Israeli minister says IDF should have fired on unarmed protesters for humiliating soldier

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

http://mondoweiss.net/2015/08/soldiers-protesters-occupied

That video of Palestinian women protesters pulling down an Israeli soldier in Nabi Saleh on Friday when he was beating a boy has shocked the world. Well, it has shocked an Israeli leader too. Israel’s culture minister Miri Regev says that the unarmed protesters should have been shot.
---
Regev said she wanted to change the army’s policy on the use of live-fire because of the “humiliation” the soldier endured.

“We need to decide immediately that a soldier that is attacked is permitted to return fire. Period. I call on the minister of security to put an end to the humiliation and change the open fire regulations immediately!” Regevwrote in a Facebook statement.

“Anyone who tries to harm Israeli civilians and soldiers needs to know his blood is in his head,” Regev continued, using a Hebrew expression to convey that the Palestinians who assaulted the soldier are fair game for shooting

The Israelies are their own worst enemies, but some will find fault with the article.

It's always easier for them to try to shut down the truth then to have to defend the indefensible.

[oberliner]

1. The honesty in that article is refreshing

"There is a bit of folklore around the Nabi Saleh protesters. The town’s children are known to chase down soldiers during protests, and punch, hit, and kick them. In 2012 Ahed Tamimi—the girl in the pink shirt and braids in the video above, then 12, was filmed throwing a right-hook at a soldier. She was later honored by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan with an award in courage."

Disturbing though that the Mondoweiss writers and readers view that behavior as something positive.

In any case, this has been a propaganda bonanza for Tamimi - so mission accomplished, I guess.

[shira]

3. What can u say when Israel haters promote child-abuse in order to manufacture....

.....staged scenes that incite hatred?

Hooray for child abuse?

[geek tragedy]

4. Any comment on Regev's call to gun down children? nt

[oberliner]

7. No such call exists

Do you read Hebrew?

Here is the post in question:

הזדעזעתי לראות הבוקר את הסרטון של פלסטניות מכות חייל צה"ל.

לא יתכן שהחיילים שלנו ישלחו למשימות עם ידיים קשורות מאחורי הגב, זה פשוט בזיון!

כל מי שינסה לפגוע באזרחי ישראל ובחיילי צה"ל צריך לדעת שדמו בראשו.

צריך לקבוע מיד שחייל שמותקף רשאי להשיב אש נקודה.
אני קוראת לשר הביטחון לשים סוף להשפלה ולשנות את נהלי הפתיחה באש באופן מיידי!

There is no call to "gun down children".

[Little Tich]

9. It seems to me that Miri Regev calls for shooting down children...

As I seem to be the only one in this forum who doesn't know Hebrew, I had to read the post through Google translate, and this came up:

This morning I was shocked to see the video of Flstniot beaten soldier .

It is inconceivable that our soldiers will be sent on missions with the hands tied behind the back , it's just fucking !

Anyone who tries to harm Israeli citizens and IDF soldiers should know that resembled his head .

Should determine soldier being attacked may immediately return fire point .
I call the defense minister put an end to the humiliation and change the procedures for opening fire immediately!

In the context of a soldier being attacked by unarmed women and children, demanding that a soldier should open fire can only mean shooting them down...

[6chars]

2. Father of IDF soldier 'proud' of son's restraint in scuffle with Palestinians

The soldier's father told Army Radio that his son in fact prevented further casualties. “We are very proud of what we saw, proud of the restraint that he demonstrated, because without a doubt if [the] women had been injured, it would have ended very differently,” the soldier’s father said.

[geek tragedy]

5. Any comment on Regev's call to gun down children? nt

[oberliner]

8. There is no such call

You should really not repeat something that you do not know to be true.

See above for the actual text in Hebrew of what she wrote on Facebook.

[geek tragedy]

12. really? her response to this incident was that soldiers should be free

to open fire in such circumstances.

[grossproffit]

6. He should be.

[Little Tich]

10. I find her statement extremely offensive.

Calling publicly for shooting down children is beyond the pale.

She's Ann Coulter crazy...

[6chars]

11. she said what?

“We need to decide immediately that a soldier that is attacked is permitted to return fire. Period. I call on the minister of security to put an end to the humiliation and change the open fire regulations immediately!”

“Anyone who tries to harm Israeli civilians and soldiers needs to know his blood is in his head (he is taking his life in his hands).”

This isn't calling publicly for shooting down children. It is a call for a change in the open fire regulations that govern actions of IDF soldiers. It is saying when civilians attack soldiers, soldiers can defend themselves.

I don't agree with it at all. The civilians attacked with non-lethal force, and the soldier escaped serious harm without resorting to lethal force. Even though the civilians involved in this instance repeatedly take advantage of the IDF's tight rules of engagement, the IDF is still wise to have a regulation that aims to avoid escalation.

But rewording Regev's statements with the words you used is intellectually dishonest, and plays into the hands of those who want nothing other than to demonize everything about Israel. There was no public call to shoot down children.

[Little Tich]

13. From what I understand, she said it in the context of the event in Nabi Saleh,

and that the soldier should have had permission to open fire against his attackers instead of being humiliated.

What other circumstances do you think she's referring to? I'm not trying to be snarky, but it seems as the event and her comment are related. Perhaps she'll walk it back, eventually, but as long as the wish for permission to open fire is connected to the attack by women and children, what other conclusion can I draw?

[6chars]

14. permission to open fire against his attackers

is different than calling for shooting down children. In this case, the soldier was attacked by adult women, whom Regev seems to think should have been allowable targets for fire. The attack was with non-lethal force, but if the soldier had feared for his life or serious injury, I believe he would have been justified in using suitable force to prevent that. I believe current policy would, in fact, allow shooting of a child if the child shot a gun at a soldier, and I would agree with that policy as well. The soldier himself, consistent with IDF policy, consistent with your and my belief, and in contrast to Regev, did not determine that force was justified simply to prevent "humiliation." Regev's call is misguided and I believe it will just make her appear less credible with IDF leaders. Fine to say you strongly disagree with the call. The call is for allowing use of weapons in response to civilian attacks of a certain type - a type which we agree is not serious enough to justify such use. Whether it is children, adult women or adult men is not the issue, the issue is maintaining a response policy that is suitably restrained but, realistically, does not leave soldiers at significant avoidable physical risk.

Calling for shooting down children is something altogether different - it implies a goal of harming children - and even Regev does not imply this as a goal, only avoiding "humiliation." She is overreacting and possibly grandstanding, and we can say that and be critical without being hyperbolic.

I am bothered by your wording because infanticide is one of the charges that Israel haters frequently level against Israel, as if it is like countries and bodies that have made this a policy. That slur is meant to delegitimize Israel and open it up to various consequences not warranted by its actions.

[Little Tich]

16. I'm not interested in promoting blood libel against the IDF or Israel.

What we have is an event that's wholly in line with the well documented abuses of children by the IDF, due to IDF having lower moral standards than other armed forces of western countries. To point out that the idea of purity of arms is actually just a way to justify treating civilians badly isn't blood libel. I'm not going to say that the IDF is bloodthirsty and desires the death of children, because that would be untrue and blood libel.

When it comes to Regev, she doesn't make the distinction you make, that only the unarmed women should be shot, and from what I've seen of her so far, she probably never meant to. Fortunately, she doesn't reflect badly on the IDF, she's the head of the Israeli Ministry against Culture and doesn't formulate IDF policy.

[guillaumeb]

15. And if Regev's statement that a soldier who is attacked should be allowed

to open fire on the attackers became general procedure, does that mean that police should enjoy the same "free fire zone" privileges?

If so, when protestors in Ferguson Missouri threw rocks, the police should have shot them down. Correct?

Lost in all the talk about this incident is that if the IDF soldiers had not been in Palestine, there would have been no attack. This incident is one in an endless series of such incidents that can be traced back to the initial, illegal occupation and theft of Palestinian land.

Truly an example of the legal theory called "fruit of the poisoned vine".