RSS Feeds
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil,    but because of the people who don't do anything about it    
Occupation magazine - Commentary

Home page  back Print  Send To friend

The Case of Soldier A
By: Uri Avnery
Antiwar, Gush Shalom
09 April 2016

http://original.antiwar.com/avnery/2016/04/08/the-case-of-soldier-a/

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1460120678/


It seems that everything possible has already been said, written, proclaimed,
asserted and denied about the incident that is rocking Israel.

Everything except the main point.

The incident revolves around `the Soldier of Hebron`. Military censorship does
not allow him to be called by his name. He may be called `Soldier A`.

It happened in the Tel Rumaida neighborhood of the occupied South West Bank
town of Hebron, where a group of super-extreme right-wing settlers live in the
midst of some 160,000 Palestinians and are heavily protected by the Israeli
army. Violent incidents abound.

On the day in question, two local Palestinians attacked some soldiers with
knives. Both were shot on the spot. One of them was killed, the other was
severely wounded and was lying on the ground.

The place was full of people. Medics were tending to the wounded soldier (but
not the Palestinian), several officers and soldiers were standing around,
together with some of the settlers.

After six minutes Soldier A appeared on the scene. He looked around for 4
minutes, then approached the wounded assailant and coolly shot him dead with a
bullet to the head from close up. The autopsy showed that this was indeed the
shot that killed the Palestinian.

As a finale, the camera clip shows Soldier A shaking hands with one of the
settlers, the infamous Baruch Marzel, a leader of the outlawed party of the
late Meir Kahane, who was designated by the Supreme Court as a fascist.

Up to this point, there is no discussion about the facts. For a simple reason:
the whole incident was videoed by a local Palestinian man from close up. The
Israeli human rights group BTselem has provided many Palestinians with
cameras for just such an eventuality.

(BTselem is a Biblical name and means `In (His) image`. According to Genesis
2, God created the human being `in His image`. This is one of the most humane
verses of the Bible, since it means that all human beings, without
distinction, are created in the image of God.)

The camera plays a central role in this incident. In the present intifada,
many Arab assailants have been killed in such incidents. There is a strong
suspicion that many of them were executed after they were already
`neutralized` army-speak for Arab assailants who cannot cause harm because
they are dead, severely wounded or taken prisoner.

Under Israeli army orders, soldiers are not allowed to kill enemy attackers
once they no longer constitute a danger. On the other hand, many politicians
and army officers believe that `a terrorist should not be allowed to stay
alive` after an attack. This was an informal order by the late Prime Minister
Yitzhak Shamir (himself an outstanding former terrorist).

However, the army command has never accepted this rule. When, in Shamirs days
as Prime Minister, the Shin Bet chief killed two captive bus hijackers, he was
facing a criminal indictment until he was pardoned by the President of Israel.
He was dismissed.

In another recent incident, a Palestinian teen-age girl was seen on camera
running around in the street waving a pair of scissors. She was shot dead at
short range by a policeman.

In all these specific cases, it was the camera that made the difference.
(Perhaps the divine commandment should be amended to read: `Thou Shalt Not
Kill When There is a Camera Around!`)

The commander of Soldier A asked him on the spot why he shot the wounded
Palestinian. Soldier A answered spontaneously: `He wounded my comrade, so he
deserved to die.`

Soon after, he realized that this was the wrong answer, so he amended it: `He
was moving and there was a knife lying next to him, so I felt threatened.`
However, it appeared that another soldier had already kicked the knife away.

Later, he voiced another reason, to which he has stuck ever since: `I saw a
bulge under his jacket and thought that he had a suicide belt on. I shot to
prevent him from killing everybody around.` This is highly improbable, since
the camera clip shows clearly that all the other people nearby were
unperturbed The wounded man had already been searched. So the Military Police
announced that they were investigating Soldier A for murder.

A huge storm broke loose. All over the country, rightists, settlers,
politicians and such attacked the army command in a language never heard
before.

The Minister of Education, Naftali Bennett, the leader of the extreme rightist
`Jewish Home` party, savagely attacked the Minister of Defense, a former army
Chief of Staff, who is a moderate Likud rightist.

The present Chief of Staff, Gadi Eizenkot, was undeterred. He reiterated the
army orders and strongly supported the actions of the military police against
the mob of talkbackers who inundated the social media with thousands of
messages cursing the army command. Binyamin Netanyahu first feebly supported
his Minister of Defense, then he called the father of Soldier A to express his
support.

This was only the beginning. The parents of Soldier A openly attacked the army
command in the media for `forsaking` their darling son, the members of Soldier
As army unit freely cursed their commanders and the military police, all over
the country the cry went up that Soldier A was a `hero`.

Demonstrations of soldiers and civilians took place in front of the military
court inside an army compound. Cabinet ministers and Knesset members came to
the courtroom in order to demonstrate their solidarity with the `hero`. Both
the army chief and the defense minister were called on by the mob to resign.

I would like to add here some personal remarks.

In the 1948 war I was a combat soldier in a commando unit, which was awarded
the honorary title of `Samsons Foxes`. I took part in some 50 engagements. I
wrote two books about this experience. The first, `In the Fields of the
Philistines`, was written throughout the war and described the battles.
Everything written in it was the truth and only the truth, but not the whole
truth. The second book, `The Other side of the Coin`, which was published
immediately after the war, described the dark sides of the war, including war
crimes.

On the basis of this experience I dare to assert: everybody who calls Soldier
A a hero is insulting the hundreds of thousands of decent combat soldiers, who
served in the Israeli army since then until now, and among them real heroes
(like the four Moroccan-born soldiers who risked their lives and carried me to
safety under fire when I was wounded.)

A hero is a soldier who risks his life to save a comrade or to carry out some
other essential assignment. Somebody who shoots a wounded enemy is not a hero,
and to call him so is an insult to all the decent soldiers who are trying to
preserve their humanity under hard sometimes impossible circumstances.

A decent soldier does not need army orders in order to distinguish between
allowed and forbidden, between decent and criminal, between a hero and a
bloody coward. He just knows.

Some people may wonder about my attitude towards the army.

I am a pacifist. I detest war and violence. But I am not a simpleton. I know
that every country needs an army, not only in times of war but also in times
of peace.

An army is a killing machine. But after the atrocious 30-year war in the 17th
century, civilized mankind fixed limitations. In short, violence is allowed if
it serves the purposes of the war, but is absolutely forbidden if it is used
against helpless human beings, such as prisoners and the wounded.

As some of us foresaw, nearly 50 years of occupation has corrupted our army in
many ways. It is not the army in which I served. It is not an army I can be
proud of. It resembles a colonial police force more than an army whose duty is
to defend our state in a tumultuous neighborhood.

Foreigners may wonder about the fact that in Israel, the army command is
generally more moderate than the government and the politicians. For
historical reasons, this has always been so. I do blame the army command for
many faults and misdeeds, but I must praise it for its strength of character
in this case.

The main point of this incident, which nobody dares to spell out, is that for
the first time in the history of Israel we are witnessing a full-fledged
mutiny.

There is no other way to define it.

A group of soldiers, supported by a major part of the political scene, has
mutinied against their commanders. This is a major menace to the structure of
the state, a challenge to what remains of our democracy.

The rot that started in the occupied territories is spreading throughout the
country. It has now manifested itself in the one institution that has until
now been loved by all (Jewish) Israelis: the army.

Uri Avnery is a peace activist, journalist, writer, and former member of the
Israeli Knesset. gm
Links to the latest articles in this section

Israel campaigns against Abbas ahead of Bahrain conference
Hamas chief tells UN he doesnt know who fired past weeks rockets at Israel
"Without Jewish-Arab partnership, no rebirth for the left in Israel"