+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

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

Hebron shooter's indictment is an exception that proves the rule

When Sgt. Elor Azaria was caught on camera finishing off a wounded Palestinian knifeman and indicted for manslaughter, the IDF said rogue soldiers would always be brought to justice. The case of Bassem Abu Rahme, an unarmed protester who was fatally shot by an unknown soldier in 2009, shows that when given an opportunity to be lenient, the army will seize it. 

By Yesh Din (written by Yossi Gurvitz)

Israeli soldier Elor Azaria, who has been charged with manslaughter for shooting an incapacitated Palestinian stabbing suspect in Hebron, is seen in a military court, March 29, 2016. (Pool photo/AFP)

Israeli soldier Elor Azaria, who has been charged with manslaughter for shooting an incapacitated Palestinian stabbing suspect in Hebron, is seen in a military court, March 29, 2016. (Pool photo/AFP)


On April 17th 2009, Bassem Abu Rahme was demonstrating against the separation wall in his West Bank village, Bil’in. After Israeli troops fired crowd-dispersal weapons and one demonstrator was hit, Abu Rahme shouted at the soldiers and Border Policemen that the person was wounded. Seconds later, a person in Israeli uniform (it is unclear whether he or she was an IDF soldier or a Border Police officer) fired a tear gas canister directly into Abu Rahme’s chest; the wound was fatal, and within hours Abu Rahme succumbed.

Until recently, these were uncontested facts. Even so, almost seven years after his death, no one has been held responsible for Abu Rahme’s death. Seven years of foot-dragging and investigation ducking (read more here and here.)

This is what happens when a member of the security forces shoots an unarmed man — who everyone agrees posed no danger — and the three cameras that documented the event are not aimed directly at the shooter.

We do not know who shot Abu Rahme and what unit he or she belonged to. We do, however, have forensic evidence pointing to where the shooter stood. The IDF carried out a ballistics examination that concluded that “the only possibility of this sort of armament hitting the target is only by direct fire and using a flat angle – no more than three or four degrees.” The examination effectively ruled out the possibility of Abu Rahme being hit by a canister shot according to the IDF’s regulations and hitting him by mistake; even if the canister ricocheted off a fence, it would still be fired directly, in defiance of the regulations.

In 2013, the head of the IDF’s Photo Reconnaissance Unit told the Military Police’s Criminal Investigations Division (MPCID) that direct fire of tear gas canisters is forbidden and that it should hold a lineup to determine where each of the shooters stood. The MPCID has yet to do so.

Last week, Israel’s Supreme Court heard an appeal by Yesh Din and human rights NGO B’Tselem, in which we demanded that the shooter be indicted, or at least that the army indict his commander. The hearing was held ex parte because the prosecution was striking. We suspect that the respondents would have argued that the shooters cannot be identified; what’s more, they would have probably played down the fact that for no less than 15 months, the MPCID and the military prosecution did their utmost to refrain from investigating the case, until being forced to in the wake of our first petition to the High Court of Justice. The government is likely to claim that the canister that hit Abu Rahme’s chest ricocheted off something – and will play down the fact that even if it did, its own ballistic diagnosis ruled that the firing was against the army’s own rules of engagement.

The government is further likely to argue that it has no clue as to whom it should prosecute, hoping the judges will not assign too much importance to the fact that it stifled the investigation for years. Our demand is simple: even if there is no chance to indict the shooters themselves, and we contend this claim since the MPCID’s failure to investigate rendered the case no longer investigable, the commanders should still bear responsibility.

So far, none of this has happened. The justices decided to rescind the petition, since, in the wake of the Turkel Commission report, a decision of the military prosecution can be appealed to the Attorney General – a provision that did not exist when we first submitted our appeal. Justice, it seems, will have to wait.

Unarmed, Abu Rahme posed a danger to no-one. It is important to emphasize this fact time and again. He was protesting an injustice in his village – an injustice recognized as such by the High Court of Justice itself. And yet, an Israeli security officer, perhaps more than one, fired at a demonstrator in a life-threatening manner and caused his death. We note that one of the suspects said in his interrogation that he never received proper training with the weapon he was using. The commanders of these warriors, who are responsible for their actions, continue to dodge their responsibility to this day.

Last month’s murder of a Palestinian by an Israeli soldier in Hebron, which was caught on camera, has been labeled exceptional, unrepresentative, and isolated by all. Every person of conscience should wonder whether this is so; whether the decisive statement in the case was not made of by Chief of Staff Gadi Eizenkot, but rather by Prime Minister Netanyahu, who phoned the shooter’s father and told him (Hebrew) to “trust the IDF investigation.”

What ought an Israeli security officer to understand from the prime minister’s remarks? A reasonable interpretation would be: “Don’t worry, our investigation will find you acted properly.” This, after all, is the unwritten contract between the government and its soldiers: We send you to do the dirty work of oppressing a civilian population, and in return we will turn a blind eye if you sometimes overstep the mark – unless you are caught red-handed, that is. Let the investigation charade begin.

Yesh Din is a volunteer organization working to defend the human rights of the Palestinian civilian population under Israeli occupation.

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. Ben

      Remember the countless right wing protestations on these comment pages to the effect that “‘They’ celebrate murderers and demand their release, while ‘we’ prosecute murderers and view them as criminals”? Remember that comfortable occupier’s logic? Remember the disdain? Remember that “‘we’ are better than ‘them'” conceit? The case of Elor Azaria utterly refutes this supremacist hasbara. Large segments of the Israeli public loudly demand Azaria’s release and call him a hero. He was given a weekend pass from prison for the holiday and given a hero’s welcome, smothered with affection, born along on the shoulders of a cheering crowd. And is the army any different from the crowd? Large segments of “the most moral army,” including its officer class, openly disagree with their Chief of Staff and want Azaria summarily released and exonerated. So now that the pretense is dispelled about how Israelis would act any better than Palestinians under the pressure of occupation, it’s time to give up the occupying overlord’s superiority complex and the entitlement. It’s long since past time to give up the notion that the land, including “united” Jerusalem, does not have to be shared (as in the two state solution, the parameters of which are well known).

      Reply to Comment