Israeli army commander released

[newyorican]

An Israeli military court has ordered the release of the army commander responsible for shooting to death a young Palestinian girl at point-blank range in the Gaza Strip last year, according to the Israeli press.

Thirteen-year-old Iman al-Hams's body was found riddled with over 17 bullets near an army post in the southern Gaza strip refugee camp of Rafah last October.

The accused commander, identified only as Captain R, was released on Sunday after being confined to an army base for two months.

Read more...

[purduejake]

1. Sick.

And so many of those people complain about their families being slaughtered for no reason in the past.

[EastWind]

8. Who are "those people"?

It would be sicker if the murder happened on a civilian street.

[eyl]

2. What this article leaves out

is that his release was ordered after one of the prosecution witnesses (the lookout, from whose testimony the accusation that R "confirmed the kill" came), admitted he and many of the other witnesses were lying:

"Most of the soldiers in the company didn't care about the girl who was killed. Many people did it in order ... to get rid of the company commander."

"Did what?" Eisenberg demanded.

"Lied during the investigations," S. responded.

Eisenberg then accused S. of lying to investigators when he said that from his lookout post, he saw R. confirm the kill by firing two individual bullets, followed by a volley, into Al-Hams' body. S. provided a flurry of responses: "Not intentionally," "not maliciously," and finally, "I didn't exactly lie ... I said an untruth." Later he added: "I got confused over the course of events."

At this point Mishnayot asked whether S. had in fact seen the shooting from his lookout post, and S. replied that he had not: He merely heard two single shots followed by a volley. When the prosecutor repeated the question, S. changed his story again, saying that he did see the shooting, but with the naked eye, rather than with binoculars as he had claimed originally.

(p.s. - is there some way to indent text blocks?)

[eyl]

3. Also,

According to another article in Haaretz (Hebrew only, so far), the officer isn't being reinstated.

[Djinn]

5. how terrible

someone who ADMITS to breaching his duty (nice way of saying riddled a teenagers body with bullets at point blank range) wont be reinstated - what an outrage, after all it's not like he killed someone he just "misused a weapon"

[EastWind]

7. It was then, however,

in a military zone. Different rules apply there. It is not civilian law. Murder is not the intention, but a consequence. The officer seems to be getting off light, so far.

[Englander]

9. *stunned silence*

:wtf:

[tinnypriv]

4. Which is pretty much irrelevant

Since the guy is on tape as "certifying the kill", and being fully aware he was shooting at a child.

You even give the link in your other post to an article making reference to that audio recording.

[tinnypriv]

6. Alright, if you want to play this game:

http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART/875/125.html

Soldiers testimony: "Captain 'R' sprayed the girl from close range"

[eyl]

10. Maybe he did

You seem to think I'm maintaining R. is innocent. I'm not. But it's my belief that so long as the trial hasn't concluded, such a lengthy pre-conviction restriction is uncalled for in this case (so long as he's not reinstated to a command post for the duration), especially since the primary evidence against him is eyewitness testimony which has been greatly cast into doubt.

[tinnypriv]

12. In which case

I assume you'll be calling for the release of the thousands of Palestinian "administrative" detainees, often held on no pretext or just hearsay testimony from local criminals being paid by the Shabak?

As for "Captain 'R'", the guy is an animal. He shouldn't be released for the next 30 years, and the evidence for that is the guy's own "proud" words over his army radio - which, I repeat, is specifically mentioned in the Ha'aretz article you link to.

[eyl]

13. And there have been accusations

that the radio intercepts which were published were edited by the TV crew.

Also - administrative detentions are, at least ostensibly, for preventative, not punitary, purposes. That's one of the two conditions I believe pre-trial incarceration is justified (the other is risk of flight).

[tinnypriv]

14. Accusations?

I'm quoting from the Ma'ariv transcript, via "fact", and I haven't seen any serious accusations of "editing". If you've got any I'd be extremely interested in taking a look.

I am aware that Ma'ariv reported that one (maybe two soldiers) admitted to not seeing the incident and lying to the investigation, but the other soldier I just directed you to is specifically mentioned as being trustworthy, and he did see the incident in question, and the tapes are clear cut.

As for "preventative" and "punitive", care to apply that to Noam Federman?

[eyl]

15. I saw the accusations in

Maariv's print edition (I think it was last Friday or the previous one, but I'm not sure). As I recall, some of the soldiers claimed most of the platoon was complicit in framing Captain R (again, this is from the Ma'ariv stories right after the incident broke - I'd give you the exact date, but I haven't figured out how to navigate Ma'ariv's new website yet to that extent).

As to Noam Federman, wasn't he arrested a while ago?

[tinnypriv]

16. I only very occasionally get

The print edition, due to cost. If a story isn't on the front page (which I can get electronically) I don't try and look for it. Wasting cash to find Uri Dan inside is not the best thing in the world.

Regarding Ma'ariv's new site, you've got to admit it is better than the one before. There you could search for something and it would just display a ticking clock for 50 minutes - about as useful as a migraine. And you had to check the special "print" section as well as the normal section to see everything.

Anyway, If you like, you can click the link I gave above, copy the seren resh part (without the quotes) into the NRG search box and hit enter, and it should give you all the 'captain R' stories (don't forget he wasn't referred to as 'Captain R' until three or four days after it happened, so those stories will be missed which you can get by searching for 'Iman'/àéîàï, which was the girls name).

That should give you pretty much everything, including the full transcript of the radio messages, and some transcripts from the investigation where a soldier admits not seeing the incident but saying that he did in order to get rid of Captain R.

You will also get the story I linked to above, though I could have just as easily linked to the one from the 17th of Feb ('Captain R returning to Givati') which states matter-of-factly that though the IDF first stuck to outrageous lies, it was "eventually compelled to admit that the girl was innocent" while "evidence accumulated" that "Captain R 'confirmed the kill'" (short history given at the bottom of the article).

As for Noam Federman, he is punitively detained, not preventatively, and the same often applies to Palestinian detainees. The Hebron idiots have a worship site about him if you check. I happen to think Federman should be released (my views are close to the committed civil rights leader Zahava Gal-on of Yahad/Meretz on this), though that doesn't absolve him from being a wacko of course (a seperate topic having to do with the so-called "underground", which is about as underground as my house).

[eyl]

18. About the NRG site

Thing is, it used to be much easier to find articles of a specific date than it is now (though again, mybe I'me just not familiar enough with the interface yet). The really annoying thing is that I had the URL's for the articles referenced in my previous post on Ma'arivs English site - and they took down the archives when they shut down the site :(

About Federman, I think he has been released. In any case, as I recall, he was arrested for (in the course of) planning attacks on Palestinians.

For the rest; pretty much what Nadav said.

[Nadav]

17. More background on case

There were a couple of twists and turns in this case, which make it confusing. The incident was originally aired in the media, but the soldiers under Captain R’s command were pressured into changing their testimony at the first trial hearing. This is brought out in the (Hebrew) article you’ve posted. The silencing of the soldier’s testimony, as well as the suppression of the video are mentioned. Now that the video is being introduced as evidence in the military court, (whereas in the first hearing it was not shown) the case is turning out differently. As the trial has not been concluded, there is no reason to believe that Captain R. will be released without punishment.


The defendant’s attorney pressured the soldiers, saying that he would claim bias as Captain R is a member of a minority group in Israel, and that the soldiers were conspiring against him. The existence of the video was made known to the media before it was introduced as evidence. Once the court agreed to view the video, the case was retried. Therefore, you have conflicting media reports at various times. Your Mariv article reports that the soldiers are now giving their authentic testimony.

My Internet access is sporadic, so I may not be able to respond immediately if there are any further comments.

[tinnypriv]

19. I think that is pretty much correct

Though I think you're being kind about the first investigation - not looking at all the evidence is standard IDF investigative practice (can give you the citations on that if you like), which is why it was condemned in Yedioth Aharonoth as being "flawed" with rampant "lying".

The second one appears to be a different affair, in large part due to courageous internal Israeli pressure (and intl pressure), but I suspect the punishment will not fit the crime, since it never does, assuming there is a punishment.

Maybe 'Captain R' will get longer than the guys who just mooned the Ramatkal (30 days), or maybe even the same as the guy who blew away a Palestinian with a telescopic rifle and then lied to the investigators (4 months), but that's hardly the 30 years he deserves. Then again, it's hard to blame 'Captain R' for that, since the practice is consistent: a good "family friend" of Ariel Sharon -who just happens to be a convicted Jewish Underground terrorist - only got about 10 months back in the 80's, and he's considered a fine chap these days too. Not a pretty story.

[Nadav]

22. Community relations involved

There was pressure from within Israel after the first trial, although I'd hardly term it "courageous". Israelis who criticize the government and IDF are not risking jail, or death, so I do not think that calling them "courageous" is necessary or appropriate. The entire incident aroused contempt, although there was not diplomatic pressure. Even the al Jezeera article simply quotes Haaretz.
http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=6988

Of course, if I am mistaken, and Condi Rice or GW got involved, or even Jack Straw, please provide links for that.

I didn't even comment on the first trial, and the media response in Israel was significant, so we all know it was a forced denial. The claim of discriminatory bias against the commander, and the claims that the video was a manipulation, were well publicized.

Whatever sentencing is applied, it is sure to remain a case remembered by the Druze community as a shameful incident, not likely to raise their self-esteem. The Druze men are conscripted due to the communities request back in the early 50's. Friction between Druze and Christian communities in Israel have recently been exacerbated, to the point where separate villages were requested by some of their leaders.

Too heavy a jail term might add to the general feeling that there is a discriminatory practice. Generally, punishments for soldiers are lighter than for civilians. As for Sharon's "family friend" (or the other incident you mention) I cannot comment, and I'm rather amazed that you have inside information on how he's getting along in life. Incarceration rarely improves character, as far as I know.

[tinnypriv]

24. "Israelis who criticize the government"

"Israelis who criticize the government and IDF are not risking jail, or death"

That depends. If you do it in the occupied territories, you can get killed (as you know, one Israeli has been), or deliberately shot at in the head even while you're shouting for mercy in Hebrew over a megaphone (as reported in Ma'ariv in a quite good report).

If it's done inside Israel, that's a different story (since Israel is a pretty free society), though the courage is still there. Note that the Shabak apparently considers anyone who "knows someone who knows an Arab" to be an "enemy", subject to harassment (at Ben-Gurion and elsewhere), with "black-lists" and such. That was reported in Ha'aretz recently, but that is a long story anyway, as anyone involved with the Israeli left knows all too well.

Back to Captain R, the intl pressure I was referring to was from the UN, from Palestinian solidarity groups, Amnesty - folks like that. The idea that any of the people you mention care even the slightest jot about a Palestinian child is pretty ridiculous, I think. As Ben Kaspit stated a while back, some of the people in the Bush adminstration are "more extreme than Lieberman" (i.e. Avigdor), and think even talking to Arabs is a waste of their time.

As for "the entire incident aroused contempt", that is not true. Was there any "contempt" from the IDF high command? Like Ya'alon? The guy defended 'R' until the evidence eventually overwhelmed his denials (remember the "bomb in the bag" line?), and the IDF was lying up until the moment it was "compelled" (Ma'ariv's term) to "admit that the girl was innocent". Note that in the initial IDF statements on the matter (after the media storm), little Imans was referred to as "it" by the IDF spokesman. It's difficult to find words for how shameful that episode was.

And remember that 'R' was charged with "illegal discharge of a weapon", even after all the facts were pretty much out. As far as I know, he's still charged with that, even after it is known that he lied to the investigators, shot a little girl (who he knew was a little girl) and then "sprayed" her from close range, when there was no threat to himself or to his position. Like I said, he's an animal, and 30 years is appropriate.

As for community relations, you know more about that than me, so I'll assume what you say is correct. I don't really see the relevance - should Imans family care about Druze in Israel? That aside, I appreciate the insight.

The "family friend" I alluded to is "Zambish" Hever. He got 11 months (let out early for "ill health") in the 80's for being involved in planting bombs in the WB. A closely aligned group blew off the legs of a couple of Palestinian mayors around the same time. His terrorist history and connections are considered irrelevant in Israel (the exceptions I can name), and "family friend" is in quotes because I was quoting Ariel Sharon. That's the most mild plaudit Sharon has given - he recently gave Hever the "Begin Prize", which is apt, but not in the way that Sharon meant.

Amusingly, Sharon considers this "former member of the Jewish terrorist underground" (Leibovich-Dar, Ha'aretz) such a nice guy that he was one of the few people invited to watch George W. Bush's "visionary" Middle East speech in 2002 ("The Bush Vision") in Sharon's office. Nobody seems to know about that, which is not very amusing. Remember, in that speech, Bush stated that Middle East leaders must not be "compromised by terror".

Citing Orwell would seem to be superfluous.

[dameocrat]

21. Not punitory?

Remember the hunger strike where the head Israeli in charge of prison said he didn't care whether they died because they were terrorist. 90% had never been tried for anything let alone convicted of terrorism.

[Nadav]

23. Striking prisoners

The refusal to give in to the strikers proved the right mode. If the Warden called them "terrorists" or not makes no difference what-so-ever. I rather doubt that he did say that myself. He said that they could starve as far as he was concerned. They had a choice, didn't they? They were provided with food.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. Starvation is death...

That's the bottom line. And I just read about yr sporadic internet access, but do you think you'd be able to supply some actual proof of yr claim that the Warden said what you claim he said? No offense or anything, but justifying comments such as those with: 'they had a choice, didn't they? They were provided with food.' comes across as just a tad on the callous side...

Violet...

p.s. Welcome back to the forum, btw. It's been a while since you last posted here! :)

[eyl]

26. Actually, it was

Tsachi Hanegbi who said that ("The prisoners can strike for a day, a month, even starve to death, as far as I am concerned,"), not the warden.

And frankly, if someone decides on a hunger strike, I don't see (under normal circumstances) where it's anyone's right to forcibly intervene.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. I don't see where anyone said they should forcibly intervene...

I would think that most progressives would hope that the powers-that-be actually listen to the grievances of those doing the hunger striking and try to address them. Is that an unreasonable expectation? I don't see where the only other available alternative is to support some type of force-feeding. I also don't believe that anyone should find what was said acceptable, whether it was by a prison warder or an Israeli govt minister (isn't that who Hanegbi is?). For those who don't find that sort of comment just a bit callous when aimed at Palestinian administrative prisoners, I bet there's not one of those folk who wouldn't carry on like a banshee if the positions were reversed and it was Israeli prisoners on hunger strike in Palestinian prisons and that sort of comment were made...

Violet...

[eyl]

28. Actually,

I was referring to your response to Nadav's comment that "they had food available".

[Violet_Crumble]

29. To be blunt...

I'm sure yr aware by a careful reading of Nadav's post that I was commenting on a whole lot more than those four words, which taken by themselves appear reasonably innocent. I'm not entirely sure what yr taking issue with here. Do you agree that comments made saying striking hunger strikers can starve for all they care is a bit callous, regardless of whether who said it was a prison warder or an Israeli govt minister? I got who he was right, didn't I? Do you spot some people in this little sub-thread calling for force-feeding of hunger strikers? Or do you think anyone who tries to justify the comment that was made about letting them starve by saying they've got a choice because food is available is making a reasonable justification for making those sort of callous comments?

Violet...

[eyl]

30. Your post stated

"No offense or anything, but justifying comments such as those with: 'they had a choice, didn't they? They were provided with food.' comes across as just a tad on the callous side..."

I unserestood this to mean you were taking issue with this specific comment, and I disagree with that. If hunger strikers should have food made available to them; but I don't think it's justified to take things further.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. I know what it stated...

And I'm not understanding at all why you don't think there's something even the slightest bit callous about JUSTIFYING comments made by a prison warder (or as you correctly said, an Israeli government minister) by pointing out the bleeding obvious. Of course there's food available. But the whole point is that it's a HUNGER STRIKE. Pointing out the bleeding obvious does not mitigate the callousness of an important official saying that as far as he's concerned they can starve...

Violet...

[eyl]

32. I have the feeling we're talking past one another

As I said, I was specifically referring to your reply to Nadav's post, where you singled out a secific comment of his and characterized it as "callous", with which I disagreed. None of my remarks addressed Hangebi's statement.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. Somehow I don't think so...

The comment was just a bit callous, imo. I explained exactly why I felt it was - because it was being used as a justification for an even more callous comment made by an Israeli official who should have known better...

Violet...

[dameocrat]

20. HOw do you know they aren't lying to protect the commander

How do you know those soldiers aren't recounting under threat of prosecution themselves if they don't retract.

[Coastie for Truth]

11. ALL countries' military need a higher standard of conduct for

ALL OFFICERS AND NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS

I say again ALL COUNTRIES' MILITARIES NEED A MUCH HIGHER STANDARD OF CONDUCT FOR ALL COMMISSIONED OFFICERS AND ALL NON COMMISSIONED OFFICERS.

ALL

A-L-L

ART. 138. COMPLAINTS OF WRONGS

Any member of the armed forces who believes himself wronged by his commanding officer, and who, upon due application to that commanding officer, is refused redress, may complain to any superior commissioned officer, who shall foreword the complaint to the office exercising court- martial jurisdiction over the officer against whom it is made. The officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction shall examine into the complaint and take proper measures for redressing the wrong complained of; and he shall, as soon as possible, send to the Secretary concerned a true statement of that complaint, with the proceedings thereon.

[martymar64]

33. May he be haunted by her face forever

From opppressed to oppressor. All that's missing are the trains to the East and the showers. But those will come soon enough right?