Israeli troops fire on Women
Palestinian women described yesterday how they were shot and injured in the face and the legs by Israeli troops as they led a protest march into the scene of the biggest military incursion into Gaza in months. Read NY Times stories has pictures. Also Read the Guardian report by clicking here. Here is a video taken in August of this year [made by an Israeli group] which shows how Israeli troops sometimes deal with peaceful protesters. This protest is mixed with Palestinians and Israelis among the protesters and yet people were shot. Click to see.
History begins only after Palestinian terror! US defends the killing of the two women as "self defense". It is fascinating to see the US position, they give Israel the right to kill even women in defense of occupation. See State Department's statement. Once again no discussion of occupation.
Look how Israeli and Arab media report the current Isareli incursion into Gaza. Click here.
35 Comments:
I was just curious after reading these articles as to whether or not the women can be designated as civilians. Although they say that they had white flags and were un-armed, if they were attempting to help the gun men escape, then they are no longer non-combatants, regardless of their gender or un-armed status. Of course it is still wrong for the Israeli’s to have killed some of them, but they can not claim that they were simply engaging in a peaceful march. Does anyone else have an opinion as to whether or not these women can be called non-combatants?
This article upsets me. The Palestinian women were trying to help Palestinian militants sneak out of a mosque. They were not innocent bystanders, they were aiding to terrorists. Nobody can say that Palestinian gunmen would not do the same thing. The fact that the militants were hiding in the same area as the women should say something about the situation. Instead of fending for themselves they were using the women as a barricade so if and when the Israeli's shot at the area everyone could go into a rage about how the Israeli's are shooting at women.
Jacob and Talia, you are both making very interesting comments. In a way you are suggesting that perhaps it maybe ok to kill unarmed women if they are seen to be assisting militants. I want to pose a couple of more questions for you. What if the procession was not women but elementary school children marching to rescue their elder brothers from the armies of an invading country? Would you still think it may be right for Israel or anyother occupying force to kill those children? Is the defense of Israel's occupation so morally justified that any crime is acceptable?
2:35 PM
Obviously the murder/killing of unarmed and innocent citizens by an occupying force (by any force) is to be condemned. I find it hard to believe that there was no other option available to the Israeli troops than to open fire into a crowd of women. However, I think a distinction has to be made between the actual event and the analogy that Prof. Khan has created. Adult women have consistently proven that they can not only being military combatants, but have also consistently proven that they will use the moral weight of being an “unarmed woman” as a shield to protect other combatants. In this way they are aiding and abetting the militants and should be treated as part of an enemy force. The children that you speak of may or may not fall under the same category but the women in this particular case were certainly aiding an enemy force.
I certainly do not believe that “the defense of Israel's occupation [is] so morally justified that any crime is acceptable?”, but when considering this case I think one must not forget that the Palestinian gun-men being pursued were being pursued because they linked to firing rockets into Israel. Regardless of the righteousness of the Palestinian gun-men’s cause, they were still committing aggressive acts against Israel designed to kill, injure, and scare the Israeli populace. The women that came to their rescue lost their innocent standing when they committed to helping armed combatants.
It's obvious to me that the women weren't fully innocent in this situation. It's not like the Israel army did a random hit for absolutely no reason. Nevertheless, shooting into a crowd of unarmed civilians is extremely disturbing and should be considered a war-crime. What the women were trying to do does not warrant death.
I'm scared of the previous students' comments. Instead of Khan's analogy I would use a different analogy. This kind of justification is the same type people use on rape victims that the victim may of "wanted it" or that walking alone at night or wearing revealing clothing justifies getting raped. The logic is problem-some and tainted with personal preferences, rather than reality.
Equally disturbing things are that the militants entered a mosque as a defensive base. The radio host asked women to help the militants, I don't see how they expected it to work.
The needless deaths and absolute uncaring nature of the soldiers towards killing women and children is very sad. When firing into crowds of people is considered normal or okay then there's an obvious problem going on.
All this so called civilization and progress comes at a terrible cost if soldiers lose their humanity by being able to take lives with a push of a button.
I agree with Jacob. I feel that there is a big difference between a procession of women and the elementary children in dr. khan's example. The children may say that they are "rescuing their elder brothers" but at the same time they do not know the consequences of their actions and what may happen. Israel would be criticized by others as well as their own people if they opened fire on a procession of children. The children don't have the ability to carry out the aiding of terrorists like the women could. I don't believe that it is right for ANYONE to shoot and harm unarmed civilians and I don't think the defense of Israel is so morally justified that any crime is acceptable. I do believe that the women were acting in the wrong and aiding terrorists and therefore put themselves in danger. I don't think that the Palestinians should have been expecting the Israeli's to sit around and watch these women help terrorists escape.
This situation is similar to the Italian occupation of Ethiopia. The mass murder of thousands of civilians and bombings of medical centers was justified by the fact that Ethiopians were committing the lesser violation of abusing Red Cross symbols. Once Red Cross signs were used on armories, all buildings with the Red Cross became "legitamate" targets.
People have a right to defend or help hide their own patriots, especially if they happen to be family members. English and American law hold that a person is innocent until proven guilty [in principle, anyway] because it is better to let the guilty go free than to falsly punish even one innocent person. With that in mind, it is not acceptable to shoot at an unarmed, peaceful demonstration because there might be armed resistance fighters. It is also not an acceptable means to "defense" to destroy mosques or the associated property. Churches are called sanctuaries for a reason, and i think the same could apply to all religious buildings
"The needless deaths and absolute uncaring nature of the soldiers towards killing women and children is very sad. When firing into crowds of people is considered normal or okay then there's an obvious problem going on."
I see where you are going with this Peter-Park and I do agree death is not warranted, but how else do you expect to scare off or disarm these women? Any of the women who picked up robes to bring to the mosque, to AID the gunmen, became an equal enemy of the Israeli army. Just because they chose not to carry a weapon to fight back did not give them just reason to come into the middle of a fight between these armed gunmen and Israeli soldiers. They can no longer be classified as civilians, as they put themselves in the middle of the mess and hoped to aid the gunment by helping them escape as women themselves.
As I certainly feel there are other situations where Israel has done wrong, i can understand where they felt pressure that this militia group might be getting away and they were forced to act upon the situation, that being the women trying to reach the mosque.
In India, non-violent protests may have worked, but they did not do so by assisting armed gunmen in their protests. These women chose to put their lives on the line by standing in between the lines of aggression and crossed the line of protest by aiding the palestinian situation.
Professor Khan, I too can not relate to the situation you pose. These were women, who were full aware of the situation and were aware of the consequences. They were not innocent children going to help their older brothers. Not only that, but they were coming to help hide the men under robes, not just give their support or opinion to the cause. While any crime is not just acceptable because of Israeli occupation, the cause of this incident was outlandish and I feel the Israelis felt pressured to act and reach a concensus, rather than watch the men escape before their eyes.
I agree with peter-park and am disturbed by many of the comments made intending to justify the Israeli aggression and killing of innocent, peaceful Palestinian protesters. These women were participating in a non-violent protest, in defense of their people and of the unjust Israeli occupation and aggression. The Israeli killings of nonviolent activists is simply wrong. If the Israeli army is quelling peaceful marches with violence, something has to be done – the international community, especially the United States, must condemn such behavior. The key thing is that the Palestinians tried a peaceful defense! Yet they were still attacked, and this, I think, illustrates the vicious cycle of violence by both sides. No wonder Palestinians are responding to Israeli attacks with anger and violence – as a Palestinian fighter on part of the Arab News clip stated, “The response [to the Beit Hanounin Israeli aggression] will be equivalent to the crime as long as these incursions, crimes, and massacres continue.” The Arab News clip also had a reporter state of the Beit Hanounin aggression that the Israelis were “shooting at anything that moves.”
The Israeli army is shooting at anything that moves because it is justified by the most powerful actors in the world. It is justified by the vast amount of money and support given to the Israeli military. For example, the US supported the killing of the women in the State Department’s statement. Due to all this support from the Western world, any shooting and aggression is allowed and almost completely legitimized because of it is seen as the norm; because the Western world backs the destruction of the Arab world, because it is ultimately the West versus the non-West. As a reporter on the Arab News clip stated, “The Israeli aggression on Northern Gaza is being launched against a nation that is already suffering from the lack of internal security,” and he goes on to say so imagine what this nation is going through with increased killings and aggression by the occupation forces. He is absolutely correct. It is hard to see the full perspective of the Palestinians when any Israeli aggression is supported and thus legitimized by the US.
I think the biggest question about this happening is what the alternatives of the situation could have been. According to the article, the point of the engagement was to keep Palestinians from ultimately launching missiles at Israel, were they supposed to just let the women walk in and help the combatants escape? It’s easy to ask something like “is the defense of Israel's occupation so morally justified that any crime is acceptable?” following an example where a group women are shot. It’s great press to cite this on the surface as another example of Israel’s propensity to kill the unarmed and innocent, but that doesn’t mean that that is what it is. I think Jacob lays it out pretty plainly when he says that once they’ve entered the conflict they can no longer be considered non-combatants.
Additionally, what were the women doing there in the first place? Why would a radio station call for women to come and serve as human shields and not simply more men? The Palestinians knew to bring in women because it’s a gut check for the Israelis. They couldn’t simply mow them down as combatants because they’re unarmed and they’re women. If Israel let the women walk out the combatants and they were able to launch their missile attacks then it’s a minor victory; also, if Israel happens to kill some of the women it’s also a victory for Palestinian sympathizers. The media hails them as martyrs and paints yet another picture of Israeli murder. They knew to put women in the middle because then Israel would be put in an impossible situation. Why can’t that be looked at with the same disgust that Prof Khan views the actions of Israel? These militants that fought over night and were given ample time to surrender (and some even did surrender) stooped to bringing innocent women in to hide behind. The sheer cowardice is disgusting.
Prof. Khan also compared it to having children coming in acting on raw emotion and running to save their brothers but it’s a drastically different situation. Aside from the other reasons people have argued children are too young and naïve and act on raw emotion. A child most likely would not knowingly walk into that situation and think “I’m a child, they can’t shoot me, I’m just trying to help them,” a child would be acting on the panic that would result from what they were watching. Also, would it be a procession? If a nation would call a group children to play the role that they put the women in they’re even more despicable. If a child or children were involved it’d be a panic stricken crowd that didn’t understand what they were getting involved in. Conversely, I strongly believe that these Palestinian women knew what they were doing.
I don’t want it to seem like it was ok that the women were killed and wounded. It’s not ok and I think it’s a tragedy when unarmed people, especially women and children, are killed. However, the women had no place being there. The combatants had clearly done something wrong and were surrounded, accept your fate and surrender or fight to the death but don’t bring innocent women into it. Simply put, the women shouldn’t have been there and the Palestinians shouldn’t have put Israel in such an impossible situation where innocent women served as human shields.
Kyle, based on your argument:
"I think Jacob lays it out pretty plainly when he says that once they’ve entered the conflict they can no longer be considered non-combatants."
Would you consider the killing of all/any Israeli citizens, regardless of whether they are armed or not jsutified, since "they too have enterred the conflict" knowing fully well that this is occupied land and the natives are fighting for their land against foreigners, sad but ok since they are no more noncombatants"
Let me make the case easier, when some women goes and lives in a settlement in Westbank is she then a fair target?"
Israel could have done many things, including physically restraining the women, using teargas to dispel them, using water pumps to push them away [no need to worry about the cost, we foot their bills anyway], putting up a barricade to stop them from reaching the mosque, but is it not strange that THE ONLY THING ISRAEL DID WAS SHOOT THE WOMEN!
How come these alternative options have not occurred to anyone so far?
Once violence against civilians is justified, then it will become difficult to condemn terrorism. Terrorism is killing of noncombatants for political purposes [often justifiable], it is only the means that is condemned.
Prof. Khan,
How do you know that the Israeli force had those other options available to their disposal? Could the situation not have been that they had to act now or risk letting the militants escape just so they could continue their attacks?
Also, I feel that the women in the "rescue party" put the Israeli's in an impossile situation where to any objective observer, the Israeli's committed a terrible sin. That is the killing of un-armed civilians. Although I think their designation as non-combatants is still questionable. On the other hand, I feel that the Israeli settlers also put the Palestinian militants in a similar impossible situation with their encroachment on Palestinian land. In this manner I feel that although violent acts by both sides against the other ultimately unjustifiable, I believe that the context of the situation puts either side in an impossible situation where they are forced to act amorally.
I don't know Jacob, but I do know that here in the U.S. we insist on calling the Palestinian violence terrorism and Israeli violence self-defense.
As far as using hose pipes with high pressure water instead of guns, Israel has had 39 years to have them and deploy them for use against Palestinians.
Remember all the creative ways in which they tried to control the settlers while evacuating them from Gaza, shooting was not the first option then?
There is a difference between harming women seeking to protect militants and children seeking to protect militants. First, I would question whether children have the cognitive ability to forsee all possible consequences of their actions. Adults, presumably the women were adults, should be able to predict the response of soldiers if they obstructed the apprehension of armed militants.
U.S. law enforcement agencies would probably utilize similar tactics to that of the Israelis. Would police not attempt to incapacitate the driver of the getaway car because he or she was not armed? The Palestinians should realize that in this particular situation, they brought the suffering upon themselves.
I do not see a difference in harming women instead of harming children. Either way you are harming someone. Someone who is unarmed. You could argue that these women had an agenda which conflicts with the Israeli governement. Dont we all have agendas? Whether or not these women were involved is not the issue. These women were not a direct threat to Israel. Israel attacked them as if they were. I think Israel has lost credibility in fighting when they open fire on suspects. Peronally, I think everyone has become too trigger happy and too blame happy. Nothing will be solved if Israel opens fire on a group of people claiming self defense. Because then, out of self defense and as a preemptive safety measure palestinians will fight back. Palestinians will attack Israeli troops who could possibly open fire on another group of civilians. It is a vicious cycle.
Prof Khan,
I understand where you’re going with the whole argument but isn’t extending it to Israel’s mere existence in the area and/or a woman simply living in a settlement taking it a bit far? None of my argument was stated that it was ok to kill Palestinian women merely because they’re Palestinian. If this article was about the Israeli army just randomly opening fire on a group of Palestinian women that were walking home from the market, I would probably condemn it as harshly as you. However, this incident was undeniably different. These women voluntarily walked into a heavily armed and active conflict and took the action of trying to help a group that was planning a missile attack. How can that be compared to a woman living in a settlement? Is it unlawful? Certainly. It is the same? I can’t see how you could say that. I agree that it’s a slippery slope to start justifying civilian casualties, but what becomes of their civilian innocent status when they voluntarily partake in a situation like the one in question? If an Israeli woman living in a settlement were to come to the aid of an Israeli group of men that were fighting with Palestinians near a mosque or a temple or even a convenient store, and she was unarmed and killed, it’d be sad and unfortunate but she certainly carries an amount of responsibility because she voluntarily entered in the situation.
Additionally, what do you think about the fact that they brought these women into the scenario? Don’t you think that it’s a very dangerous game of dangling these “innocent, civilian” lives in front of a fortified army and putting them into such an impossible situation?
Also, you stated emphatically that “THE ONLY THING ISRAEL DID WAS SHOOT THE WOMEN!” but out of the hundreds of women, 10 were wounded and 2 were killed. If the Israeli army wanted to just shoot the women, don’t you think they wouldn’t hit a few more than that? Certainly shooting 12 women is a tragic thing but it doesn’t come close to an obvious civilian massacre like the one seen in Amritsar. If the Israeli army was trying to shoot all the women and kill them all they could’ve. Maybe tear gas would’ve worked, maybe a hose, and though we don’t know whether or not they were plausible alternatives, 2 women could’ve died. 10 additional women could’ve been injured in the hysteria that resulted.
It’s a terrible thing when unarmed women and children die, but if you’re unarmed and you truly are trying to be an innocent party, don’t come to the battle. Don’t walk into the middle of the fire fight and then be surprised that someone got shot. Don’t walk to that fire fight and volunteer to be a human shield. Most importantly, don’t put your innocent, unarmed mothers, sisters, and cousins in that position.
Kyle, I love your passion. I am a bit busy with the election results, so I will be brief. Just watch the video in the same blog [at the end of the first para] about the protests and tell me if shooting was the only option available for the IDF to stop the protest, and also if those protests where threatening the very existence of Israel?
I listed a number of things that IDF could have done before shooting, how about rubber bullets, even if they have to shoot women.
Well, even as we were discussing how Palestinian women actually walked into the battle zone and made things impossible for IDF, the IDF was bombing and shelling Palestinian homes and killing women and children who were asleep in their homes. Here is the Israeli newspaper report of the event: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/785380.html
Are Palestinian women and children to blame for this too?
Killing civilians is wrong under any circumstance. What if there was a militant in a US church and women went out to protect him and then the police officers open fire and kill couple of women? what would be the headlines in the news the next day< I bet something that condemns the act, and I also bet that people all over USA will be outraged by it. So Israeli's are making the case that they were protecting some militants and therefore they are justified for openning fire at the civilians, well how about the Israeli shelling that killed 18 people today? Were they covering any militants? Were they stopping any Israeli army from killing people? No, Israeli Tanks fired at houses and killed innocent civilians who were sleeping? And not surprisingly they are going to get away with their criminal acts, as they always do!
Adult women have reasoning skills that enable them to see the consequences of their actions. Children lack this ability. There is a reason in the American criminal justice system, we sentence juveniles differently then adults, including women.
If you help a person flee the scene of a crime, you are a criminal. Police in the United States utilize deadly force to incapcitate armed criminals. You can argue that the women were not armed, but the fact they were part of an armed group makes them legitimate targets. If the women were hostages I would feel differently, but they were not.
By the way, comdemning all Israeli actions that killed unarmed individuals is not appropriate. An ad hoc approach is appropriate. The shelling that killed 18 civilians, who may not have wiling helped any alledged militants is different than helping militants and being killed in the process.
From my perspective, Mustafa shares the blind hatred common to those involved in the conflict on both sides. In your effort to sound "edgy" and "inflamatory," you come across as ignorant and biased.
Prof Khan,
The site which you provided in your last post is precisely the example I was trying to refer to in my last post (where I stated that I'd condemn them as harshly as you if they were actually innocent and trying to avoid taking part in the conflict). Whether the IDF attacked them purposely or not, I don't think it can be argued that these women and children carried any responsibility. However, I do think it's obvious that the situation described by this news story and the situation described in the original blogging article are very different. The whole concept of responsibility and the whole basis of my argument as to why the women who tried to assist those men carried some responsibility is absent here. I don't believe that innocently sleeping in your house with your family should involve a possibility for a repercussion such as that. Going to bed and going into the middle of a fire fight are different scenarios. I’m not sure one could argue that those who were killed in their homes had done anything to compromise their innocence or blur their intentions. However, the same can’t be said for the original women in question. They consciously decided to walk in their and surrender at least some of their innocence and took on the role of human shield. The latest link you provided however is a truly horrible thing and should lead to harsh condemnation because there was no question as to what the intentions of these people were. Whether it was wayward artillery or murder, we may never know, but certainly someone should pay for their deaths.
Do you agree that these are very different situations? Or can nothing blur innocence? Is it a black and white issue? Either you are an innocent civilian or you’re not? Or can people’s actions put their status in question?
Kyle, you have put your finger on a very tricky moral problem and I am not sure I have a definitive answer to it.
Iraq was attacked by Aemrica on false accusations and now nearly 655,000 people are dead and the antion destroyed.
Americans reelected Bush and continue to fund the war by paying taxes, does that mean all Americans are now fair game for Iraqi attacks, since they are assisting and supporting, keeping power, the illegal invaders and occupiers of their country?
What do you think?
Part of My tax dollars, nearly 25% of my annual income, helped shock and awe Baghdad and paid for the shells that killed the Palestinian women and children in Gaza, can Palestinians justifiably attack me when I am going to work [to make money to pay part of it to upkeep Israeli and American armies].
I think killing unarmed civilians is a crime, if we deter from that than anything can be justified.
Innocence and guilt will become like beauty, eye of the beholder...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
I’ve had a hard time responding to this because it is an interesting spin and a difficult question. However, I think the issue of personal control is what ultimately separates the respective matters. As I’ve said numerous times with the case of the women and their involvement, they knowingly stepped into the conflict and there was little to no doubt concerning their objective. It doesn’t appear that anybody forced them to go (the radio announcement was a request), or that there was any politics involved, these women walked into the exchange with a clear intent to get involved and aid their compatriots. They took an obvious risk of danger and in doing so compromised their innocence.
As to whether or not the American people are fair targets because we are in Iraq and we pay taxes and have run elections remains another question. Though I do see your point, there is certainly a difference in the amount of personal control that we as tax payers and voters have and the control the women of the conflict in question had. As far as the tax argument goes, we as individual tax payers have extremely limited say in where are taxes go and almost no say in how it’s disbursed. Our best solution to changing tax amounts and allocations is through voting; either by electing candidates with separate proposals or voting on local tax issues. However, when it comes to something like funding a war, we have no right or power to say “I don’t want my tax money to fund this war, put it toward education instead”. There is no differentiation between the citizens that are war hawks and the citizens that are hippies. We’ve compromised our personal choice and by way of open election have given its power to our elected officials.
As we all know, our election system and electoral processes are thoroughly saturated with political jargon and deceit. We’re inundated with party allegiances and agendas and in many cases find ourselves in situations where officials are elected on relatively minor issues that were aired in negative campaigning ads. When we finally get to vote, we’re in most cases left with the lesser of two evils.
Additionally, these candidates run on platforms which address countless issues. A pro-choice advocate might vote for a Republican if the candidate is offering a tax cut and education reform. It’s nearly impossible to find a candidate that supports half of what you believe in let alone most of it. President Bush won the election, but of the say 50% that voted for him, is it ever possible to tell how many did it strictly for the war? With so many issues at hand and so much political garbage left over from the campaigns, is it fair to say that all Americans can be targets because we elected him and Congress and they decided to go to war? Are we on a level playing field with a group of women that consciously made a personal choice to put their own lives in danger? Is it even fair to say that every voting American knew enough about the plans of our government to consider it such a personal choice?
You could say that each of us is a little responsible for the travesties in Iraq, but I don’t think you can ever put it on par with the personal acts of these women. I don’t pay my taxes each week consciously supporting the fact that a percentage of that is killing innocent women and children, and even if I did I can’t just change my mind and do anything about it. Those women had full control over their actions; if only for a matter of minutes, these women held their innocence completely in their own hands. An individual tax payer and voter never has that kind of power over the American government.
I am amazed at the animosity people seem to have for these women. Perhaps it is wrong for our 5th amendment to apply to any party other than the accused. People shouldn't be alowed to not testify against their spouses, just as it is clearly wrong to help your neighbors fight an oppressive government. All dissenters should stand alone and anyone helping them, no matter what condition they are in should be treated as an accomplice. If rebels are armed, anyone helping them should be treated as armed because they have to know what they are getting into and they really have it coming. If you break your leg playing football, you knew it was going to happen; if you get killed while fighting for the army, you knew it was going to happen; if you get injured while covering rebels, well you had that coming too. To quote a Cinta Larga [Brazilian] explanation: “If you pass close to a beehive, the bees won’t do anything, but if you try to take something from inside it, they will attack you.” [well, this can work for either side, in this case]
Anyone else see the problem with this?
I don't know how many police chases get that far, but usually the responsible officers will try to incapacitate the vehicle by shooting at the tires rather than go directly for the driver, which can be dangerous for others on the road.
I think more than anything, this incident speaks of the illigitimacy of the Israeli government. This is how colonist act when it is clear they have overstayed their welcome, and this is how desperate people who are fighting to maintain what little they have of their land left when they are out-technologied and out-numbered. Israel is fast becoming another america[s], another Australia, and there is likely nothing anyone can do about it.
These women could've been sitting on their hands on the curb and still would've been shot it. Israel looks for any excuse it can to shoot at Palestinians. There is really no excuse for it. I kind of liken this to the police in Montgomery, Alabama turing the dogs and hoses loose on peaceful protesters during the civil rights movement or peaceful sit-in participants being beaten and then arrested. Any protest is seen as an act of aggression when the ruling class has such racist animosity toward the protesters.
I am appalled by how many people can try and support Israel on this situation. Yes the women were going to help the men inside the mosque, but they were unarmed. And although the fact they said they wanted to help them escape can classify them under aiding the combatants they were still unarmed. They showed the Israelis that they were just marching and that they didn't have weapons on them. There was no reason for the Israelis to open fire on these women in this sense. If they wanted to stop them before they got to the mosque the Israelis could have just arrested them and stopped them from getting to the mosque to aid their soldiers. Since these women were acting in a peaceful manner there was no reason for the Israeli's to act so forcefully against them especially so violently as to injure so many and even kill two women. The Israeli's have pushed their boundaries of what is allowed and not allowed in fighting, when you see unarmed people you cannot just go firing into them because you want you. They too should have acted as though they were unarmed and just arrested the women. I do not agree with my fellow students comments above that basically say the women deserved this to happen to them by wanting to aid their soldiers. The Israeli's take too much enjoyment it almost seems in hurting Palestinians, even the ones they know cannot do them any harm.
novus publius, your remarks is a clear indication of who is beinb biased, the fact that you are not willing to admit that the 18 civilians killed were civilians, shows your common "IDF mentality" of killing civilians in the name of defense."The shelling that killed 18 civilians, who may not have wiling helped any alledged militants". Killing innocent civilians in the name of defense is like fuc$%^& for virginity,
your claim that Palestinians are bringing whatever happense due to their actions is utter biase and ignorance. Check your values first and then try to give other people lecturs on morality!!!
Although I think there are interesting arguments on both sides of this issue, the one thing that is important to remember is that these women were UNARMED, which means that they posed no threat to the Israelis themselves. Certainly, as Dr. Khan suggested, the Israeli army could have used other tactics in order to stop the women from helping the Palestinian militants. If the army could use tear gas to try and force the militants out of the mosque, why couldn't they use it on these women as well?
Condoning this behavior is like saying that is ok for police officers to shoot unarmed suspects who are running away from them, or maybe even unarmed protestors. It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest this type of behavior is acceptable by any government.
Because of the discrepancy in the two articles, and the vagueness in logistics of the Israeli soldiers, militants, and Palestinian women, the only thing I can say definitively is that the event is incredibly tragic. Reading through the various blogs posted in response to these articles, both sides of the argument of who to blame have points that have made me rethink my own position. My opinion hinges on the whether or not the Israelis and militants where engaged in combat when the Palestinian women entered the conflict. If so, it’s hard for me to find fault with the Israelis, who would have been more concerned and preoccupied with protecting their own lives than others. Conversely, if the situation was a standoff when the Palestinian women arrived, the Israelis are at fault for not taking measures to prevent them from entering the combat zone.
Due to the fact that only 2 Palestinian women were killed, it’s unlikely that the Israelis shot at them intentionally. I’m not defending the Israelis, I simply feel as though there isn’t enough evidence presented in the article to blame them, either. However, the actions of the Israeli soldiers in response to protests in August cannot be defended at any level. It is absolutely outrageous for soldiers to fire upon peaceful and unarmed protestors. Often it takes undisputable visual evidence to sway the perceptions of people who are emotionally attached to an issue. In this case, it is Israeli and American public, who often blindly accept the response of Israeli soldiers as justified. For a more familiar example, the alleged atrocities (amounting to murder) committed by Marines in Haditha have not resonated nearly as strongly in the American psyche as the embarrassment in Abu Ghraib, which is still frequently cited as one of the War’s biggest blunders. In America the occasional rumblings by the Palestinians about Israeli aggression are usually disregarded, but videos like this cannot be ignored.
into consideration the entrance into a fire zone, unarmed civilians that are sequestered into buildings in an area that is specifically a war zone are not responsible for their situation, as they were forced into it by the martial conflict arising in the area. The women in this particular incident were unarmed and did approach a zone of combat. However, there is a significant difference between approaching a zone of combat and actually being in one. One cannot be the other. Essentially, those that reprimanded the women in this article for aiding militants seem to be neglecting the fact that the women never entered the ever revered zone of combat or combat zone (pick the order), but were approaching the zone. If the unarmed women had jumped into the fray, trying to stop bullets by standing in front of them, then it would seem rational to assume that their cognizant decision was to stand in front of machine gun fire and what ever resulted was of their own volition. However, the women never reached the area where the fighting was taken place and were gunned down from a distance. Sure, if the Israeli soldiers wanted to kill the women, as someone already said, they could have killed all the women; nonetheless, when taking into account the nature and history of the IDF, which is saturated with military intimidation of Palestinian civilians, it is highly plausible that shots were fired into the procession as a means to scare the women. If this is the case, which makes sense, then the UN should reprimand the IDF of such enormity, but then again what is the point of a censure that cannot exist via veto? If my proposed scenario is not that case, then the IDF soldiers shot to kill women in the group to scare all the women from approaching. Surely the IDF troops there could have easily subdued unarmed women from approaching a combat zone. The justification of killing innocent, unarmed women in their neighborhoods for opposing violence is just a typical excuse of the IDF. People are people are people. Things like this can stop once we can connect with people that are entirely different than us.
It is crazy how much the United States justifies the violent and inhuman actions of Israel. Like Mustafa says imagine if something similar happened in the United States. First the women would have never made it to the mosque because there would have been attempts to stop them earlier without having to use excessive force and according to the reports no such attempts were made. From the video you can see the soldiers do have very effective alternatives that would have dispersed the woman without causing death. The fact that these reports ended in Israel claiming to look into these deaths in almost funny. When you shoot into a crownd of people it is likely that death will occur. The US praises Israel for being the only democracy in the middle east, yet their actions do not seem to be that of a very democratic nation and by the state department justifying these acts, neither do we.
It is crazy how much the United States justifies the violent and inhuman actions of Israel. Like Mustafa says imagine if something similar happened in the United States. First the women would have never made it to the mosque because there would have been attempts to stop them earlier without having to use excessive force and according to the reports no such attempts were made. From the video you can see the soldiers do have very effective alternatives that would have dispersed the woman without causing death. The fact that these reports ended in Israel claiming to look into these deaths in almost funny. When you shoot into a crownd of people it is likely that death will occur. The US praises Israel for being the only democracy in the middle east, yet their actions do not seem to be that of a very democratic nation and by the state department justifying these acts, neither do we.
We are all are educated and realize that killing civilians is not at all tolerable. Since this is a Arab-Israeli class i will not go so far astray with my comment. What the Israeli military did was wrong by killing 18 civilians (there is no need to sex) but justification is the only thing that can be done. Professor Khan brings up a vlaid point that other things can be done to prevent the women form moving forward, but what are there resources. Weapons, they are equipped with guns, not mace or a proposed pressured water hose. I understand why people are outraged because this happened, but americans should be habitualized to the fact brutality is common. Polic brutality has been something of the norm and in today's society it is justified through higher powers...yes our court systems are not justified. So why is it that such an outcome like this is somehting that we find odd our appalling. People fail to realize that compassion is a weakness. This is something the US lack and so does Israel. We enjoy are freedoms becuase we are protected by a corrupt judicial system as well as officers that are not fit to eb elementary school teacher. Brutality is an idea that provides certain protection. I am not condoning Israel's actions. It is wrong, yet understand these decisions are not easily made. No one realized that this was not something these women were thinking about doing. It was broadcated over the radio to help their fellow brothers. It is the realization that women of such a high-context culture with so much to lose is going to act. The article doesnt state where htese women are form are what they were doing before the march. I feel that a better understanding of who these women are could prevent future incidents such as this one.
This article was interesting and I have mixed opinions on it. I know that the Guardian has a bias making the Israelis sound excessively brutal and the Palestinians very innocent. If Israeli snipers actually shot women carrying white flags in the head then this is unjustifiable, but this paper has had a tendency to embellish. One cannot justify shooting legitimately innocent men, women, schoolchildren etc... however a mosque that calls on women to march in droves towards an area riddled with gunfire should be held partly responsible. This seems as though the women were almost used for the negative publicity that would result should they get injured or killed. I am not condoning the shooting of innocent women, however i think this situation was not as black and white as the article would make it seem. The women were either assisting the gunmen or were unknowingly used as cannon fodder for the media.
Post a Comment
<< Home