report in a few days…” says Alex.

Why then, has he come here now to opine on what, by his own admission is incomplete as regards hard facts and objective evidence?

I’d be glad to hear from you later, Alex, once all the evidence is in and a ruling is made.

Dvar Dea – Indeed, but it can also be translated as partner to murder, which has far soften connotations.

Mitnaged – if you watch the footage (there are longer clips out there), you’ll see that the soldiers were under no threat whatsoever. As for the question of your cousins’ children, I think they should feel ashamed and saddened, just as I – a holder of a miluim card – do.

As for your final question, if you have any suggestions of an effective course of action to take, I’d be most pleased to receive the.

“Alex Stein

The lives would have been saved just the same (and probably more) if the barrier had been built closer to the green line.”

I do not understand why you think the Green line important. The PLO doesn’t recognize the Green line as a border, nor do HAMAS, and the Arab states of the ME.

Why should the Israelis treat the green line as a boarder?

The soldiers were under no threat whatsoever, but elsewhere you refer to “potentially lethal” stone-throwing on other occasions. What do you think were the expectations of the soldiers on this occasion?

And my cousin’s children should feel ashamed simply because you do?

Interesting, that.

You live in Israel, don’t you and as you said, you hold a reservist card.

You can plug into the system then, can’t you, and use your initiative and get out there and do something.

“Alex Stein

Needless to say, the virulent abuse has been beneath contempt, particularly those who would question my love for my country and equate me with our most despicable enemies.”

I question you love for your country. Your statement
“The tear-gas canister which killed Bassem Abu Rahmeh is a lethal weapon. I know, because I’ve held it in my hands.”

shows that you play hard and fast with the truth.

A car is not a lethal weapon, although it kills people.

You know that the Israeli government purchased these weapon systems with the INTENT, that they would disrupt crowds, without killing. They are ’sub-lethal’, because they are designed not to kill. They can kill, but they are designed not to.

You are a first class wanker.

DocMartyn – from your tone I see there isn’t much hope for constructive dialogue, and I see little point in rehashing the arguments in favour of something along the lines of the Geneva Initiatives etc. But there’s really no need to call me a wanker. As for your car analogy, if a soldier drove a car at an unarmed protester, that would be murder as well.

Mitnaged – do you think that the soldier was right in firing the canister? Remember that the IDF has already referred to unauthorised fire. If the clip I linked to isn’t enough, you can see much more footage – someone has linked to it on my site; I suggest you go and have a look.

Your cousin’s children, me, and anyone who loves Israel should feel ashamed, because the IDF is the nation’s army, and we’re all in this together.

I don’t think it’s the language, as Alex now claims, that is the problem here – it’s plainly the logic. I actually have no quarrel with the concept of collective responsibility in a moral sense, i.e. not in the legal sense with all its implications. But a collective, whether it’s Israel as a society (or indeed the Palestinians as a society), or the IDF, can not in any meaningful way be held morally responsible for the transgressions/violations of its own rules/laws by an individual member. Obviously, the collective is responsible for the rules that it sets, and it is responsible to enforce these rules, including to investigate and, if appropriate, punish any transgressions/violations.

Moreover, it is completely inappropriate at this stage to accuse the soldier who fired the deadly tear gas canister of murder, which implies an intent to kill, and it’s ridiculous to claim that anyone who served with him, let alone every soldier in the IDF is somehow “complicit” or a “partner” to murder. If a member of my family breaks a law, either intentionally or due to some misunderstanding or whatever, I’m in no way complicit or a partner, unless there was an intention to break the law and I knew about it before the crime was committed.
Alex’s complaint that it’s inappropriate to criticize his embarrassingly flawed logic and argument here because it would be so much more important to discuss how dreadful the occupation is, is an argument worthy of the rest of the piece… Yeah, the occupation is dreadful, dreadful for the Palestinians, and dreadful for us. Problem is and remains, that we tried repeatedly to end it (Camp David/Taba, Gaza withdrawal, and, more recently, Olmert’s offers) but the Palestinians don’t seem too interested – Saek Erekat recently gave a revealing interview:
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD231309

So, we’ll have to find a way to leave most of the territories even without an agreement; in the meantime, I don’t think it adds much to the prospects for peace to feed the hysteria about any move undertaken by the IDF. The incident described by Alex has to be investigated, if there was culpability, there have to be punishments, and that’s it. Rushing to blog about it in order to scream bloody murder and what not is simply undignified.

“from your tone I see there isn’t much hope for constructive dialogue”

Indeed, until you understand the difference between death by misadventure and murder, it is impossible for you to understand why you are indeed a first class wanker.

When you do understand the difference, you might just be able to understand why you have behaved in a dishonourable manner.

I am afraid, Perta, that it is rather more complicated.

The incident described by Alex has to be investigated, if there was culpability, there have to be punishments, and that’s it.

These tactfully-designated “incidents” are investigated by military teams that, on their past record, are not primarily interested in justice or in identifying culpability. Indeed, the record of IDF in punishing “its own” for transgressions against Palestinians in occupied territories is disgraceful. (It might be no more disgraceful than similar organisations elsewhere in the world, but that’s beside the point.)

Moreover, inasmuch as Alex’s argument of collective punishment was misguided and totally wrong (as he has now implicitly accepted), your argument about total lack of responsibility, moral or otherwise, is frankly risible. Israel is a democratic society and IDF is people’s army. It is not some sort of remote and anonymous military caste alienated from the populace. Its soldiers are the products of Israeli society and its culture – at its best but also at its worst. When they do something right, you have every right to feel pride, because they represent you and your society. Likewise, when they do something wrong, it behoves you to ask yourself why is it so. Shame can be a constructive emotion.

Why, Petra, don’t you see that this moral blindness, this inability to acknowledge the real evils of occupation, this diminution of humanity, is something which, if unchecked, will fester inside Israeli society and destroy it from within, worse than a thousand suicide bombers?

“Partner to murder” like what, roommates type of partnership? Do you have any idea how silly this sounds like? There is no such expression in English ‘partner to murder’, as in nobody talks like that. And ‘shutaf lretzach’ has only one translation into English, ‘accomplice to murder’. “Partner to murder” is the kind of translation an Israeli with very limited knowledge of English will make.

Petra – “it’s plainly the logic. I actually have no quarrel with the concept of collective responsibility in a moral sense. But a collective…can not in any meaningful way be held morally responsible for the transgressions…of its own rules…by an individual member.” So how can it be held morally responsible? And what happens when the collective repeatedly fails to adequate punish those that break its rules, as is the case with the IDF.

Murder (and what follows also applies to DocMartyn, who seems unable to get beyond calling me a wanker) does not simply have to demonstrate an intent to kill. If I riddle a house with bullets but say that I expected everyone would have been crouching under the table, is it not still murder? Murder is said to require ‘malice afterthought’, and some people suggest one conception of this is ‘reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life’. I think the act of firing the tear-gas canister from close range at the direction of the human body meets this definition.

As for the issue of complicity, I clarified above what I meant, and I’m not sure exactly why you’re returning to the first, badly chosen words I used.

At no point do I say that it’s inappropriate to criticise my logic because of the occupation. What I actually said is that “I’d also say that it’s fascinating that most of the respondents here seem more concerned by my notion of collective responsibility than the original, heinous act.” And then “I maintain, however, that the original incident, which is far from the only of its kind, is of far greater concern than my poor choice of words.” The line about the occupation is separate.

As for the occupation, though, your history is a vast simplification, although I doubt either of us have the strength to go into that here. For now, though, one question – If we were so keen to end it, why haven’t we simply stopped building in the territories?

As for your final paragraph, I’m sure you’re the first to call for restraint whenever a Palestinian murders an Israeli. For those, btw, who referred to the awful axe attack at Bat Ayin last week, should we wait until the trial before screaming bloody murder? (For those of you who think I am equating between the two incidents, spare me). Or is it perfectly reasonable to make initial judgements, albeit in the knowledge that we may later proved wrong. If that happens, I’ll be the first to hold my hands up.

Dvar Dea – I just looked at melingo (albeit perhaps not the best source, but the only one I have to hand), and it only comes up with partner, not accomplice. If it was a poor translation, I apologise, but the point remains that it was my intended meaning.

I think DocMartyn is being way too kind in calling Alex a wanker. Many many other words come to mind.

Aitch – if you have something to say about my argument, say it. Spouting ad hominems does you no favours.

Alex -our primary collective responsibility as a nation is to ensure the existance of our country. If we don’t do that, anything else is academic.
We may disagree about the means and we should definitely be able to discuss the issues involved, but aiding and abetting those intent on our destruction should be a red line which collectively we agree not to cross.
I hope you do not think that only those of your political persuasion have the good of the country at heart.
I hope that you do not subscribe to that opinion prevalent in some Left-wing circles that the external threat to Israel is minor compared to the destruction brought on by the occupation.
We all worry about the effects of 61 years of non-stop war upon ourselves and our children, but the bottom line is that the outside threats are far more worrying at present.
Israel must never be taken for granted. It’s easy to look around at all Israel’s many acheivements and convince oneself that we are untouchable. It is equally important to remember that Israel is the only country in the world which so many find it acceptable and normal to call for its destruction. I cannot think of any other country branded as ‘an historic mistake’.
As Israelis our main responsibility is to ensure that these people never get their way and that Israel remains a safe haven for its own citizens and Jews the world over.

Alex, appreciate the response. WRT the notion of collective responsibility in a moral sense, I think a collective cannot be held responsible for the transgressions, i.e. the breaking of its rules by an individual, because in any collective that consists of a certain number of individuals, there will inevitably be some who break the rules, intentionally and with malice or by mistake/due to failure. The responsibility then is indeed, as you say, to punish those found guilty of such transgressions – in your view, the IDF is not strict enough on this; I simply am not familiar enough with this specific subject to now develop an argument about it; in addition, I’m not really a fan of the “light unto nations” concept and don’t believe the IDF has to be “the most moral army in the world” and therefore stricter than anybody else in punishing such transgressions – and I do know enough about the subject to be fairly confident that the IDF is no worse in this respect than the American military. I’ll admit that, by and large, that’s good enough for me.

As to the occupation, obviously my few lines here are, as you say, a vast simplification – nevertheless, the basic outline is correct, including the fundamental point that for at least a decade now, the Israelis wanted a Palestinian state more than the Palestinians; in addition, it’s easy to show that the Palestinians have actually always been, and still are, very ambivalent about a genuine two-state solution that includes acknowledging Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and giving up the mythical “right of return”.

The settlements are a huge nuisance, and no doubt greatly embitter Palestinians, and the roadblocks etc that are in large measure due to the settlements impact their daily lives in completely unacceptable ways; building the settlements (most of them, not all) was the single biggest mistake Israel ever made, not least because without them, it would have been much easier to insist that Egypt takes back Gaza and Jordan takes back the Westbank when we made peace treaties with those countries.

I think you know enough not to need me to answer your question why Israel still builds settlements – you know the answer perfectly well: it doesn’t make sense for Israel to take on the ideological hard-core of the settlers and put Israeli society through all the upheaval this will cause without being able to say that this is done for a good reason that will change things for the better. And quite plainly, things don’t have much of a chance to change for the better as long as Palestinian politicians continue to give out the message Erekat gives out in the interview I linked to upthread.

What is perhaps most interesting about this interview is that it confirms what ueber-dove Shlomo Ben Ami said a few months after Taba in his famous interview with Avi Shavit on “the day peace died”. Indeed, the failure of these negotiations was the day peace died, because I and many Israelis like me then stopped to go to Peace Now demonstrations, because we knew that at some point in the future, a solution very similar to the one Israel had proposed would be realized one way or another, and the difference in territory for the Palestinians wouldn’t be enough to bury all the dead that by then would have lost their lives in this conflict. The Palestinians wildly cheered Arafat when he came back from Camp David proud of his NO and ready to unleash the senseless violence of the so-called “al Aqsa intifada” – from that point on, it was their choice to live under occupation. The rejection of Olmert’s offers now shows that this continues their preferred option.

Just have a look at this recent post linking to a Palestinian debate about the “right of return” — you will see that the supposedly moderate, pragmatic Palestinian in this debate thinks that his fellow Palestinians still have to decide if they want a state or if they prefer to continue their heroic “struggle”…

http://israelpolicyforum.org/blog/back-present-debating-right-return

“I think the act of firing the tear-gas canister from close range at the direction of the human body meets this definition”

However, before you can describe an individual of murder you would need to analyze three things.
1) Did the soldier use the weapons system in an approved mode. That is, did he fire it in a ballistic arc (yes) at more than the proscribed distance (again probably yes).
2) Was he acting under orders he believed to be both valid and legal. Judging by the sound of the Klaxon, the modern day riot act had been read.
3) Did the soldier intend to disperse the demonstrators; as opposed to deliberately kill the victim?

If the answer is yes to all 3, he cannot be a murderer. What ‘I think’ does not count.

Hitting someone at 30 meters with a projectile in a ballistic arc is very difficult. It is by no means a sniper type shot.

Alex claims above are a perfect manifestation of what intellectual dishonesty is. The comparison between riddling a house with bullets and shooting a tear gas grenade that has caused only one serious injury before the sad event, is more than enough here. But he is also an ignoramus . Here is the text of the Israeli penal code (I think that the law in the UK is similar):

http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A7_%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9F

Article 301 clearly states that an intent has to be proved. The murder should be committed in cold blood, with no provocation preceding it, and some prior preparation should also be proved.

Yes Alex, even if you riddle a house with bullets you are not necessarily a murderer. One has to show that you knew that there are people in the house, that you intended to kill them in cold blood, and that you made prior preparations in order to kill them. Of course, if they threw stones at you, or made any other provocation, then you are also innocent of murder.

Here is an interesting case that can teach you something:

http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-414828,00.html

A man was slaughtered by a knife in Jaffa but the court did not convict the killer of murder because intent and planning could not have been proved.

for at least a decade now, the Israelis wanted a Palestinian state more than the Palestinians

Crap, bullshit and bollocks.

In 1998, Ariel Sharon told the settlers to grab as many hilltops as possible in the West Bank. In the years that followed, the settlers heeded him with all Israeli governments turning a blind eye to a land appropriation that was illegal even under Israeli law. The State even provided those criminals with heavily subsidized services, such as running water, power and, not least of all, military protection.

The whole process is incompatible with any notion of Israel wanting to create a Palestinian state.

1) Did the soldier use the weapons system in an approved mode. That is, did he fire it in a ballistic arc (yes) at more than the proscribed distance (again probably yes).

An antisemitic organization called, er, the Israeli Defense Forces begs to differ:

“IDF officials who investigated the incident found the Armored Corps soldier who fired the canister apparently aimed directly at Abu Rahmeh from a distance of a mere few dozen meters.”

2) Was he acting under orders he believed to be both valid and legal. Judging by the sound of the Klaxon, the modern day riot act had been read.

“Israel Defense Forces sources said Saturday a tear gas canister that killed a Palestinian demonstrator Friday at a protest against the West Bank separation fence was likely fired in violation of orders.”

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1079196.html

ah so the bigoted one admits the soldier fired in violation of IDF orders. Must be a zionist plot!

Ah, IbrahimBusted, you couldn’t come with anything better than alte Sachen? Here’s what Sharon said in 2003, when he was actually in power:
“Controlling 3.5 million Palestinians cannot go on forever,” Sharon told a weekly meeting of stunned Likud leaders, Netanyahu among them, in May, 2003. “You want to remain in Jenin, Nablus, Ramallah and Bethlehem? The idea that it is possible to continue keeping 3.5 million Palestinians under occupation – yes, it is occupation, you might not like the word, but what is happening is occupation – is bad for Israel, and bad for the Palestinians, and bad for the Israeli economy,” Sharon said.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1079369.html

But I think you’ve shown on Yaacov Lozowick’s blog that it’s anyway not a rational substantive debate that interests you… So long, then…

Alex Stein, the “protests” would have taken place if the barrier had been planted only on every step of the Green Line. The Palestinian leadership and popular movements never accept any idea of the Green Line having any legitimacy.
In a sense, they are right – it is a ceasefire line betwee Israel and Jordan. The Green Line no longer exists because the West Bank is not ruled by Jordan (not since 1967).
Your entry was the usual sort of manipulative rubbish written by members of the ISM.

Ah, The Hasbara Buster, you quote haaretz

“IDF officials who investigated the incident found the Armored Corps soldier who fired the canister apparently aimed directly at Abu Rahmeh from a distance of a mere few dozen meters.”

“IDF officials” who they? Some guys we met in the Pub.

“who investigated the incident” which investigation? The guys who watched YouTube.

“apparently” which means? O.K. it wasn’t a ricochet, no one suggested it was.

“from a distance of a mere few dozen meters”, so more than authorized distance then, which I believe is 10 m.

“Israel Defense Forces sources said Saturday a tear gas canister that killed a Palestinian demonstrator Friday at a protest against the West Bank separation fence was likely fired in violation of orders.”

“Israel Defense Forces sources” Again, who, what where, why, when.

Haaretz is to Israel and the IDF what the Guardian is to the Conservative party.

Haaretz is to Israel and the IDF what the Guardian is to the Conservative party.

No– Ha’aretz is to Israel what the The Guardian is to Israel. The Guardian does not usually publish fabricated and grossly distorted accounts of Conservative Party history; it does not routinely demonize mainstream Tory politicians (apart from Mrs Thatcher) claim that the Tories established apartheid in England, or that UK troops in Afghanistan are deliberately committing war crimes. Both these intensely self righteous newspapers have a huge sense of mission–in this case, to right what they have decided are Great Wrongs Committed Against Noble National Liberation Movements (other than Zionism). Both offer great respect, deference and endless column inches to the spokesmen and apologists of murderous terrorist movements.

I should say that The Guardian famously tried to demonize Boris Johnson as well as Margaret Thatcher, but compared to the way the Graun and Ha’aretz write about Netanyahu, Begin, Sharon (before he evacuated Gaza) and now Lieberman, its portrayal of Boris even when attacking him was almost cuddly. Yes, he was portrayed as a racist (as the Guardian routinely portrays right wing Israeli politicians), but primarily as a buffoon and — oh, horror, horror– an Etonian whose election would cause the likes of Annabelle Weir to leave the country. (We’re still waiting). No more needed to be said….

I am on my fifth incarnation on CiF. I did email them when I set up a new account, and then they stopped banning me. now they just delete my posts, or put me on the premodorated list, where my post are audited before they are posted.

Sorry, that should be Arabella Weir. One should always take care to get the names of those one wishes to ridicule right. I’ll shut up now. Night, all.

Ah, IbrahimBusted, you couldn’t come with anything better than alte Sachen? Here’s what Sharon said in 2003, when he was actually in power:
“Controlling 3.5 million Palestinians cannot go on forever,” Sharon told a weekly meeting of stunned Likud leaders, Netanyahu among them, in May, 2003.

In 1998, Sharon was in power: he was the Foreign Minister of Israel.

It’s not old stuff (that much German I know) because what he said then has not been superseeded by any other directive from the Israeli government to the settlers.

Your desperate attempt at counterbalancing Sharon’s damning words of 1998 is pathetic. You try to convince us that what he said at a private meeting is on the same level as what he said over the Army Radio to the settlers. But it is not; on the contrary, it’s absolutely irrelevant because it was not followed by orders for the settlers to evacuate their illegal outposts.

Actions speak louder than words, and Israel’s actions have been to illegally occupy ever more Palestinian land in the very same years in which, according to some, it was desperately seeking an arrangement with the Palestinians to give them a state.

Oh, Ibrahim, if it wasn’t for you, I would have thought it was Sharon who evacuated some 7000 settlers from Gaza and who founded a party whose primary raison d’etre was originally to repeat what was done in Gaza in the Westbank (Ibrahim gets his favorite Dov Weissglass quote ready for posting…)

BTW, for anyone not familiar with the HasbaraBuster’s biography, not to worry, he isn’t any Ibrahim…

Are there any hilltops in Gaza? I’m afraid you’re trying to shift the goalposts.

Conflating the settlements in Gaza with those in the West Bank is yet another example of Zionist bad faith. And claiming that Sharon intended to evacuate the West Bank outposts as well is an instance of MONUMENTAL bad faith.

Buster -after Sharons’s stroke, Olmert took over the leadership of Kadima. He won the 2006 elections on a specific mandate to evacuate the West Bank. The behaviour of Hamas in Gaza, which had been evacuated some 6 months previously, was what put those plans on hold. The Palestinians have to take their share of the blame for the continuing occupation. Ever since 1987 they have been doing everything in their power to worsen their own situation -quite successfully.

http://lambethmilitants.blogspot.com/2009/04/campaign-for-boycott-divestment-and.html

I enjoy reading this kind of stuff to remind me of the division between my personal posturing sanctimony, and that current on much of the left in regard to criticising the military (IDF or otherwise).

The responsibility for the use of unjustified or excessive force lies with the individual solder and those in the chain of command above him. ‘I was just obeying orders’ doesn’t cut it as a defence now any more than when it was tried at Nuremberg. Wait for the cover-up of individual criminality before asserting institutional misconduct.

As for the acceptance of collective guilt by the army, I can’t remember any leftie using that to justify reprisal murders of people in the IRA or indiscriminate collective punishment of republican communities in NI.

I’m not a fan of much IDF behaviour, but unlike some commentators I have some idea of what it is like to be in this kind of situation. As it happens, I have actually been in the position of arguing with fellow soldiers about the appropriate use of plastic bullets for riot control in Northern Ireland (over the inadvisibility of firing them directly at particular individuals who liked to throw spikes, paving stones, petrol bombs and even acid bombs directly at us); I can assure you that experience of attitudes towards our ‘collective guilt’ like these made in by some in this thread made my job then a lot more difficult. Thanks for that.

If you want soldiers to respect individual human rights, start respecting theirs. It is still perfectly possible to legitimately criticise the actions of soldiers without exerting institutional bigotry or collective discrimination against them.

Judy,
This is brilliant.

“No– Ha’aretz is to Israel what the The Guardian is to Israel.”

Stan

Very well said, Gavin.

The post that prompted all this was transparently ridiculous and quickly shown as so, but the subsequent discussion has been very interesting indeed.

I should say that I’ve enjoyed some previous posts on Alex’s blog. Even though I think he’s played it horribly wrong on this issue, I believe his motivation is entirely honourable.

Thank you for your insight, Gavin.

Alex can not help himself: he simply esteems a clique and subculture whose praxis and self definition turns on the accruing of a far, far greater volume of finger-wagging, moral certitude, self-righteousness and sanctimony – regardless of the degree of uncertainty in establishing moral and/or legal culpability about any given Israeli and Palestinian Occupation/Security issue – than I would ever want to be associated with.

Thus, publishing an accusation on the internet, or in a newspaper indicting a faceless and nameless Israeli soldier with murder and every soldier in Israel, an accomplice to that murder, while simultaneously holding to an unstated presumption that any report investigating the incident at hand by Israel is most likely to be a whitewash, or “fig leaf” and therefore can be discounted a priori, helps to establish one’s credentials and authenticity in the subculture Alex esteems.

WRT reporting the killing of Bassem Abu Rahmeh, I would take an entirely different approach than Mr. Stein. I would refrain from assuming I possessed moral certitude about what actually transpired and instead first make sure I got hold of the IDF investigative report into the incident and then ask people far more knowledgeable than I about riot control situations as to what recommendations they would make to ensure as much as possible that no one , neither soldier, nor protester is killed or wounded in the future. I note that a conversation of this kind already appears in the comments of Gavin and Nick (ex South Africa) above.

Additionally, seeing as there have already been articles published reporting the testimony from protesters present at the scene at the time of the killing (including Bassem’s brother), I would do my best to speak with the soldier who fired the gas canister that hit Bassem Abu Rahmeh and report his recollection of the incident.

I would also suggest recommendations for the protesters themselves to heed, especially one demanding that they always bring along properly trained first aid staff equipped with first aid gear (including transportation) who can respond effectively in emergency situations.

Now if it turns out that the preponderance of evidence, including evidence accrued during the IDF investigation of the killing and at any subsequent trial showed the IDF soldier to have murdered and not just killed Bassem Abu Rahmeh, and the sentence meted out for the crime seemed to me unjust, I certainly would publicly protest the sentence and demand a just sentence for the crime.

But, even if in the end it turned out that the preponderance of evidence showed the IDF soldier who fired the gas canister which fatally wounded Bassem Abu Rahmeh did so in cold blood with an intent to murder and was not sentenced appropriately for the crime, and I protested the decision and sentence, I still wouldn’t have anything to do with the creepy narcissistic subculture and its warped notion of critical thinking and praxis that Mr. Stein esteems.

I have some idea of what it is like to be in this kind of situation (…) in Northern Ireland (…) firing [plastic bullets] directly at particular individuals who liked to throw spikes, paving stones, petrol bombs and even acid bombs directly at us.

You forget the small detail that, as the footing clearly shows, not a single rock was thrown against the soldier who killed the protestor.

Also, the IDF engages in the despicable practice of sending soldiers disguised as Arabs (mistarvim) to mix into the protesting crowd and start throwing rocks so that a fully peaceful demonstration will artificially turn into a violent one. See here for a Maccabim Brigade commander, Colonel Gedj, admitting that the mistarvim indeed throw rocks.

Did you use mist-Irish in NI, too? What’s your experience in that field?

HB, my point was made in relation to collective guilt; I’ll certainly accept that the actions of an individual soldier reflect upon the reputation of their unit and the army as a whole. But I have no responsibility or association with criminal acts perpetrated by other individuals whether soldiers, fellow-employees, fellow citizens, members of the same ethnic group, profession, social club or otherwise. If somebody wants to accuse me of being an accessory to murder simply because of the uniform I wore at one time, I’d prefer them to prove it in a court of law.

My point was that assertions of ‘collective guilt’ on the part of soldiers simply makes the job of anybody attempting to restrain excessive reactions or reprisals by them (no matter whether they were targeted on the guilty or the innocent) that much harder. What’s the point if you’re going to be damned by association regardless of the individual restraint you try to observe?

As for AP’s in the crowd, no: any stranger joining the localised and sectarian tribal activity that was rioting in NI would be a subject of suspicion, and liable to assault if not abduction or murder. Although it should be said that the republican movement worshiped a totemistic informer cult which meant that anything from the deaths of bystanders in riots to the number 49 bus being late could be blamed on British securocrats.

Generally it worked in the other direction. It was a republican tactic resort to a spectrum of provocations in large-scale disorder, ranging from a hard core of rioters engaging in physical assault to sniping at troops on crowd control duties. The purpose of that was to elicit an excessive response by the security forces on the larger mass of rioters to justify republican cant about British brutality and oppression (once the Jeremy Bowens of the time had air-brushed any republican agency out of the equation). To be fair, sometimes they really didn’t have to work too hard to achieve that.

The IDF should be well aware of all that, and one of my criticisms of them is that they don’t appear to be willing to avoid responding to provocations and thereby deny their enemies easy propaganda. But that’s a different issue from imposing collective guilt by association on soldiers in a manner which most HP posters would rightly find exceptional and worthy of opposition if it was perpetrated on almost any other group.

At most, one Israeli soldier is guilty of manslaughter, not murder.