Court: Israel must compensate Palestinian wounded in 1990

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/382249.html

<snip>

"In a precedent-setting ruling, the High Court decided on Monday the State of Israel must compensate a Palestinian who was wounded by rubber-coated steel bullets during the first intifada in 1990.

The two, Osama Khamad and his father, Ibrahim, are residents of the Jenin refugee camp. Osama was wounded when Border Police troops shot him in July 1990.

The decision, made by nine Supreme Court judges, dealt with what they described as the "unreasonable and disproportional use" of rubber bullets by the security forces and the responsibility of the state for the shooting."

<snip>

"Not all police behavior is reasonable," wrote justice Aharon Barak. "Officers are not authorized to employ any and all means in order to quell riots and to impose order. They may only make use of means suitable to the circumstances. The officers opened fire during dusk, while running and with inadequate visibility. These circumstances made it difficult for the shooter to identify - as required - the source of danger, to shoot accurately and to refrain from harming passers-by. The officer shot directly at the rioters without first firing warning shots in the air. The fact that the state did not present the court with open-fire regulations for rubber bullets must be taken into account."

"unreasonable and disproportional use of rubber bullets by the security forces and the responsibility of the state for the shooting."

I am shocked to hear that the IDF would do that, shocked! :shrug:

For example:

"Strasberg-Cohen ruled it was extremely likely that Osama participated in the stone-throwing attack on the jeep and military camp, and also ruled that the officers did not make use of excessive use of force during the incident."

Note and remember this part of the judges statement. "the officers DID NOT make use of excessive use of force"

"Osama was wounded when Border Police troops shot him in July 1990."

Note also that this incurred over 13 years ago, ONE incident, ONE person, yet you are ready to indict the entire IDF. I'm not sure if you can even blame the IDF. It says the Border Police, someone else will have to give the answer as to whether you can consider them to even be part of the IDF. Actually the answer is in another paragraph.


"Osama, then 11 years old, was wounded in his head following riots in the Jenin refugee camp. After local Palestinian youths threw stones at an Israel Defense Force camp and at a Border Police patrol jeep, Border Police troops chased down the stone-throwers."

They separate the Border Police and the IDF so I have to assume they ARE different entities.

You would be quite incensed and offended if and when a suicide bomber blows himself up in the middle of a crowded restaurant, I would jump to the conclusion that this represents the behavior of all Palestinians, yet here you seem to do just that.

You once asked, what are the things that offend me?

This another example of what offends me.

And bluesoul's post gave no reason to believe he hadn't comprehended what the article was about. The ruling by the Supreme Court set a precedent. To try to claim that there has only been one incident of negligence and disproportionate use of force by an entity under the control of the State of Israel, (which both the Border Police and the IDF are, so a little bit of logic leads to the conclusion that the precedent has also been set for the IDF as well) is in my opinion doing a bit of desperate clutching at straws. Will you be needing links to the many incidents of killing and maiming of Palestinians with rubber bullets?

Just in case you missed it, I thought this part of the article was pretty important:

"Not all police behavior is reasonable," wrote justice Aharon Barak. "Officers are not authorized to employ any and all means in order to quell riots and to impose order. They may only make use of means suitable to the circumstances. The officers opened fire during dusk, while running and with inadequate visibility. These circumstances made it difficult for the shooter to identify - as required - the source of danger, to shoot accurately and to refrain from harming passers-by. The officer shot directly at the rioters without first firing warning shots in the air. The fact that the state did not present the court with open-fire regulations for rubber bullets must be taken into account."

Now, if you can say that unlike the Border Police, the IDF are authorised to employ any and all means to quell riots and impose order, and do have orders to shoot directly at people without first firing warning shots, then the precedent may not have been set for the IDF as well....

You would be quite incensed and offended if and when a suicide bomber blows himself up in the middle of a crowded restaurant, I would jump to the conclusion that this represents the behavior of all Palestinians, yet here you seem to do just that.

Nowhere in the post did bluesoul seem to jump to the conclusion that this represents the behaviour of all Israelis, which is what he would have had to have said for you to get all offended over. If you get offended over it being pointed out by another poster that the IDF does engage in the disproportionate and unreasonable use of rubber bullets, I can line you up with someone I know who gets offended when it gets pointed out that the invasion of Iraq wasn't done for humanitarian reasons, but for the oil and as an example of US power...

Violet...

An interesting comment by the court:

"...The fact that the state did not present the court with open-fire regulations for rubber bullets must be taken into account."

Is this a flaw in the defense presentation?

When will we get compensation from Hamas or IJ or the PA for civilian injuries when Bombers use negligence and disproportionate use of force when blowing themselves up in a crowded cafe? I guess that's one of the differences between terrorism and the military of the State of Israel. Accountability.

"The Border Guard also serves as a highly mobile, rapid response and reinforcement force, constantly available to I.P. and I.D.F. units."

http://www.police.gov.il/english/AboutUs/Structure/01_en_border.asp

They're a semi-military force, also under the control of the State of Israel, so it doesn't look like there's the big difference between them and the military that you'd find with civil police forces, like the ones here and in the US...

Violet...

are quite dazzling GabysPoppy...

Do you mean to say that you wouldn't be offended if I labeled all Palestinians based on one terrorist? I hardly think so.

edited to add: Hell, I would be offended at myself if I said that.

the one about me saying that this is represents all of the IDF. I NEVER said that, only that I was shocked that even in Israel they recognized that it did indeed happen, since some insist it never could, being such a moral army and that...

"I am shocked to hear that the IDF would do that, shocked!"

What were you meaning to say with these words?

Please explain that statement and inference in YOUR OWN words.

Thank you in advance for your answer

that even a High court in Israel would find "unreasonable and disproportional use of rubber bullets by the security forces" and say it loud and clear. That's it...

How your answer defines "I am shocked" escapes me.

I think not.

The Border Police is a para-military force, no doubt about it. Individuals are fallible. Is that news to you?

It seems that Palestinians are better treated by the Israeli justice system than their own.

Thanks for pointing that out.