Four Reasons Why Israel Can Even Get Away With This Killing
As a rule, Israelis don’t believe the Palestinians and are convinced that the army is always right, but in Shireen Abu Akleh's case the victim is not anonymous. This still didn't prevent the IDF from conducting a cover-up operation.
The Israeli army wants us to believe there is a “high probabilty” that one of its soldier from the elite Duvdevan unit got confused and thought that journalist Shireen Abu Akleh was an armed Palestinian (because of the helmet on her head and the bulletproof vest she was wearing). That is why he shot her through a telescopic sight, which magnifies by a power of four, from inside the armored jeep where he sat.
From a civilian view point, not military, two conclusions arise from the new IDF cover-up, known as an “investigation.” One is that if a soldier confuses between journalists and armed gunmen, and if his commanders allow him to continue to fire out of this confusion toward the journalists at least 10 bullets, the state of the IDF is pretty bad.
The second conclusion is that such confusion is only possible because the IDF, its commanders and soldiers, have a deep-seated and growing disregard for the lives of Palestinian civilians. The soldiers are programmed to be “confused” and make such professional mistakes, because they are socialized to believe that they are the victim while the criminal is the Palestinian civilian population that is under Israeli foreign rule.
The announcement by the IDF Spokesman’s Unit on the findings of the new investigation into the killing of the journalist, who was experienced in covering military invasions and raids, ignores the fact that before the soldier fired and killed her, he or another soldier shot journalist Ali al-Samoudi and wounded him in the shoulder.
The IDF Spokesman’s statement and the media reports also skipped over the fact that a few minutes before the lethal shooting, the group of journalists – in helmets and bulletproof vests – passed by the soldiers who were inside their armored vehicles.
“We walked in a straight manner, while in front of us, at a distance of about 200 meters, were a few army jeeps. We wanted for the soldiers to see us and recognize us as journalists,” veteran journalist al-Samoudi explained to Israeli human rights NGO B’Tselem. Like his colleague Abu Akleh, al-Samoudi was experienced in covering such events and had learned what means of caution were needed to remain safe.
Another two journalists who were at that scene in Jenin and gave their testimonies to B’Tselem – Shatha Hanaysha and Mujahid al-Sa'adi – also emphasized how their acts meant to assure the soldiers in the jeeps that they were journalists. If there had been a battle there, they would not have passed by the jeeps with such confidence.
According to the IDF, the soldier fired about 20 bullets, 10 of them at the “area” where Abu Akleh was standing. According to B’Tselem, the soldiers fired about 16 bullets in the direction of the journalists. One of the first six shots wounded al-Samoudi. He rushed to take cover behind a parked car. Three other journalists, including Abu Akleh, retreated from where they were standing. Then seven shots were fired in their direction, and one hit Abu Akleh in the head, from behind. As a Palestinian resident tried to evacuate her, the soldiers fired toward him another three shots. So was it this one soldier who shot or more? We don’t know.
There are five conditions necessary for making the killing or injury of Palestinian civilians by IDF soldiers go away quietly and without any media complications. In the case of the killing of Abu Akleh, only four of the five conditions existed.
The first condition is for the Israeli public to believe the cowboy stories that it is stuffed with, as if IDF soldiers in the West Bank are sent into battle, even symmetric battles, against equally-powerful enemy forces that do not have any reason or justification to resist the military invasion of their neighborhood.
The newest cover up indeed tells about heavy fire towards the IDF's armored jeeps the soldiers were sitting in. True, many Palestinian youths, and especially in the Jenin region and the Jenin refugee camp, obtained weapons for themselves and swore not to allow the army to raid their villages and neighborhoods without resistance, as if the soldiers were hunters on a safari.
On occasional reports on TV, the armed gunmen indeed look scary: Masked faces, huge rifles in their hands. Sometimes they even manage to hit a soldier. But being seen as heroes among the Palestinians, and their willingness to sacrifice their lives against an enemy outfitted with sophisticated and advanced weaponry – is no replacement for training exercises and continuous development of fighting tactics under guerilla conditions. And these two are obviously lacking.
Military sources, who reported on the “inquiry” and were quoted in the press, told of massive, indiscriminate and life-endangering fire directed at the soldiers during the battle. No one can doubt the soldiers’ subjective fear, but is it possible to believe the "inquiry"'s description of a battle in which IDF soldiers are described as almost innocent civilians who just happened to be there?
Video clips filmed in real time, and which were obtained by and broadcast by international media outlets – such as CNN and The New York Times – show that there was no battle either during or before the shooting of the two journalists by the confused soldier. If bullets hit the jeeps, it didn’t happen at that time. So what battle are they telling us about?
The second condition required so that the death of a Palestinian civilian will pass completely under the radar is the Israeli public's automatic disbelief and discrediting of any Palestinian eyewitness testimony and independent inquiries – whether by foreign media or by human rights organizations.
Even if after the publication of these and other independent journalistic investigations, the IDF can still hide behind terms like “mistakenly” and “high probability” – this is precisely because it feels protected by the same Israeli discrediting of any Palestinian findings.
The fourth condition is for the Israeli public to deem natural and normal the mission of the security forces – the army, the intelligence, the police – as guardians and protectors of the colonization enterprise. Because the settlement project is expanding without international opposition, more and more Israelis are benefitting from it directly and indirectly — an apparent normality that Palestinians – also unarmed protestors – disrupt sometimes.
And because almost every Israeli home has a soldier-son with whom they automatically identify, the cognitive ability to cast a doubt on this fake normality is impaired and paralyzed. The soldier is always right. This is why the IDF is always right too. (Unless of course, the commanders abuse the soldiers, or give them inedible food. Only then do the parents cry out.)
The fifth condition is the anonymity of the Palestinian casualties. When an Israeli is hurt in any Palestinian attack, he or she is immediately recognized and dear to the Israeli public: With a life story, and the sociological context that is understood without many words.
When the dead and the wounded are Palestinians – even if their names are published – they are alien, none of the few known details can arouse associations of affection and identification among Israelis. In the case of Abu Akleh, this is exactly the condition that was not met. She was both an American citizen and a media icon for hundreds of millions of viewers of the Al Jazeera television channel. She also became famous to those who did not know her beforehand.
But nonetheless, this was still not enough for the IDF to refrain from conducting a cover-up. It is precisely the fact that the IDF ignored video documentation and Palestinian eyewitness testimonies, published by respected international media, that raises questions about the real reason for the cover-up in this case.
Was this truly
a confused soldier (or two) who made a mistake, or a
light trigger finger as part of a routine – a routine
which the IDF has no intention to change because it is
a means of "governability" needed to advance the
settlement enterprise.