Shooting of activist spurs Israeli scrutiny

By Ben Lynfield | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

Human rights groups argue that the shooting of Gil Naamati Friday during a demonstration against the separation barrier in the West Bank confirms what they have been charging for three years: that the army regularly shoots, and often kills Palestinians, when soldiers' lives are not endangered. The army has consistently denied the charge, stressing that soldiers take pains and even put themselves at risk to avoid harming noncombatants.

The chief of staff, who visited Mr. Naamati in the hospital, termed the shooting a "grave incident" and appointed a colonel to investigate it. An American activist was also lightly injured by the gunfire.

"This gives the public an indication of what is happening during other shootings," says Zehava Galon, a legislator for the liberal Meretz party. "When it is a Palestinian it is permissible to shoot to kill and there are hardly any investigations. When you do not investigate, it establishes a norm, and this is what occurs."

The shooting prompted rare criticism of the army from right wingers, including the Israeli police minister, Tzahi Hanegbi. Other hard-liners, however, backed the army and accused Naamati of collaborating with Israel's enemies.

_________________

CSM rocks. Pass it on...

...

now Christian Science Monitor sucks? (but remember, according to Jim Sagle, "Ariel Sharon rocks")

it's not like i get surprised any more when reading Jim Sagle...

what are your thoughts on Israel's shootings and murders of peace activists?

What did you slam-dunk?

Gee - must be tough running out of sources that toe the corporate line.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

CSM RAWKS DUDE!!

More fluff and finger pointing by CSM than any real details as to what happened in this case. This paragraph does more to explain the reality than any other part of the story...

The army says the circumstances are completely different from the first intifada, which was marked mainly by stonethrowing. Now, soldiers are engaged in "armed conflict" facing gunmen and explosive devices. In such a conflict, the army says, the death of a civilian at the hands of soldiers does not necessarily indicate criminal behavior.

to those who trust the army that is doing the shootings and killings of peace activists in the first place. The rest of us will draw our own conclusions.

An empty canvas and crayons with bias is all we have in this story to work with.

you're worried about bias, yet the paragraph that "does more to explain the reality" is, in your view, the one giving the shooter's explanation.

Other than that I see no description of what may have caused the disruption or reaction.

This is probably because the article is reporting on the fact that a debate is now taking place, not on details of the specific incident itself. Reports giving details on the shootings can be found elsewhere if that is what you're looking for.

I may just be old fashioned and take words for their face value and not their propaganda worth.

if you're interested in the details of the incident, there are plenty of stories out there to look through. You might start with the BBC or Google News reports. Good luck.

I would not trust the situation at all. The shootings of peace activists, (there have been two in the past three years) is hardly routine, while the shooting of IDF soldiers is much more common. It is therefore much more dangerous to be an IDF soldiers than a peace activist.

going to be different than any other scrutiny of the israeli army in the past?
army right -- everybody else wrong.
in the past we've even heard that rock throwers are as dangerous as soldiers with incredibly sophisticated weaponry and body armour as well as trucks and tanks.

In the past it's been American and British peace activists who the Israeli military have murdered and been shooting.

This time, it's an Israeli peace activist. Who knows, it might just wake some people up.

Overall, I fear you're right that nothing will change: Israel will continue it's killing sprees against Palestinians, as well as bulldozing homes, stealing land, etc.

if things would be more scrutinized if there was a pattern of killings and shootings of right-wing religious settlers?

DEFINITELY be more scrutiny in that case, not just scrutiny, but calls for blood and vengeance, shrill screeds against those responsible, promises of investigations up the wazoo, etc., etc., etc. I guess some lives just count more than others.

that he wouldn't have shot if he'd known his target was an Israeli.

n/t

you are probably not aware of it. However, since the killing is not done by the IDF, there is no investigation.

The question was towards killings done by the IDF: What if they shoot right-wing religious settlers (the way they gun down unarmed peace activists)? Would there be extra scrutiny, or not?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

What if ...you could put any bizarre statement into that. What if....There is not "gunning-down" of anyone. That Viet-Nam (or Holocaust) connotation is not applicable.

"Would there be extra scrutiny, or not?" Every IDF incident gets blown out of proportion. But no-doubt the pro-Palestinians would ignore it.