Israeli killed, three wounded in 'accidental' IDF West Bank shooting

[bemildred]

Incident occurs after Israeli vehicle does not stop at flash checkpoint near southern Hebron; IDF forces open fire on vehicle, killing 55-year-old Israeli rabbi, IDF soldier also wounded.

Israel Defense Forces shot and killed an Israeli early Friday in the southern Hebron region of the West Bank, when the man driving a vehicle did not notice a checkpoint and passed through without stopping. The soldiers involved in the incident said the shooting was accidental.

Initial reports suggest that the incident, which took place just after 5 am, occurred after IDF soldiers erected a makeshift checkpoint between Yatta and Hebron, after receiving reports of a suspicious truck leaving one of the settlements in the area.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israeli-killed-three-wounded-in-accidental-idf-west-bank-shooting-1.394947

[PoliticAverse]

1. The first part of the story implies there was a checkpoint, but later in the story...

it is implied there wasn't actually one: "but did not manage to set up a checkpoint in time".

[bemildred]

2. It's going to take awhile.

THe shooter got run over after he shot.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. "When the vehicle showed no signs of slowing down, IDF forces opened fire" - not accidental

He (the later quote says it was the one soldier) meant to open fire. It turns out the person he killed wasn't doing anything they objected to, but he did intend to shoot at the vehicle, knowing there was at least one person in it.

[Scurrilous]

4. Rabbi killed by IDF fire to receive terror victim status

Defense Ministry decides to recognize Mount Hebron shooting incident as act of terror so that victim's families will be eligible for National Insurance aid

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4146965,00.html

<snip>

"The deadly incident that occured Friday morning at south Mount Hebron claiming the life of Rabbi Dan Martzbach and left two women wounded has been recognized by the Defense Ministry as an act of terror in order to help the grieving families – even though IDF troops were the ones who opened fire."

[vminfla]

6. Sad to be living under siege where such national insurance is necessary

My prayers go out to the family in their time of grief.

[Crunchy Frog]

8. I guess it's what happens when you choose to live

in what amounts to a war zone.

I've chosen not to move my family to Afghanistan or Iraq for that very reason.

[Shaktimaan]

9. ???

So all israelis IYO are choosing to live in a war zone, thus any victims of terrorism have only themselves to blame?
Where do you propose they all move to exactly?

Would you say the same to Palestinians living in Gaza? After all, they not only chose to live there but to elect terrorists fixated on starting a war with Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

11. Shakti, these people weren't in Israel. It happened in the West Bank...

I propose they all move back to Israel, whether by their own steam, or with the prodding of the Israeli govt. The latter isn't going to happen, given successive Israeli governments allow them to run riot in the Hebron area, but here's hoping at some point in the future, Israel will have a leader who'll take that step...

[Shaktimaan]

12. But vminfla's remark was about all of Israel...

everywhere the National Insurance covers is obviously where it is necessary. Crunchy Frog's remark was that it is the fault of the people living in a war zone, implying that National Insurance is only necessary for those who CHOOSE such a dangerous lifestyle. IOW, if you live in a war zone and are killed, it is your own damn fault for living in a war zone to begin with.

Personally I don't see how it matters where it is. The argument that it is ever somehow the victim's fault carries little weight with me. The Gazans willingly elected Hamas and supported their decision to start a war with Israel. Despite this I do not believe that those civilians killed during Cast Lead were somehow complicit in their own deaths.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. And they were replying to a post in a thread about a shooting in the West Bank...

Crunchy's comment about a war zone is clearly about the West Bank, which was the location of this shooting, but you responded with 'So all israelis IYO are choosing to live in a war zone,'.

Living in a war zone has been an argument of some 'supporters' of Israel when it comes to the killing of Palestinians for as long as I've been here at DU. If there is a war and the West Bank and Gaza are war-zones, then it doesn't stop being a war-zone when Israelis are killed.

The Gazans willingly elected Hamas and supported their decision to start a war with Israel.

What date did the war start between the Palestinians and Israel? If it started when Hamas was elected, then what about the period of time prior to that? Israel and the Palestinians weren't at war? It's just that the war-zone argument has been trotted out thick and fast long before that...

[Shaktimaan]

14. you are right.

Hamas violated the existing peace by attacking Israel following the 2005 pullout, way before the election. The Gazans must have supported those actions because they responded by electing Hamas. So my statement, "The Gazans willingly elected Hamas and supported their decision to start a war with Israel" seems to remain valid.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. So there was no state of war with the Palestinians in the few years prior to that?

That'd really put the cogwash on the many posters in this forum in the years beforehand who responded to just about every killing of a Palestinian in the West Bank and Gaza with variations of 'tough shit. This is what you get when you live in a war-zone!' :)

[Shaktimaan]

16. In response to your single line I will post a Normal Mailer sized rant. Enjoy.

That'd really put the cogwash on the many posters in this forum in the years beforehand who responded to just about every killing of a Palestinian in the West Bank and Gaza with variations of 'tough shit. This is what you get when you live in a war-zone!'

Well, that was never really my viewpoint, so I'm not going to defend it.

I'll say this though... obviously the intensity of a long term conflict like this cycles cold and hot. The key difference wrt this cycle of violence was that it began immediately following some pretty substantial Israeli concessions, made without any expectation of finalizing a peace treaty or any of the usual speed bumps. People sometimes try and minimize what Sharon did by leaving Gaza but it was nothing short of monumental. What it represented to the average Israeli was an opportunity to see just how serious the Palestinians were about peacefully pursuing their own state. It's been said that the best thing the Palestinians could do for the Israeli right would be to continue planning terrorist attacks. Israel can handle terrorism. It's inconvenient, but it won't break them. What poses a far greater threat would be an organized, serious Palestinian peace movement dedicated to attaining independence. That could really fuck them. So Sharon essentially bet against them by pulling out of Gaza.

From his POV it was win/win of course. In the event that the Palestinians seized on the opportunity and build a peaceful state in Gaza then he'd be hailed as a miracle-worker. The hardliner who solved the middle east conflict. Even better would be if they used their newfound land and freedom to do something really stupid like put Hazas in power and make attacking Israeli civilian towns their top priority. Then he could honestly say that he tried the left's big plan and it brought them nothing but compromised security. Who could argue with that?

No one, that's who. Which is why when Gaza responded to Israel's historical gesture of good faith (if not great expectations), with a barrage of rockets and the electing of terrorists, Israel's not insignificant peace movement essentially fell apart at the seams. This wasn't just your garden variety tit for tat terrorism everyone had grown accustomed to. This was terrorism where there wasn't supposed to be any... where there was supposed to be peace and state-building. The message it sent to Israel could not have been more clear. And to the left's horror it was precisely what the hard right had always predicted. "It does not matter what Israel does or doesn't do. The conflict is not a response to Israeli policies, it is a response to Israel's existence. As long as Israel exists the Palestinians will continue trying to destroy it. Peace, unfortunately, is not a common goal."

I know this because I count myself among the disillusioned peacenicks. What happened sucks. It sucks hard. But the only thing worse than coming to terms with the reality of this sad situation would be to ignore it. Pretending it never happened. But I can't do that. It's a horrible thing to admit, but in this case the land for peace left was completely wrong. On every prediction the hard right, the racist, xenophobic right wing, was correct.

So you're asking me what's different this time? Sure, the war's been going on forever. But it's not the same anymore in a lot of ways. You may accuse me of hyperbole here and maybe I'm being overly dramatic but sometimes I really do feel this way... when Gaza finally gained its independence, freedom(!) at long last, and the first order of business was rioting, destroying those precious greenhouses and immediately renewing the rocket and mortar attacks on Israel I lost hope that peace could ever be made at all.

The beauty in faulting Israel for the conflict lies with the idea that peace is eminently attainable. If only Israel would do such and such and such, then this will surely all be over. It's a powerful fantasy because Israel is a democracy; a western government that can be pressured into doing A, B and C if enough people believe in the idea. What the Gaza pullout did was disabuse me of two notions. One, that it only takes one side of a conflict to make peace, if that side is the stronger and is motivated enough. And two, that if Israel makes a reasonable effort to support peace only to then see it fail, that the world will then at least support Israel's need for security... that the world would not ask Israel to unilaterally give over land only to then blame them if the conflict worsens as a result.

But they did. People demanded "Israel out of Gaza NOW!" And when they did just that people blamed them for Gaza's subsequent, immediate failure. "Of course Gaza failed, Israel just picked up and left unilaterally! They planned it this way... what else could have possibly happened? But still... Israel out of the West Bank NOW!"

Damned if you do... etc., etc.

[pelsar]

17. an interesting side point.....

first off, a very very good explanation of what happened to the israeli left...exactly what you wrote. Do you remember the comments pre gaza? I do:
Israel has to "break the cycle of violence" by doing something big.
Israel has to show good faith, by pulling out and destroying some settlements
Israel has to make the first move
Israel has to "show that it serious....

funny how destroying so many settlements an moving out 8,000 israelis just "wasn't enough"
and a comment on the lack of "unilaterally"....hardly. You might have noticed that not single kassam or mortar fell during those evacuations days of a "target rich environment"...there was very very close coordination between the two govts. (but we all know that, that was just an excuse by those looking to blame israel, one of many poor attempts).
__________

but now the antidote which you hit upon:
But still... Israel out of the West Bank NOW!"

my brother, a professor at an elite university on the east coast, he teaches political science.

Boy was he excited about gaza, this was exactly what had to be done. Once Israel leaves, the Palestinians will turn gaza in to a democratic club med, its so clear, this is the chance we've all been waiting for. Those in the west bank will infact "be jealous" that their "lessor cousins" in gaza have their own internal-independence and want the same and push for it, Us israelis will see just how it works, destroy the settlements, get out and peace is possible, it simply won't be deniable.

We all know how gaza turned out, and my brother, who was visiting us a while back? On one hand he did blame the gaza Palestinians for "blowing it" but then he turned around and said we have to get out of the west bank, once were out, the Palestinians of the west bank will turn the west bank into working state, and the gazans will see "how it works" protest hamas and have a mini revolution and then well have peace here.

when his nephews who know a bit about ME politics asked the learned professor is that not what he said about gaza a few years back....he nodded, agreed, admitted that there really is not much of a chance of a west bank pullout succeeding, or an over throw of hamas, or abbas leading the west bank in to a democratic state and peace....he ended with:

"what else is there to do?
_______________

at that point his nephews/nieces all smiled at his naivety , knowing that there consequences for those actions and they will be the ones that will have to bear the brunt of it for years to come, they then picked up their weapons and left as they had to get back to the army....

[Crunchy Frog]

7. So the IDF are now terrorists?

I wonder how often this sort of thing happens with Palestinian victims, and are the IDF terrorists in those incidents as well?

Is the shooter's home going to be bulldozed, I wonder.

[Shaktimaan]

10. ???

Who said the IDF were terrorists?

They have decided to recognize it as a terrorist act so that the National Insurance would assist the bereaved families with logistical expenses and with the funeral arrangements.

The family is set to request full recognition and the Defense Ministry is expected to approve the request.

The NII explained that this was standard procedure in such cases and that by law, anyone hurt in an action meant to thwart enemy activity is considered a terror victim and recognized as such by the Defense Ministry and National Insurance Institute.

I wonder how often this sort of thing happens with Palestinian victims, and are the IDF terrorists in those incidents as well?

You mean do the Palestinians get National Insurance too? I'd imagine not unless they are Israeli citizens. Then I imagine so.

[MisterP]

5. how very Haig of them

[azurnoir]

18. Looks like IDF ooped

but it was dark out and the guy couldn't see