Trending Topics:

The unwarranted presumption of Israeli soldier innocence in the killing of Palestinian medic Razan al-Najjar

on 30 Comments

Last Friday, Palestinian Gazan medic Razan al-Najjar was killed by an Israeli sniper live round to her upper body, while attending to the wounded during Friday’s Great March of Return protests near the Gaza fence. She was clearly marked with an official white uniform jacket, and at a distance of about 100 meters from the fence.

This site cited Asaf Ronel of Haaretz, who tweeted:

“It’s unlikely that a sniper deliberately killed Razan al-Najjar. Her death is an expected result of repeated use of live fire by Israeli soldiers to prevent medical care in #Gaza (in addition to illegal & immoral use of snipers against unarmed protesters)”.

This is somewhat confusing, and the duplicity may not be noticed at first glance. On the one hand, Ronel admits to a repeated use of live fire against medical personnel – but on the other hand, suggests that al-Najjar was not deliberately killed. What does it mean, that al-Najjar was likely targeted, yet unlikely killed?

The formulation is so confusing, that Mondoweiss editors in fact took Ronel’s assertion to mean that she was not targeted. The heading to the tweet: “Ronel says al-Najjar was not likely targeted when she was killed”.

But is that what Ronel is saying? Not really. He’s saying that it was “unlikely” that she was “deliberately killed”, while he doesn’t seem to contest that she was deliberately targeted.

Now, why is this perhaps seemingly pedantic distinction so important? For a few reasons:

1) If Ronel’s assertion that al-Najjar was deliberately targeted but not deliberately killed holds, he is suggesting that firing live ammunition at medical personnel can be done without intending to kill the person, just in order to either injure them, or scare them away by ‘shaving’ them with shots near their body. But such a distinction should have no validity. It’s still a patently illegal act, and medics are an unquestionably protected people. Firing of live, that is lethal, ammunition at them is unquestionably criminal. Ronel’s suggestion seems to be, essentially, that the sniper “aimed to miss” but “missed”, that is, fatally shot al-Najjar, unintentionally.

2) The suggestion that killing al-Najjar intentionally (that is, murdering her) is “unlikely” is offered no factual foundation by Ronel. In applying such formulation, the suggestion, perhaps inadvertently, seems to be that it is so because “our soldiers are not murderers”. This is the repeated Netanyahu-mantra, repeated even in the case of Elor Azarya who was filmed shooting an incapacitated Palestinian suspect at point-blank range – a case which quickly turned from ‘murder’ into ‘manslaughter’. Such a claim suggests that it is simply so, because we want it to be so – an Israeli soldier simply cannot be a murderer, or, as Ronel seems to formulate it, it is “unlikely” that they are.

3) Asaf Ronel is a journalist in Haaretz, a paper that is considered a reliable, left-leaning source of information in Israeli mainstream media. If Ronel says it’s “unlikely”, then many will put that possibility on the back-burner. Thus, the Israeli military legal system would have less public attention and scrutiny around its investigation. Let us not forget, that less than a week ago, even the Israeli High Court of Justice rejected a petition against the Israeli army’s rules of engagement covering usage of live ammunition against Palestinian civilian unarmed protesters. Aeyal Gross in Haaretz: “The High Court Has Just Legitimized the Shooting of Palestinian Civilians”. To presume innocence in advance on behalf of the sniper, is to play on behalf of an already fundamentally biased system.

4) Ronel’s assumption needs to be looked at through the context of widespread Israeli targeting of protected people, including medics. In fact, Ronel confirms that such practice exists. Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada summarizes the attacks on medics:

Al-Najjar is the second rescue worker to be killed by Israeli forces since the Great March of Return protests began on 30 March. According to the health ministry in Gaza, more than 200 others have been injured and 37 ambulances have been damaged. Two weeks ago, Israeli snipers fatally shot paramedic Mousa Jaber Abu Hassanein. About an hour before he was shot, Abu Hassanein had helped rescue one of his colleagues, the Canadian doctor Tarek Loubani who had been injured by an Israeli bullet. Loubani later told The Electronic Intifada Podcast how he was shot in the leg when everything was quiet around him: “No burning tires, no smoke, no tear gas, nobody messing around in front of the buffer zone. Just a clearly marked medical team well away from everybody else.”

Such a horrific record doesn’t exactly suggest that this is the “most moral army in the world”, to use the repeated Israeli-apologia claim.

In conclusion, it is not at all “unlikely” that Razan al-Najjar was deliberately killed – that is – murdered. The Israeli policy, that is the rules of engagement, now endorsed by its highest judicial authority, are murderous in themselves. Having targeted her is a war-crime in itself, kill or no kill. On top of that, the possibility of a deliberate killing – murder – is completely relevant. Israel needs no assumptions of innocence on its behalf. It has plenty of that from itself.

Jonathan Ofir

Israeli musician, conductor and blogger / writer based in Denmark.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

30 Responses

  1. Stephen Shenfield on June 4, 2018, 11:55 am

    Could you please explain what the rules of engagement for these snipers are? Who are they instructed to kill, who to injure, who to leave unharmed? That is, if there are clear rules of engagement at all. Perhaps there are not and the decisions are all left to the individual snipers? Or perhaps there are rules but the snipers do not follow them and that is tolerated?

    • Mooser on June 4, 2018, 3:20 pm

      “Or perhaps there are rules but the snipers do not follow them and that is tolerated?”

      Well, in a situation like this, do the rules apply? Israel just has to play it “by ear”.

      What “rules” would you propose for using snipers to shoot unarmed demonstrators?

    • Jonathan Ofir on June 5, 2018, 3:22 am

      Stephen Shenfield, as far as I know the IDF has not officially published its ROE, but we have had fragments of information from reliable sources such as B’tselem. These were already clear enough in advance of the Great March of Return for B’tselem to determine that they are PATENTLY ILLEGAL. See my earlier coverage on this with quotes:

      This proved itself so in practice.

      Notice now also from Aeyal Gross in Haaretz (linked in this current article) concerning the Supreme Court decision not to intervene:

      “The High Court ruling illustrates that the IDF policy is indeed that it is permissible to shoot “key inciters” and even “key demonstrators” – although the directives here are to shoot at the legs, and only as a last resort. The court’s president, Esther Hayut, noted in her ruling (which was joined by Justice Neal Hendel) that the category of “key inciter” or “key demonstrator” is not anchored in international law. She added that the place to resolve the question of who belongs in these categories is in “operational and other investigations.””

      In other words, the IDF is “inventing” international law. But that’s too mild, because you can’t invent it like that. It is violating it, and the Supreme Court endorses it, by leaving it to sort it out on its own.

      Essentially, the IDF has deemed the Gaza protests a combat zone, where International Humanitarian Law doesn’t apply, but rather Laws of International Armed Conflict (which offer far less protection). But what if there are no arms? That ‘problem’ seems to be accomodated by the notions of “key inciters” or “key demonstrators”, which despite having no backing in international law, are left untouched by Israel’s highest judicial authority.

      • Jonathan Ofir on June 5, 2018, 3:40 am

        PS Stephen Shenfield – you may recall the video clip of the snipers who celebrated the shooting at long distance across the fence, of a completely unarmed, motionless protester:

        Well that video came out viral in early April, but the army confirmed it to be from 22nd December. Defense Minister Lieberman opined that the sniper should get a medal (he just thought it shouldn’t have been filmed), and an army inquiry in the immediate aftermath also concurred – that the act of shooting itself was “appropriate”, but that those who filmed (and celebrated) would face disciplinary hearings.

        Thus you see, that the policy of shooting unarmed civilians who pose no immediate danger, has been policy long before the Great March of Return. In fact, this policy is as old as the state of Israel.

      • Nathan on June 5, 2018, 7:30 am

        Jonathan Ofir – If you understand that the behavior of Israel is evil (and this is the way it has always been since the founding of the state), then perhaps you should tell the Gazans that it’s not such a good idea to demonstrate along the fence. It would be an act of kindness and of deep concern for the well-being of the Palestinian people if good people with excellent insight would explain to them that there are other ways of demonstrating without endangering their public. I understand that in the anti-Israel world no one ever criticizes the Palestinians (this also means that no one really cares about them). Apparently, it is really much more important to you to convince and to re-convince the convinced and the re-convinced that Israel shouldn’t exist.

        Well, to be honest, the Palestinians do understand that the events are going to lead to casulties on their side. They knew it beforehand, and they surely understand reality as it has been unfolding for three months. For some strange logic that is beyond me, they feel that this is their best interest. Sadly, no one has the courage to tell them that they’re so wrong. A chance to re-re-convince the re-re-convinced anti-Israel readership that Israel is the bad guy is simply so much more important than the well-being of the Palestinians.

        As a dedicated reader of this website, I’d like to use it in order to give my modest criticism to the Palestinians (because I care about them): It would be much better to declare your willingness to end the conflict with Israel. You should negotiate with Israel and reach an agreement with her. Life is very dear.

      • eljay on June 5, 2018, 8:27 am

        || Nathan @ June 5, 2018, 7:30 am ||

        Zionist “concern for the well-being of the Palestinian people” sounds as creepy as concern shown by the rapist’s friends for the “well-being of the women chained in his basement”: Lie back and enjoy the ride. Life is very dear.

      • Misterioso on June 5, 2018, 10:56 am


        “As a dedicated reader of this website, I’d like to use it in order to give my modest criticism to the Palestinians (because I care about them):”

        It’s patently obvious that you don’t give a damn about the Palestinians!!

        “It would be much better to declare your willingness to end the conflict with Israel. You should negotiate with Israel and reach an agreement with her. Life is very dear.”

        We can be certain that there was a smirk on your face as you wrote “Life is very dear.”

        In fact, Hamas has made several overtures of peace to the entity known as “Israel,” only to have them ignored.
        To wit:
        On 16 June 2009, after meeting with former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, Ismail Haniya, prime minister of Hamas’s Gaza Strip government, announced that “If there is a real plan to resolve the Palestinian question on the basis of the creation of a Palestinian state within the borders of June 4, 1967 [i.e. 22% of historic Palestine] and with full sovereignty, we are in favour of it.”…

        “‘We accept a Palestinian state on the borders of 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital, the release of Palestinian prisoners, and the resolution of the issue of refugees,’ [**] Haniyeh said, referring to the year of Middle East war in which Israel captured East Jerusalem and the Palestinian territories. ” (Haaretz, December 1, 2010) No response from the entity known as “Israel.”

        ** By calling for a “resolution of the issue of refugees,” Haniyeh was in accordance with Res. 194, which calls for financial compensation as an option for the refugees rather than their “Right of Return.”

        In its revised Charter, April, 2017, Hamas again agreed to a Palestinian state based on the 4 June 1967 borders. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, Israel promptly rejected the Hamas overture instead of using it to open a dialogue.…
        “Senior Hamas Official: ‘I Think We Can All Live Here in This Land – Muslims, Christians and Jews.’” By Nir Gontarz. March 28, 2018, Haaretz. No response from the entity known as “Israel.”

        As for Netanyahu and the Likud party, here’s a brief summation of their positions that are contrary to international law and explain why the conflict continues:
        The Likud Party Platform:
        a. “The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.”
        b. “Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem”
        c. “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.”
        d. “…. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.”

      • Mooser on June 5, 2018, 5:48 pm

        “As a dedicated reader of this website, I’d like to use it in order to give my modest criticism to the Palestinians (because I care about them)” “Nathan”

        Gee “Nathan”, the amount you care is so obvious, I wonder why you even feel the need to say anything like that.

      • Nathan on June 5, 2018, 8:06 pm

        Misterioso – If you have read the new Hamas Charter, you have certainly read paragraph 18: “…The establishment of ‘Israel’ is entirely illegal and contravenes the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and goes against their will and the will of the Ummah…” It’s an interesting phenomenon that so many anti-Israel people (who they themselves obviously reject the very existence of Israel) try to claim that Hamas is willing to live in peace with Israel. I’m certain that you must be aware of the fact that Hamas is not less extreme than you.

      • RoHa on June 6, 2018, 1:25 am

        “It would be much better to declare your willingness to end the conflict with Israel. You should negotiate with Israel and reach an agreement with her.”

        You just keep repeating that for fun, don’t you?

        You know perfectly well that the Zionists do not want to end their conflict with the Palestinians until they have driven all the Palestinians out of Palestine.

        You know perfectly well that the Zionists will not keep any agreement that allows Palestinians to live in peace in Palestine.

        So your declarations of care for the Palestinians are not convincing.

      • RoHa on June 6, 2018, 1:29 am

        Paragraph 18 of the Hamas charter points out that the establishment of Israel was an evil act. It does not preclude trying to find some peaceful way of mitigating that evil.

  2. eljay on June 4, 2018, 12:32 pm

    … This site cited Asaf Ronel of Haaretz, who tweeted:

    “It’s unlikely that a sniper deliberately killed Razan al-Najjar. Her death is an expected result of repeated use of live fire by Israeli soldiers to prevent medical care in #Gaza (in addition to illegal & immoral use of snipers against unarmed protesters)”.

    You gotta love a “moral beacon” state whose “most moral army” shoots only to wound and/or cripple – but not to kill – medics.

    Zionists are fond of re-defining perfectly good English words. In this case, they appear to have re-defined “moral” to mean “not too evil”.

  3. Kay24 on June 4, 2018, 1:42 pm

    Watch this Kuwaiti official tell Israeli officials to get out, and call them child killers. I could understand his anger, and know many feel that way too.

  4. shaun patrick on June 5, 2018, 8:33 am

    I have no idea what the difference is between the Israeli shooter who killed her and a premeditated murder. The shooter is highly trained,under no threat and deliberately pulled the trigger aiming for the chest knowing this would kill her. The fact these soldiers appear to have no conscience is in itself a tragedy partially because it echoes the Nazis treatment of Jews because the Nazis to had no conscience.
    Europe, USA, Australia, Britain and Canada continue to approve of Israel’s actions by continuing to provide diplomatic cover and must also share some responsibility.

  5. Marnie on June 5, 2018, 10:37 am

    Again and again the israelis get away with murder, and we can always count on the ‘state’ of israel to ziosplain it. It’s not the sniper’s fault, though. Razan al-Najjar didn’t shoot herself, but it’s not the sniper’s fault. Sniper’s were killing all sorts of palestinians, but it wasn’t a sniper’s fault that Razan al-Najjar was shot and killed.

    “It’s unlikely that a sniper deliberately killed Razan al-Najjar. Her death is an expected result of repeated use of live fire by Israeli soldiers to prevent medical care in #Gaza (in addition to illegal & immoral use of snipers against unarmed protesters)”.

    It’s the live fire’s fault!!! It was rogue bullets!!! Maybe she slipped and fell on live fire!!

    Is there any chance in hell at all that the israelis are getting a lot of heat because of this young woman’s murder because their explanations are getting crazier and crazier.

  6. Misterioso on June 5, 2018, 11:25 am

    Must read!!

    “The Two-State Solution: An Autopsy” By Henry Siegman
    London Review of Books, May 24/18

    Henry Siegman is president emeritus of the US/Middle East Project and a former senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.


    “During the latest outbreak of violence in Gaza, Israeli security forces, using high-powered rifles and live ammunition, have killed forty Palestinians (and counting), and wounded more than five thousand. B’Tselem, a leading Israeli human rights group, Human Rights Watch and Reporters Without Borders have all accused Israel’s government and its minister of defence, Avigdor Lieberman, of targeting reporters and mostly unarmed civilians. Lieberman replied that there are ‘no innocent people’ in Hamas-run Gaza. The new US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, reassured Israelis that ‘the United States is with Israel in this fight. And we strongly support Israel’s sovereign right to defend itself.’ That this support applies not only to its confrontations with Iran but also to Israel’s turkey shoot of Palestinians in Gaza was established when President Trump’s envoy to the UN, Nikki Haley, vetoed a Security Council resolution that would have investigated the Gaza killings. This was justified on the same grounds: Israel’s sovereign right to defend itself. The invocation of Israel’s ‘sovereign right’ is the big lie at the heart of America’s responsibility for the collapse of the peace process. In Gaza, as in the West Bank beyond the pre-1967 armistice line, Israel is acting not in accordance with its sovereign right to protect itself, but to protect its occupation. What Israel’s military restores when it quells Palestinian protests is not law and order, but illegality and repression, reinforcing its theft of Palestinian territory in order to preclude the possibility of a Palestinian state, a goal it has achieved.

    “Lieberman’s opinion of the value of the lives of Palestinians mirrors the view expressed by Ayelet Shaked, Israel’s minister of justice. A year before her appointment in 2015, Shaked posted on her Facebook page an article by Uri Elitzur, a settler leader, in which he said that Israel should target not only militants but the ‘mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which the snakes were raised. Otherwise more little snakes will be raised there.’

    “Shaked is a member of the settlers’ political party, Habayit Hayehudi (the Jewish Home), whose leader, Naftali Bennett, is Netanyahu’s minister of education. In 2013 Bennett said during a cabinet debate: ‘If you catch terrorists, you simply have to kill them.’ When Israel’s national security adviser, Yaakov Amidror, pointed out that this would be illegal, Bennett retorted: ‘I have killed lots of Arabs in my life, and there is no problem with that.’ Israeli Jews, who overwhelmingly support the IDF sharp-shooters picking off unarmed Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza, presumably agree with Bennett that there’s ‘no problem’ with these extra-judicial killings. (I am not aware of any case in which an IDF soldier has aimed his weapon, much less fired it, at an unarmed right-wing Jewish protestor.)

    “Pompeo, Haley and the Israel lobby – the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) and allied organisations – are probably unaware of, or simply refuse to know about, the extent to which terrorism and war crimes marked the creation of Israel. Those who are told about this history dismiss it as a fabrication. What they deny or ignore is that these charges have been fully documented not only by historians, including Israeli ones, but by Israel’s own military. The point of recognising this history is not to justify terrorism by either Israelis or Palestinians, but to acknowledge the outrageous double standard that has been applied to the two parties and has undermined the possibility of a peace accord. Without knowing that history, it is difficult, if not impossible, to understand the extent to which Israeli propaganda has succeeded in shaping a narrative about the creation of Israel that presents the Palestinians who were brutally expelled from their homes as the aggressors and the Jews as their victims. Without that history, it is impossible to understand the outrage Palestinians feel over having been portrayed as the bad guys for so long.”

  7. Ossinev on June 5, 2018, 12:57 pm

    Norman Finklestein at his cutting best pre-empting the findings of the most moral investigation into her death:

    Loved the “Amos Goebbels,Haaretz Military Analyst” !!

    • Marnie on June 5, 2018, 11:05 pm

      That was perfection. “An IDF spokesperson announced that it was investigating the incident. “We take seriously the accidental killing of every terrorist.”

  8. Ossinev on June 5, 2018, 1:26 pm

    And so the most moral investigation has begun with surprise surprise the incredibly moral preliminary findings.

    Wow these elite moral snipers are really the business. I expect if they put guns to their own heads and pulled the trigger they would somehow manage to miss.

    • eljay on June 5, 2018, 2:11 pm

      || Ossinev: … Wow these elite moral snipers are really the business. I expect if they put guns to their own heads and pulled the trigger they would somehow manage to miss. ||

      If they were to miss themselves, there’s a good chance you’d be killed by the “mis-aimed shot or a ricochet”.

  9. jon s on June 5, 2018, 4:03 pm

    The burning kites are causing extensive damage to agricultural fields, pasture, nature preserves, and are endangering the civilian population.

    • Kay24 on June 5, 2018, 5:23 pm

      Unfortunate that helpless Palestinian’s livelihood, and very existence is cut down by vicious actions. The kites are a protest to this:

      “Olive tree felling is a longtime strategy of Israel’s occupation regime in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Since 1967, an estimated 800,000 Palestinian olive trees have been destroyed by Israeli authorities and settlers.

      In February 2015, Irish-born filmmaker and photographer Bryony Dunne traveled across the West Bank and encountered evidentiary support for such activity (in tree stumps and civilian stories). Over the course of one week, she moved through Israeli checkpoints, and around Israeli settlements and military bases, while heading north to the Palestinian city of Jenin, staying with five Palestinian families along the way. These families earn their livelihood farming either olives or almonds as members of Canaan Fair Trade, a cooperative that supports approximately 1,700 small farmers throughout the occupied West Bank in the sale of produce to international markets.” Juancole

      How about this then?

      “A December report by the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem said Israeli settlements have overtaken a half-million acres of former Palestinian lands in Israel-controlled Area C, which was placed under full Israeli control in 1990s accords. B’Tselem said 200,000 to 300,000 Palestinians live in Area C.

      “What the Israeli settlers are doing in those areas is a disaster,” said Avshalom Vilan, executive director of Israel’s powerful Farmers Federation, a mainstream private farmers group. “They’re stealing from the lives of their Palestinian neighbors, and making their lives impossible.

      “It’s in Israel’s interest for Palestinian farmers to work their land peacefully,” Vilan said. “We will all pay for this.”

      Finally, in the same vein, it will be agreed by most of the world that trained snipers should be killed too.

    • Mooser on June 5, 2018, 6:10 pm

      “jon s”, I spent some time looking at Haaretz, and I must admit it’s a stereotype-breaking experience. All the information tastes so good, like candy, and the articles are so long!

      Oh, speaking of “rocket’s red glare and bombs bursting in air”, can I express my unmitigated delight in being a hostage to Israel’s illegal nuclear weapons, and how much I appreciate Zionism putting us in this position?

    • eljay on June 5, 2018, 7:33 pm

      || jon s: The burning kites are causing extensive damage to agricultural fields, pasture, nature preserves, and are endangering the civilian population. ||

      No doubt. And the fists and fingernails of his victims are causing damage to the rapist. I say we arrest the rapist, liberate the victims and hold each party appropriately accountable for his/her actions.

      • Marnie on June 5, 2018, 11:07 pm

        What a great idea eljay!

      • eljay on June 6, 2018, 7:54 am

        || Marnie: What a great idea eljay! ||

        Seems reasonable to me.  :-)

        But no Zionist will agree to any resolution to the I-P conflict that involves justice, accountability and equality because every Zionist wants Israel:
        – to remain a religion-supremacist “Jewish State”;
        – to keep as much as possible of what it has stolen;
        – to be absolved of its obligations under international law (incl. RoR); and
        – to be absolved of responsibility and accountability for its past and on-going (war) crimes.

    • Marnie on June 5, 2018, 11:20 pm

      “The burning kites are causing extensive damage to agricultural fields…..”

      Wow. MW’s man about town at it again! jon, I’m sure they have no idea. Maybe they’d stop if you asked them nicely. Or you can just keep killing them with that special brand of kindness only a sharpshooter can deliver and see if that makes any difference?I mean, it’s bound to work sooner or later, right? It’s only 100 years….No worries jon, ‘israel’ won’t be around much longer. And again, I remind you, there are no civilians in ‘israel’.

      Let me put this in a way your victimhood can appreciate. Some years back, a neighbor had returned from a trip to Germany and was talking about german people like this “They’re all nazis. Not a single innocent one among them. They knew what was happening and did nothing. They’re all nazis”. I didn’t agree, then.

  10. Ossinev on June 5, 2018, 6:05 pm

    @Jon s
    “The burning kites are causing extensive damage to agricultural fields, pasture, nature preserves, and are endangering the civilian population”
    Sounds as if the Untermenschen in Zioland`s very own Ghettograd are really fighting back.
    Perhaps they are inspired by precedents;

    The most moral`s interim strategies do not appear to be dampening down the resistance.

    Perhaps a mass cull of Palestinian medics is a Plan B ? Purely accidental and unbelievably moral you understand.

    • Mooser on June 5, 2018, 6:26 pm

      “Perhaps a mass cull of Palestinian medics is a Plan B ?”

      “Jon s” claims to be an IDF medic (didn’t you notice him applying the meshumad therapy to “Yoni”?) so he knows how deadly medics can be.

  11. umm al-hamam on June 7, 2018, 3:46 am

    I *suspect* that what Ronel was reporting was that no specific orders were given to kill her. For all that the IOF claims it knows “where every bullet landed” and all its pretensions of hypercompetence and discipline, it’s very likely individual snipers are treating the protests as a free fire zone and shooting at will to satisfy their genocidal desires. (Note also the number of children killed & severely injured over the past few months.) It still comes down to premeditated murder, but murder inevitably resulting from the IOF & Gadi Eisenkot’s cynical decision to station snipers around the apartheid fence in the first place in full knowledge that this would happen, with the plausible deniability of no “direct orders” to kill 12 year olds or medics or journalists. The culture within the IOF has shifted in the past few years to become even more overtly genocidal incl rabbis preaching that it is their duty under Jewish law to kill all Palestinians. (which is untrue, btw. that’s basically an ISIS level of distance from mainstream jewish thought)

Leave a Reply