portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

actions & protests | human & civil rights | police / legal

Kill Zones

Israelis debate the shooting of nonviolent Israeli protesters at the Apartheid Wall
Published on Monday, December 29, 2003 by the Baltimore Sun
Shooting of Protester Sparks Debate in Israel
Army tactics questioned after ex-soldier is shot

by Peter Hermann

JERUSALEM - There were only two bullets, meant to wound, not kill, and each found its mark, just as the Israeli soldier had intended. The protester fell from a single shot to each leg.

These weren't bullets fired in haste; neither were they fired by a renegade. The soldier followed orders and acted as he had been trained to break up unruly protests: Shoot the instigator in the legs and hope the others disperse.


Israeli troops fire on protesters against the apartheid wall

Only this time, the man shot and wounded was not a Palestinian. He was a 21-year-old Israeli named Gil Naamati, a combat soldier honorably discharged a month ago who was protesting Israel's new fence designed to separate Palestinians from Israelis.

The story of Naamati's shooting Friday grew yesterday into a fierce debate about the army's tactics, its use of deadly force against unarmed protesters and whether more than three years of fighting Palestinians has corrupted an Israeli military that calls itself the most moral army in the world.

The commander of the soldiers who opened fire only fueled the argument that raged in Israel's press yesterday by telling a local reporter: "The troops didn't know they were Israelis" - raising the issue of a perceived double standard on how the army deals with the Palestinians and its own citizens.

The incident Friday occurs amid an outcry from hundreds of army reservists, including dozens from elite combat units, who are refusing to serve their compulsory duty in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to protest what they say is pervasive mistreatment of Palestinians.

Noam Hoffstater, a spokesman for the Israeli human rights group B'tselem, said the shooting offered an opportunity "to demonstrate our army's open-fire regulations in the occupied territories in a way the Israeli public might understand and listen to."

"When Palestinians tell their stories, a lot of Israelis find them very hard to believe," Hoffstater added. "There is a huge gap between how we see ourselves and what we do in the West Bank and Gaza. But when it happens to an Israeli, we must face the reality. We can't defend ourselves."

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's Cabinet discussed the incident yesterday, and Israel's parliament scheduled a debate for today. The attorney general is contemplating a criminal investigation, and three military offices have launched inquiries. The army chief of staff visited Naamati at his hospital bed.

Rules under which Israeli soldiers can fire their M-16 rifles vary depending on the situation and area. Strips of land bordering fences surrounding the Gaza Strip and Jewish settlements are typically labeled closed military zones, and soldiers have wide discretion.

Army commanders have issued special orders on the new security fence, which will traverse more than 480 miles from the northern to the southern West Bank. Approaching the fence can be considered a security violation, and soldiers are allowed to shoot.

On Friday, about 300 protesters from two groups - the International Solidarity Movement and Anarchists Against the Wall - gathered at a gate on the Palestinian side of the fence near the West Bank city of Qalqilya. They faced Israeli soldiers on the other side.

The protesters were unarmed, but some climbed and shook the fence, while others began to cut the wire mesh. There were reports that some protesters wore masks and threw rocks at soldiers in the elite Golani Brigade.

Israeli news reports said soldiers asked repeatedly for permission to shoot at protesters' legs and were denied. Finally, the order was given. Soldiers opened fire, first into the air, and then at Naamati, who was designated a lead agitator. An American protester also was wounded.

Naamati had just completed three years of army service in the artillery corps and had staffed military checkpoints that brought him face to face with Palestinians in the West Bank. He had told his father that he felt sorry for the Palestinians and tried to persuade fellow soldiers to go easy.

"I'm very angry with the soldiers who shot me," Naamati told the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot from his bed in the Rabin Medical Center in Tel Aviv. "When we stood beside the fence, I yelled to the soldiers, 'Don't shoot us. Don't shoot us. We're Israelis.' But they continued to fire."

Uri Naamati, 53, said in a telephone interview yesterday that, unlike his son, he supports the fence, but he also supports his son's right to protest.

"What happened is very serious," he said. "Somehow, the Israel Defense Forces fired live ammunition at Jewish protesters."

But the elder Naamati, who served as a tank commander in Israel's 1973 war against Egypt and Syria, does not agree with those who are using the shooting of his son to argue that the Israeli army treats Palestinians unjustly.

He said a distinction should be made between Palestinian and Israeli protesters, because the Palestinians are on the other side of a war, while soldiers should know that Israelis would not endanger fellow citizens.

"You should fire only in self-defense in these situations, and Jewish protesters don't pose a threat," said Uri Naamati, head of a regional council of communities in the Negev desert. He said that his son is recovering, but one bullet did serious nerve damage that will require lengthy rehabilitation.

Lt. General Moshe Yaalon, the army chief of staff, blamed the demonstrators for "masquerading as Arabs." He said they "mingled with Palestinians and entered the Palestinian side illegally," and that some wore Arab headdresses and waved Palestinian flags.

The Israeli right, including several members of parliament, called for the protesters to be prosecuted, while those on the left demanded that the army investigate the shooting. An editorial in Yediot Ahronot said: "If a Palestinian had been shot, it probably would not have got even one line in the newspaper."

A well-known novelist, David Grossman, wrote in the same paper that the shooting "needs to serve as a warning signal about the place we have reached, the political and social climate that allows for such a thing to occur. Maybe we will begin to wake up and understand to what depths the occupation, the internal hatred, the violence that erupts from within our midst even against ourselves has taken us."

Ephraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv, said open-fire regulations must be loose near the fence or the protective barrier would be rendered useless. He pointed out that soldiers patrolling the West Bank fence are under orders to wound violators, while in Gaza, the area around the fence is designated "a kill zone."

Inbar said the strong reaction to the shooting reflects Israel's "sensitivity to the lives of their own people." Had the victim been Palestinian, he said, the Israeli left "would have made some outcry, but it would have been far less appealing. It's clearly different when one of your own gets shot."

Copyright 2003, The Baltimore Sun

###

Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article


FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe