+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

WATCH: Israeli forces shoot B'Tselem spokesperson during West Bank protest

B’Tselem spokesperson and colleague Sarit Michaeli was shot in the leg from close range on Friday by Israeli forces while documenting the weekly protest in Nabi Saleh, as she has been doing for years. She issued a statement Saturday on her understanding of what happened, which I translated below. 

Although this is not the first time an Israeli has been wounded by IDF fire at West Bank protests (there are a handful of other cases), it is quite uncommon. It is certainly not the first time a Palestinian or foreigner has been wounded (there are dozens of such cases). It is important to note that Sarit is a professional NGO worker and her presence at the protests in Nabi Saleh is part of the organization’s work documenting human rights violations in the occupied West Bank.

As of Saturday evening, no Israeli mainstream media outlet reported on the incident. I contacted the IDF Spokesperson for comment and will update accordingly. (Response from a Border Police spokesperson has been added below)

B’Tselem spokesperson Sarit Michaeli, holds a rubber coated bullet, which was taken out of her leg, in Ichilov hospital in Tel Aviv, July 20, 2013. Photo by: Oren Ziv/Activestills.org

On Friday I was shot with a rubber-coated steel bullet while documenting the demonstration in Nabi Saleh. The demonstration was dispersed by Border Police officers when the protesters were still on the main road that leads out of the village. After the Border Police began to disperse the crowds, some kids threw a few stones in their direction. About 20 minutes after the protest had begun, and after the procession had already been largely dispersed, a group of about nine Border Policemen and IDF soldiers stormed the main road of the village next to the gas station in the direction of a group of demonstrators, who were running away from them up the road.

I stood aside, close to the gas station. At a certain point one of the Border Policeman shot at me from what I estimate was a distance of no more than 15-20 meters. (The legal minimum range for a rubber-coated steel bullet is 50 meters).

I’m not really sure why I was shot at. I wasn’t in the path of the soldiers and I wasn’t doing anything that could be interpreted as a threat to them. They saw me beforehand with my camera filming, standing on the side, not in their way. In order to shoot at me, the Border Policeman had to knowingly point his weapon in my direction, or in the direction of a medic and two Palestinian female protesters who were close to me. No one standing in my vicinity threw any stones. The bullet penetrated my thigh and was removed at Ichilov Hospital in Tel Aviv.

UPDATE Sunday, 6:00p.m.: Sarit has uploaded the video she filmed as she was shot. As you can see below, the video backs her statement that she was clearly standing in the open, facing the soldiers, behind a first aid man. As can be seen, when she lies down from the injury, a stun grenade is also thrown at her by the soldiers.

You can see the same injury from the point of view of the soldiers in this video filmed by Bilal Tamimi (minute 2:30). The soldiers are not at risk, and there isn’t any visible reason for the shot.

Click here for a B’Tselem report from January 2013 on Israel’s crowd dispersal methods. The new report published in Hebrew is due out in English soon.

Update (3:30 p.m., July 22):

A Border Police spokesperson admitted that Michaeli was not throwing stones, but claimed she put herself at risk by positioning herself behind protesters and by not wearing clothing identifying her as press.

Claiming that the video was tendentiously edited, the spokesperson said the rubber bullet was fired from a range of at least 50 meters and was likely an errant bullet.

The details of the incident will be sent to the relevant authorities for further examination, he added.

Israeli forces shoot B’Tselem spokesperson in leg at West Bank protest

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article

    * Required


    1. The Trespasser

      Particularly worthy is the cynical use of children, as depicted in the video.

      Not only kids are told to carry and burn tires, blockade roads, shout slogans – the perfect brainwashing, but also willingly are put in harm’s way by organizers, who apparently hope that a kid would be shot by one of savage occupying force.

      Reply to Comment
      • It is a tragedy that children are growing up in a culture of protest resistence. You might note as well that their marching is quite ineffectual in changing anything. Martin Luther King, Jr. once had children rush ahead toward firemen hoses; the hoses were turned on, the children forced to flee. About next day Kennedy was on national televsion announcing his intent for a Civil Rights bill. I don’t know how I would feel about using children in marches if I lived in that land; their use, to me, sends two signals: that children’s future is being destroyed by this conflict, and that they are being moulded to take part in it (which need not mean violently take part). So if you are going to decry their use, perhaps decry what occupation has done to their lives as well.

        Reply to Comment
        • Whether or not some soldiers choose to shoot in some situations and others don’t is beside the point when it comes to the larger sickness. In practice its all ugly and the damage isn’t only to Palestinians but to Israelis also. It corrupts and degrades the occupiers as much as it humiliates and oppresses the Palestinians.

          Breaking the Silence has released videos of testimonials by female ex-soldiers. One, Gill Hillel, tells it like it is… how the occupation is turning those involved into angry, aggressive creatures. She said it turned her into “a monster” given what she was required to do.

          In N. Ireland people learned the appalling price of interminable internecine hatred and strife. If the occupation doesn’t end it will exact a terrible toll – on all sides.

          Reply to Comment
        • The Trespasser

          >It is a tragedy that children are growing up in a culture of protest resistance.

          Thank late Mr. Arafat and his Kremlin handlers for that.

          >You might note as well that their marching is quite ineffectual in changing anything.

          Not quite. Their marching is rather effectual in creating the image of innocent children fighting occupation. As you can see in the video, children are marching in the head of column, accompained by photographers only.

          >Martin Luther King, Jr. once had children rush ahead toward firemen hoses; the hoses were turned on, the children forced to flee. About next day Kennedy was on national televsion announcing his intent for a Civil Rights bill.

          Incomparable. Blacks in USA sought equal rights, Arabs in Palestine had officially refused Jews equal rights about 100 years ago and are fighting for Judenfrei Palestine.

          >that children’s future is being destroyed by this conflict, and that they are being moulded to take part in it (which need not mean violently take part).

          This conflict was started by grandparents of these children. Stone throwing is violence.

          >So if you are going to decry their use, perhaps decry what occupation has done to their lives as well.

          Occupation is there because their grandparents had refused to coexist peacefully.

          Reply to Comment
      • The children of Nabi Saleh are not told to take part and their parents and relatives certainly aren’t hoping they will come to harm. The only cynical thing here is you suddenly deciding to playact the part of an advocate for child welfare, when you have repeatedly told me that you don’t make any distinction whatsoever between children and adults. While disturbing and wrong, that position at least has some honesty about it. Crocodile tears for kids (“Oh, those poor little children, whose parents cynically force the IDF to hurt them!”) has never been your style and I wouldn’t adopt it now. It doesn’t suit you.

        Reply to Comment
        • The Trespasser

          >The children of Nabi Saleh are not told to take part

          Video proves the contrary. The whole scene is rather carefully directed.

          >and their parents and relatives certainly aren’t hoping they will come to harm.

          1 – I did not say “parents” or “relatives”, plz do not invent.
          2 – You can’t deny that there are some forces which are promoting child martyrdom amongst Palestinians
          3 – Speaking of their parents, “certainly” would hardly be a good word.
          “Probably” or “hopefully” would fit much better.

          >The only cynical thing here is you suddenly deciding to playact the part of an advocate for child welfare

          Oh, I see. Usage of children is permitted, but pointing that out is cynical. Yeah, right.

          Reply to Comment
          • This is a grassroots protest and the people who organise it (most prominently the Tamimi women) are parents. They aren’t some shadowy cabal of sinister ‘organisers’. They’re mums.

            You don’t know this community. Perhaps one day you should visit it with me, supposing you could manage not to insult your hosts.

            Reply to Comment
      • carl

        Your sick mind pushed you to focus on this aspect instead of focusing on why these children live in ghettos.

        Reply to Comment
        • The Trespasser

          These children have to live in ghettos AND are forced to take part in demonstrations due to one same reason: Unwillingness to peacefully coexist with Jews on side of their parents and grandparents.

          p.s. Apparently, my mind is not as sick as your mind is dumb.

          Reply to Comment
      • Tim Arnold

        I agree fullly, taking teenage boys and forcing them into the army where they learn that abuse is fine provided it’s directed at people of another religion, is a terrible thing to do.

        Reply to Comment
        • rsgengland

          The use of children as “human shields” by the Palestinians is both disgusting and unacceptable.
          Any persons that allows their children to be put in danger this way, should be prosecuted.
          This is Child Abuse.
          Or Is It?
          Maybe the threat to the safety of these children is so low, that the situation is only used and abused by the Palestinians for political gain.
          It makes for good exciting “prime time” tv propaganda at a very low cost.
          B’Tselem gets most of its funding from foreign governments, so maybe they should pay for Michaelis’ treatment in hospital in Israel.

          Reply to Comment
          • One of my patients was a child who was taken from her family home in the middle of the night and used by the IDF as a human shield as they conducted house searches. Her name is Jinan. As she was pushed along the street one of the soldiers told her that he had asked her mother which child he should take, and she had said Jinan because she loved her the least. Jinan was about ten at the time. Would you be prepared to come out and call that ‘disgusting and unacceptable’? A straight answer, please. In your previous comments you have tried to exculpate the IDF of all child abuse by pointing out that children in custody suffer all over the world, so you don’t really have a leg to stand on when it comes to passing judgment on child abusers – you’re happy to exonerate them providing it suits your politics.

            As for children getting used as human shields by Palestinian factions, paramilitary groups have indeed been guilty of that, as documented by Defence for Children International and other child rights groups. The families of Nabi Saleh, however, do not fall into that category and never have. The weekly Friday protest isn’t separate from daily life in the village for the simple reason that occupation isn’t separate from the daily life in the village, and the children feel a personal stake in what goes on. In the past you have made it abundantly clear that you see them as deserving of jail time and whatever treatment the IDF decides to mete out because of their presence at these demos, so it makes no sense for you to try to paint them as little victims of abusive parents now – that doesn’t quite fit with your indifference to how they’re treated in military custody. Similar cognitive dissonance is evident in your attempt to make out that the army poses no threat to the children (on an article about a woman who was shot at a distance that can be lethal) whilst simultaneously making out that they’re human shields for something. This is what happens when people try to excuse the inexcusable – they can’t even be consistent.

            Reply to Comment
          • “Friday protest isn’t separate from daily life in the village for the simple reason that occupation isn’t separate from the daily life in the village, and the children feel a personal stake in what goes on.” : As Vicky say, there is an evolved social economy, with alliances, reciprocity in times of need, and mutual help in avoiding the long arms of the IDF. Rsgn wants to condemn resistence (or refusal, which I think a better term here) in itself. What is not compulsory is forbidden. Autonomous life itself is viewed with distaste. And that is where the fight really is.

            Reply to Comment
          • rsgengland

            Anybody/organization that uses children as “human shields”, is disgusting and unacceptable. Full stop!
            Any adult/parent that allows their children to participate in protests as “human shields”, or in any other manner, is also disgusting and unacceptable.
            Those adults/parents should be prosecuted for child neglect/abuse.
            Irrespective of the “cause and/or reason” for protests and uprisings, there is absolutely no excuse for allowing, or encouraging, children to be a these events. Period!!!!
            No excuse whatsoever!!!!!!!

            Reply to Comment
          • Do I understand this right? You have just declared the Israeli army to be ‘disgusting and unacceptable’? This is rather a 180-degree turn from how you usually talk about them, so forgive me if I’m confused.

            As for the situation in Nabi Saleh, children aren’t being used as human shields (the only people to die or be seriously injured have been adults – they didn’t hide behind children) and they are at the protest simply by virtue of being in the village. This is not London. There isn’t some special cordoned-off street or corner designated for demos. The IDF routinely declares the whole village to be a closed military zone, which turns any activity in the entire place into protesting or even ‘rioting’ in their eyes. There is no way to keep the children away from the army because it’s a tiny place and the army is liable to appear in their bedrooms in the middle of the night anyway. What do you expect these families to do? Lock their kids in cupboards? Never protest at all?

            Reply to Comment
          • rsgengland

            I have absolutely not changed my mind on the IDF.
            Considering the type of war being waged against Israel, the IDF acts in an exemplary manner.
            Things go wrong, as they do!
            The worlds acceptance/perception of certain actions changes, as it does regularly!
            The use/acceptance of certain weapons changes, as they do!
            The IDF is continuously adapting and changing to suit current mores and practices.
            There will always be the bad in any organization as big and cumbersome as the IDF.
            But you never hear the good, only the bad [bad press makes good news].
            If it takes locking children up to prevent them being at protests with the risk of rock and molotov cocktail throwing,and/or tear gas and rubber bullets, then yes they must be prevented from attending.
            Or the parents/guardians prosecuted.
            There is no excuse for their attendance at these protests. PERIOD!!!!!!
            No excuse whatsoever!!!!!!

            Reply to Comment
          • phunter

            Which war that is being waged against Israel? By Syria? By Iran? Is there any state in the Middle East that is more belligerent, more aggressive than Israel? Or do you want the world to continue to believe that Israel is a perpetual victim?

            Reply to Comment
      • Trespasser: Particularly worthy is the cynical use of children, as depicted in the video.

        It’s convenient to focus upon “the use” of children in this context. Some IDF members don’t require much encouragement or even provocation to target Arab children.

        The conflict has bred a level of contempt, a hardening of conscience and even outright sadism that extends to attitudes toward Palestinian children. In some cases it is clearly pathological and speaks more to an underlying psychotic condition distinguished most of all by racism.

        Not long ago there was the social media uproar about Israeli soldier Mor Ostrovski’s Instagram image showing crosshairs trained on the back of the head of an Arab child.

        I could cite a long list of Palestinian children murdered in recent decades, in some cases while playing football, returning from school – not just in conflict scenarios.

        Breaking the Silence has testimony from an ex-Israeli soldier who served in Nablus who candidly spoke about deliberately firing on Palestinian children with both plastic bullets and live ammunition.

        He said this in answer to questions:

        Q: Where do you aim? Do you choose some kid at random?
        A: Yes. Choose someone, aim at his body.
        Q: Body?
        A: Center of mass.
        Q: Ten meters range at the center of mass?
        A: I remember one time we put this kid down. We didn’t kill him but someone hit the kid in the chest and he fell and probably lost consciousness, or at least it was pretty close. At about 10 meters.

        It is the reports like this that penetrate the facade and get to the heart of what some military personnel really think that tells an ugly story. Like the report about t’shirts produced by Adviv printing shop in Tel Aviv. The illustrations on shirts favored by IDF members were distinctive by virtue of their cruelty. They showed Palestinian mothers weeping on the graves of their kids, guns aimed at children. One that showed a mother weeping beside her dead child included the slogan “Better use Durex.” Another showing crosshairs on the stomach of a pregnant woman included the line “one shot kills two.” According to the report in Haaretz, the shirts were popular with some IDF members.

        Reply to Comment
        • The Trespasser

          And you point being?

          Reply to Comment
          • The targeting of Palestinian children by some IDF members for shootings, beatings, incarceration, interrogation doesn’t necessarily relate to the “use” of children by their parents in conflict situations.

            A moving testimonial from Breaking the Silence by ex-soldier Dotan Greenvald, is exceptional by virtue of its honesty and emotional candor. He was part of a raid on a Palestinian home, during which a fellow soldier recorded the proceedings on video.

            Greenvald explained how they “aggressively” entered the home, forced the family against the wall and seized a 15-year-old child. He said he had no idea why the boy was being lifted because he [Greenvald] was unaware of any offence. The boy’s mother reacted hysterically to the seizure – all recorded on tape.

            It was only much later after leaving the army when Greenvald was replaying the footage for his family that he realized what he been involved in… he compared the incident to soldiers forcing their way into his home and seizing him… how his mother would react. He was so overcome with emotion during the family occasion that he had to excuse himself and go into the washroom to try and calm down. During the videotaped testimonial the emotion still overcame him as he relived the story.

            His testimony speaks to our common humanity and matters of conscience. The simple act of seizing this boy… so seemingly minor compared to the much more sensational reports out there… devastated Greenvald.

            It is so easy to blame children or civilian parents. It takes an honest guy like Greenvald to point to the abuse of power at the heart of occupation and to use this seemingly mundane everyday arrest in order to underline the human cost – on all sides.

            Reply to Comment
          • Noevil9

            Your words , attitude, sentiments,questions and responses, are the perfect example of what is wrong with the mental state of the soldiers of the IDF, and Israel defenders. Don’t listen to any one, just study yourself as best case example. You are the epidemic of what makes Israel and most Israelis treat the Palestinians the way they do. Be proud of yourself ,as your mother must be.

            Reply to Comment
    2. On the point at hand, the shooting of this woman in the leg, I think that B’Tselem’s video campaign is increasingly disliked in the security forces, and I can see a Border Police or IDF ignoring vaguely followed rules of engagement. As I doubt there will be any real consequence to the trigger finger, it is a bit surprising that such actions are rare.

      Reply to Comment
      • Vadim

        It would not be so surprising if you would consider that perhaps the soldiers don’t do that on purpose.

        But maybe it’s easier to picture vengeful trigger happy soldiers, “vaguely followed rules of engagement”, an army where there are no “real consequence to the trigger finger” and then being surprised that such incidents are rare…

        Reply to Comment
        • Haifawi

          Ehh…I know enough people in the Army to know that there are some who take pains to avoid shooting and that there are some who look for every excuse to shoot. And some commanders encourage trigger-happy behavior and some don’t.

          Reply to Comment
        • Lior

          It has nothing to do with soldier imagery. The soldier that shot that woman did it illegally (according to IDF’s shooting protocol in protests) by shooting in the angle he did and by shooting while running. By doing this that person knowingly took the chance of seriously maiming (perhaps even killing) a protestor.

          Reply to Comment
          • Vadim

            Please note that I did not say anything regarding this case. I merely commented on Greg’s words. Specifically on his ability to be “surprised” that reality does not fit his theory but not being able to think that perhaps his theory is simply wrong.

            Reply to Comment
          • There have been several reports on 972 of soldiers/guards failing rules of engagement leading to bodily harm. I know case of redress from the State. But I did mispeak. The present case is a Jewish Israeli woman filming her own assault. Perhaps things will go differetly this time; other cases are overwhelmingly of Palestinian victims. And perhaps there is another theory here, too.

            At least we are on a first name basis, Vadim.

            Reply to Comment
          • Vadim

            I do not believe things will go differently, but maybe I’m wrong.

            There are reports here and elsewhere and part of them are sadly correct. The question is not even – “are they the rule or the exception?”. The right question is “does the IDF handle it better than other armies would?”

            The IDF and other armies are not meant to be nice and I can’t expect such incidents never to take place at all.

            Reply to Comment
          • “The IDF and other armies are not meant to be nice and I can’t expect such incidents never to take place at all.” : And that is the problem, Vadim. As the settlements expand toward what seems to be a Greater Israel, the IDf morphs, in application, from an army fighting a war into a police force for only some of that area’s residents. It becomes not a war but multi-generational occupation in which Israeli citizens residing in that sector think of themselves as in Israel itself. Ethical rules then become stricter. What all the words on much of this site are about is whether or not there really is a war here. At some point, the answer is “no,” and I think people like Michaeli enrage because they are making that case. The suicide bombers were VERY effective. We have to stop letting them win, for those dead bombers want nothing but conflict and subjugation. I said “we” but that’s wrong, for I am way safe elsewhere. If there is a way out, I believe it is in seeing a five year old child as a five year old child, and a hurt Michaeli as a hurt woman.

            Reply to Comment
    3. Isn’t it significant that this was Magav rather than IDF?

      Reply to Comment
    4. aristeides

      Seeing this story in the mainstream outlets now.

      Reply to Comment
    5. Shmuel

      End the occupation? How???!!!

      To the Palestinian Arabs, there is only one way for the occupation to end. With the demise of the only Jewish nation state in the world and it’s replacement by the 23rd Muslim Arab nation state.

      How do I know? Because they say so themselves. They don’t want to recognise Israel as a Jewish state and they insist on the right of return. I also know history. The Arab people are supremacists and Islam is a supremacist religion. Wherever they went and wherever they rule, people either have to accept Islam and Arab culture or at best they become third class citizens and at worst, they die. It is a fact that Arabs are the most successful cultural supremacists in the history of mankind and little Israel stands in their way. That’s why they hate Israel sooooooo much!

      Reply to Comment
    6. Shmuel

      Actually I don’t hate Islam at all. As long as no one wants to force me to take it up. I am happy for Muslims to be Muslims as long as they let me be a Zionist.

      Reply to Comment
      • Carl

        “Islam is a supremacist religion” yet “I don’t hate Islam at all”? Mate, you need to ditch your values or your logic: something’s badly wrong there.

        Oh, for the sake of clarity, I should point out that there’s two Carls on here. I think I’ll become Carl To from now on.

        Reply to Comment
        • Piotr Berman

          There is no contradiction at all. You may think that “supremacist” implies that it should be hated. Shmuel may think that supremacism is just fine, provided that the practice is in the right hands (his).

          Reply to Comment
    7. Shmuel

      Logic problem? For you guys maybe. Not for me.

      Fact: Islam IS a supremacist religion. They believe in converting people to their faith through coercion if they can’t do it nicely. And they kill apostates, Muslims who convert from Islam to another religion. You don’t believe that is supremacist? OK then, who cares? I am not here to convince you. Speaking of logic, there are plenty of people in the world who easily follow and agree with that logic.

      As for me hating them? Nuh, I don’t have to. I just make sure they can’t practice their supremacism on me.

      By the way, you nicely distorted what I talked about. I talked about Islamist Arabs. Not JUST Islam. And I stand by my claim that there isn’t a single Arab Islamic society that treats its minorities well. If you know one, name one. Put up or shut up.

      Here is a bit of homework for you, read this:


      You don’t think it is scandalous?

      Reply to Comment
      • Carl Too

        Well Shmuel, I think you’ve convinced us all. Upon reading an article about an Israeli activist being shot in the West Bank I immediately thought, “Don’t people know what’s going on in Macdonalds? http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/jul/22/horse-mcdonalds-manchester-woman-fined

        Admittedly, my second thought was “What’s going on in Dubai?”, and my third, “how do you spell ‘whataboutery’?”.

        Now, where was I.

        Reply to Comment
    8. Günter Schenk

      Dear Mairav, how can I provide myself with your MA-thesis, which I am interested in ? Thanks anyway for your writings in +972
      Günter, Strasbourg, France

      Reply to Comment
    9. Shmuel

      Well “Carl too”, I am sorry that you found it hard to read my link about the outrage in Dubai but there was a reason why I found it necessary to mention it. This is how it started:

      – This article is about an activist against the occupation.

      – I then asked how can Israel end the occupation on its own if it is up against Arab Islamic supremacists whose aim is to end the existence of the only Jewish state in the world, despite the existence of 22 Arab Islamic states?

      – Your ideological mate then accused me of hatred of Islam.

      – I then said that I don’t hate Islam as long as it isn’t imposed on me.

      And the rest? Well you know the rest, I won’t repeat it.

      One last thing though. I find it amazing how sensitive you guys are about criticisms against Arab Muslims considering that this site is DEDICETED to the SOLE criticism of Israel and everything Israeli.

      Reply to Comment
    10. I like the term “whataboutery”. I’m sure I read somewhere that it was made up by a womens’ group. It is has a feminine timbre to it. But anyway, the “what about the fact that they want to kill the Jews?” tactic seems to work here, but this is not a balanced forum. All 972 Mag threads can be swamped with impunity by the hasbara trolls whenever they wish. If the writers for 972 Mag were to try to ban hasbara trolls, I believe a sort of implicit agreement on which 972’s apparent freedom depends would be considered breached. The trolls represent, informally, a semi-official Israeli consensus about how far 972 Mag will be allowed to go, in terms of real independence, and the basis of this consensus is that the hasbara trolls can swamp any threads they wish.

      Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        “All 972 Mag threads can be swamped with impunity by the hasbara trolls”


        That’s a bit dramatic isn’t it? Count up the progressive trolls, I believe they outnumber us significantly here. Can’t you stomach a bit of dissent? You are a bit boring aren’t you??

        Reply to Comment
    11. Be that as it may, what about my original question? Doesn’t it make a difference that Sarit was shot by a Magav cop, not by a soldier? They have completely different commands and command structures, and different rules of engagement. On these occasions, are they under joint command, and if they are, do they even know what their rules of engagement are?

      Reply to Comment
    12. Shmuel

      Yes, banning and name calling is a favourite tactic of those who cannot address points made about pet “progressive” ideologies.

      I suspect that people who talk of “Hasbarah trolls” and bannings are people with the same instincts as the leftists who established Gulags.

      Their ideal world would be a totalitarian world in which elites would write leftist hymn books and the masses would sing from them in unison.

      Reply to Comment
    13. Commenters who systematically derail comment threads from their intended subjects are trolls. Commenters who systematically change the subject to one of a very small number of set topics such as that all Muslims are genocidal Jew-killers or that all leftists are Stalinists are hasbara trolls. It’s simple. On the other hand, if some hard right ziobot comes along and dialectically develops the subject of the thread, stage by stage, into a discussion of genocidal Muslims or Stalinist leftists, then that’s not trolling, because at least they started out by addressing the topic. It’s just ziobotism. And none of it answers my question about the magav cops and their rules of engagement, which is precisely the purpose of it, to obstruct answers to such relevant questions.

      Reply to Comment
      • Tzutzik

        “all leftists are Stalinists”

        He didn’t say ALL leftists. He said:

        “I suspect that people who talk of “Hasbarah trolls” and bannings are people with the same instincts as the leftists who established Gulags.”

        Reply to Comment
    14. Shmuel

      I repeat my original question:

      End the occupation? How???!!!

      No takers?

      Reply to Comment
    15. Shmuel

      “… such as that all Muslims are genocidal Jew-killers … ”

      Those are YOUR words Rowan. I never uttered such words or sentiments. So you either have problems with your comprehension, or you are a leftist troll.

      Reply to Comment
    16. A leftist troll, supposing such a thing existed, and it wanted to interfere with sites like this, would do it by posting mind-numbing irrelevances, such as “What about Birobidjhan?”, “What about the Yevsektsia?”, or “Did you know that in 1947 Shmuel Mikunis and Mordechai Oren actually fooled Stalin into thinking an independent Israel would join the Soviet Bloc?” But since I am not a troll, I am sticking to the topic, namely the shooting of Sarit Michaeli.

      Reply to Comment
      • Alan

        I see that Rowan Berkeley is back. A couple of years ago, he vowed never to post on 972 again after being chastised by Lisa Goldman for arguing on her channel that the 9/11 attacks were planned by Jewish interests. Rowan Berkeley is not a progressive; he’s an anti-Semitic blogger.

        Reply to Comment
      • Shmuel

        “A leftist troll, supposing such a thing existed,”

        Oh they exist alright, Rowan. You are one of them.

        Reply to Comment
    17. The expression ‘anti-Semitic’ means whatever you want it to mean. To me it means nothing.

      Reply to Comment
      • Alan

        “The expression ‘anti-Semitic’ means nothing.”

        Which means you don’t recognize the existence of anti-Semitism. Which is understandable for someone who promotes anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. By the way, “progressive” wasn’t my term. I would label you an anti-Semite. But since the term means nothing to you, that seems fitting as well. You are nothing.

        Reply to Comment
        • “…someone who promotes anti-Semitic conspiracy theories…” Now I remember what the argument with Lisa was about. It was, as you say, two years ago or something, and I’d completely forgotten it. I have found no reason to change my views on that topic; it’s a case of “when you have eliminated the impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” But it has absolutely no relevance to the shooting of Sarit Michaeli. You’re implying that everyone who disbelieves the official story of 9/11 is an anti-Semite, and hence should be barred from taking part in any discussion with Jews on any topic whatever. That’s a totalitarian view, but doubtless very useful politically, if you can persuade the sheep to accept it.

          Reply to Comment
          • Alan

            “You’re implying that everyone who disbelieves the official story of 9/11 is an anti-Semite…”

            I’m not implying anything. I’m saying that people like yourself who believe that Jewish interests conspired to bring down the World Trade Center are anti-Semites. I also have no interest in barring anyone from participating in any discussions regarding Jews. You’re the one who vowed never to post again on this site after Lisa Goldman called you out on your anti-Semitism. I’m actually glad to see back; you provide a useful reminder that anti-Semitism is rampant among the Marxist crowd.

            Reply to Comment
    18. And by the way, I never claimed to be a ‘progressive’. I despise ‘progressives’, actually. If I would choose any ideological label, I think it would have to be ‘marxist-syndicalist’. But it doesn’t matter, does it? Pinning ideological labels on people is like the children’s game of pinning the tail on the donkey while blindfolded. Agitate away, Alan, if you wish. Find obscure, out-of-context quotes on the web, either really or supposedly by me, and cite them to support your anathemata. Perhaps you will succeed in banishing me to outer darkness. Who cares?

      Reply to Comment
    19. Shmuel

      Back to the topic, the following sentence appeared in the beginning of this article:

      “documenting the weekly protest in Nabi Saleh, as she has been doing for years.”

      So yes, while the main topic was the shooting, it also mentioned the context of the shooting, namely in the course of her activism against the occupation.

      So let me be clear about it Rowan (conspiracy theorist extraordinaire), while I condemn the shooting, talking about her activism against the occupation, is not off topic.

      Reply to Comment
      • Condemning the shooting means prosecution for the trigger, which I would hope to see.

        Reply to Comment
      • “While the main topic was the shooting, it also mentioned the context of the shooting, namely in the course of her activism against the occupation. Talking about her activism against the occupation, is not off topic.”

        – No, of course not, but you haven’t managed to do that yet. “Activism” is a usefully vague word. What I suspect you’re implying is that she can be accused of inciting stone-throwing, but there is no evidence of this, and no one has even made the effort to find such evidence, or fabricate it, as far as I know. Why bother, when the national audience is so happy to accept mere innuendo?

        Reply to Comment
        • Shmuel

          ” What I suspect you’re implying is that she can be accused of inciting stone-throwing,”

          Have you heard about the straw-man Rowan? That’s what you are using. You build your own straw man and you proceed to knock it down. Good luck with that.

          Now read my lips Rowan. I am genuinely interested to know how the loud activists who yell at Israel to end the occupation. I am really interested to know what they really expect Israel to do about it. Unless of course they expect Israel to vie for the Darwin awards?

          Reply to Comment
          • “Inciting” is the only possible charge connected with her “activism” that could have any legal merit. Unless you want to try “facilitating”. None of this is new, though; I have been thinking of all the vague and tendentious charges that have been thrown at people over the years. During the McCarthy era, being a “sympathiser” was enough. The FBI had one of those ugly acronyms for it, to save time and space in internal memos: “COMSYMP”. Another classic is “fellow-traveller”. I have no idea what if anything this term is supposed to mean, but it’s not my job to define it. The real point was that these people contributed to raising the morale of the “enemy” and lowering the morale of “our own side”. It’s what we would now call a psychological warfare issue. Morale is treated as a weapon. Contributing to the morale of the “other side” is equivalent, for the military mind, to putting arms in their hands.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            You know what Rowan? You should just continue to blow your tune and continue to fight with shadows. I repeat my question though, how do you guys imagine Israel can end it’s occupation which came about because of Arab agression in the first place, if the Arabs are not even inclined to renounce the slogans that led to their agression?

            Yes, your activist was shot. That is sad. But all these years of activism were misguided. At least some of the activism should have been directed at the Palestinian Arabs to show that those who want peace expect them to give up their maximalist demands. And show REAL willingness to come to terms with the existence of a Jewish state.

            Reply to Comment
    20. Click here to load previous comments