Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support.

Click here to help us keep going

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

Video shows Israeli officer not in danger when he shot Palestinian teen

Instead of driving away in his military jeep after a stone was hurled at his windshield, the Israeli regional brigade commander chose to stop, chase Mohamed Kasbeh and shoot him three times.

Just over a week after the widely publicized shooting death of a 17-year-old Palestinian boy by a senior Israeli army officer, Israeli human rights NGO B’Tselem released CCTV footage of the incident. It appears to support eyewitness claims that the life of the officer, Col. Yisrael Shomer, was not in danger, which runs contrary to his claim.

According to the video, Mohamed Kasbeh did indeed throw a stone at the windshield of the armored military vehicle. But then he ran away. The officer, rather than driving away from the scene, stopped the vehicle, got out and chased the fleeing boy. The actual shooting took place outside the frame of the video.


Click here for a longer, unedited version of the video.

As Peter Beaumont explains in his thorough report of the incident for the Guardian, no one disputes that Kasbeh threw a stone at the windshield of an Israeli military vehicle near Qalandiya crossing, adjacent to Ramallah, early in the morning on July 3. The controversy is over whether or not Kasbeh presented an imminent danger to the soldiers when he was shot.

Colonel Shomer claimed he shot Kasbeh in order to save his own life. His account is supported by Naftali Bennett, the head of the Jewish Home Party, who is the current education minister. But Beaumont and B’Tselem interviewed several eyewitnesses, who said that Shomer shot Kasbeh in the back as he was running away.  The physician who treated Kasbeh confirmed that the fatal bullet entered the boy’s back. Beaumont writes that the medical report, which he obtained, supports the physician’s conclusion.

And now we have the video which, while it does not show the actual shooting, does prove that the boy ran away as soon as he threw the rock. Shomer, instead of driving away in his vehicle, chose to stop, chase the boy and shoot him in the back. Then, according to eyewitnesses, the officer prodded the dead boy with his boot and left the scene without calling for medical help. So it appears to be murder, and callous indifference. And, of course, lying.

This incident has been widely publicized because Shomer has such a high military rank — he is the officer in charge of the Jerusalem regional brigade — and because Kasbeh lost two brothers, aged 11 and 15, during the Second Intifada. But in general, incidents of soldiers beating or killing Palestinians who present little or no threat are common.  Sometimes, these incidents are recorded on video or in still images. A soldier deliberately shooting a blindfolded, handcuffed Palestinian in the foot. Or a sniper shooting an unarmed boy from a roof. A soldier opening the back door of his armored vehicle to shoot a high velocity tear gas canister into the face of a protestor. A scrum of soldiers from the Kfir Brigade beating senseless an unarmed, middle aged man after they’d already restrained him. The list is very long.

Read also: License to Kill — how soldiers get away with murder

Almost invariably, these incidents end with the army investigating and exonerating itself, or perhaps sentencing one or two perpetrators to a month in military prison or even time served — while a soldier who criticizes the army is sentenced to a week in jail, even though he was off duty when he expressed said opinion.

There is no reason to expect this incident will end differently. It’s not as though Kasbeh’s family can pursue a case against Shomer in civil court. They are not citizens of Israel. They are residents of territory under Israel’s military occupation.

A man with a gun was driving in a military vehicle when a boy threw a stone that hit his windshield. The man in the vehicle was not injured, but he was very angry. And he was armed not only with a gun, but with the sense of power and entitlement that comes from being a lord of the land. So he chased and shot the boy, because he lost his temper. And because he could.

Newsletter banner

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
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. Ginger Eis

      Rules Of Engagement: Deadly Force

      1. Adele Biton was just FOUR years old when she was murdered by stone throwers. While she and her two other siblings traveled in a car with their mother, Palestinians Arabs ambushed them and pelted their car with rocks. Adele was severely injured and permanently disabled. She died later of illness caused by her injuries. If Adele’s mum was armed and prepared for the possibility that she and her children would be ambushed and killed, little Adele could be alive today, because her mother would have protected her by killing the terrorists.

      2. Asher Palmer and his infant son are, among several others, another victim of murders by Palestinian Arab stone throwers. As Asher Palmer traveled on the high way with his infant son, Jonathan, they were ambushed by Arabs who pelted their car with rocks causing the car to crash and crushing both father and son to death.

      3. Palestinian Arabs organize Palestinian juveniles and send them to ambush, maim and if possible murder innocent civilians who are not Arabs. Sometimes the set up road-blocks to slow their unsuspecting victims down and then commence with the lynching. While the juveniles are murdering their unsuspecting victims, grown Arab males are there present with their cameras and filming the lynch. Here is an example of the reality of stone throwing and how some of the stone throwers end up dead.

      Watch. And Weep!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUg_xil97dU

      4. In ALL Western countries, deadly force is allowed if (a) necessary to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect and (b) the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. See SCOTUS: Tennessee v. Garner (1985), pp. 7-22.

      ACCORDINGLY,

      a. The mere fact that a suspect in this case was fleeing the crime scene is not reason not to use deadly force against him. The fact that the suspect (1) is a stone thrower (2) actually attempted to kill or cause crippling bodily injury to the victim who shot and killed him makes him (3) a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer and others that must be neutralized – even using deadly force.

      Beyond that;

      b. The video clip embedded in this article does not show the moment of the shooting and happened in those moments, while reports from the family and friends of the suspect and the Palestinians say that the suspect was shot in the face, etc.

      The case Ms. Goldman tries to make – fails.

      End Of Story!

      Reply to Comment
      • Throwing a rock at a moving vehicle augments its relative velocity, so impact and threat. Running after the thrower thereafter removes that higher threat, unless one has reason to suspect a gun as well. Tennessee v. Garner said that fleeing in itself does not admit guilt, that the State cannot take the right of trial by jury away through maiming or killing absent immediate threat to police or others. If you want to use the US standard of Tennessee, all hinges on the presumed threat of the running boy, which requires inference of a gun or bomb on his person. In the US, that would be a matter for an independent prosecutor and jury, if indicted, to decide. It is not that he might later pick up a rock and do it somewhere else, but that at the time of pursuit there was no such threat. As a fanciful case, if I thought someone had a deadly bacterium at his home, it would not license my shooting him while fleeing, for that threat is not present at the moment. One can always conjecture later threats to erase Tennessee in its entirety.

        That agents of the State left the scene does not help their case. Police must remain present after a shooting, unless other threats clearly force them to move; there is no evidence of such in this account. That departure, with no one in the car apparently physically harmed, acts as evidence against an inference of continued threat of the boy/young man while fleeing, for it calls into general question the judgment of the officers. At minimum, the fleeing agents should be subject to disciplinary action for leaving the scene before fresh eyes could evaluate what had happened, debriefing them at location. It does matter THAT they were pure; what matters is that fleeing the scene potentially destroys evidence in the general case.

        You confuse threat while driving in the car with threat thereafter. If someone lunges at police with a knife, losing it thereby, then runs, shooting from behind would not be compatible with Tennessee. Yes, this can be a difficult standard in the field, and there is sometimes ambiguity favoring the officer. But an officer is not identical to a military senior command. Police officers do not have the degree of immunity which has evolved in the West Bank. Moreover, you do not see the occupation as a policing but rather an ongoing slow motion war. Tennessee would then not apply; in fact, in a war theater, the US Supreme Court would be very hesitant to intervene. An enemy combatant is always a threat, the actual identifying trigger just revealing his true state. He then becomes a walking threat. And that is a war zone.

        Reply to Comment
        • Elisabeth

          Greg (and others), why stay on here and waste your time discussing with people who have no quality? The comment section of 972mag is infested with the lowest of the low: Truly racist, sexist and violent scum. People who are no worth engaging. It is depressing and makes you lose faith in humanity to hang around here. If there was any meaningful exchange here I would say: Go ahead, try to get some human decency into these folks, but it is useless.

          In a way you are providing amusement for them: Providing these lowlifes with a toy.

          Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, Right

        Once the soldier stops the vehicle and steps out then the “threat” of being killed by a stone that is thrown at his moving car is removed, is it not?

        So the point at which that soldier stepped out of that jeep is the exact moment when – according to your own logic – he became legally obliged not to shoot at that stone-thrower.

        You really are so full of s**t Ginger.

        Reply to Comment
        • Hercules

          In Tennessee v. Garner, the Supreme Court Of The United State laid down the conditions under which a *fleeing* suspect might be shot. Apparently a *fleeing* suspect may be shot under certain conditions – which presupposes that the threat is not gone “the point at which that soldier stepped out of that jeep”.

          Got that, donkey-head? Apparently posting sexual messages to Ginger on the other threads has so far failed and now this confused donkey-head called “yeahright” has resorted to posting insults to the same person, while ranting and rambling.

          Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Thank you for the laugh, Gustav.

            Gustav: “Apparently a *fleeing* suspect may be shot under certain conditions”

            And those “certain conditions” are, apparently, never to be mentioned…..

            How odd.

            It almost makes one think that neither of these two clowns have actually read that case.

            The “certain conditions” are these: the fleeing suspect must still represent a deadly threat to the officer who is attempting to apprehend him, and in the case of Tennessee v. Garner “Hymon had no reason to believe that Garner was armed or dangerous”.

            Gustav: “which presupposes that the threat is not gone “the point at which that soldier stepped out of that jeep”. ”

            No, it doesn’t presuppose that at all, and to make that presupposition is to turn Tennessee v. Garner on its head.

            The issue in that case is that a police officer shot and killed a fleeing suspect merely because the officer knew that unless he opened fire then the suspect would have escaped i.e. the reason why that police officer opened fire was *not* because that person still represented a threat that justified the use of deadly force.

            In the case **here** the soldier had absolutely no reason to believe that the individual who had thrown a rock through his car window was still toting a sack full of rocks as he fled the scene.

            After all, would you carry a heavy rock on your person whilst attempting to flee from an armed and clearly-homicidal person? Or would you drop anything and everything that would slow you down and, therefore, get you killed?

            So the moment that officer stepped out of the car and saw that individual running away like a jackrabbit was, indeed, the moment that Tennessee v. Garner says that the officer had no reasonable excuse to open fire, precisely because it would require him to make an Unreasonable supposition i.e. that the suspect would attempt to flee for his life *whilst* still toting a sack full of rocks.

            Honestly, there is so much ignorant s**t being thrown about here.

            Gustav: “Apparently posting sexual messages to Ginger on the other threads”….

            Hahahahahahahahah!!! Oh, my, oh my….

            Reply to Comment
      • Ben

        In no way was that boy a threat to the senior army officer or anyone else at or near the moment the senior army officer shot the fleeing boy in the back. By the standards of even the wild west that is murder. I concur with the summary conclusion of Y. Right.

        Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, Right

        It is important to stress that Ginger completely misrepresents Tennessee v Garner, which was a court case that imposed severe limits on the shooting of fleeing suspects by law enforcement officers.

        Tennessee law in 1974 stated that a police officer can shout “Stop, or I’ll shoot!” and if the suspect then attempts to flee then the police officer can shoot him.

        And (this is the important point) that authority to shoot holds true irrespective of the threat that is posed to the officer by the fleeing suspect i.e. it is sufficient for the officer to believe that if he *doesn’t* shoot then The Suspect Is Going To Get Away, in which case…. he can shoot.

        Not so, said the Supreme Court.

        Taking a suspect into police custody is “seizure”, and effecting that by means of shooting the suspect stone-cold dead is simply the most extreme form of seizure. Therefore the reasons for wanting to effect that seizure must also be extreme i.e. the officer must reasonably be of the opinion that the suspect still represents a deadly threat even as he is fleeing.

        Or, put another way: the officer can only shoot if he has reason to believe that *not* shooting exposes either himself or the public to deadly danger.

        Now, run that ruler over this case:
        Q: Did that officer have any reason to believe that the fleeing suspect *still* represented a deadly danger to himself?
        A: No, that’s totally unreasonable.

        Q: Did that officer have any reason to believe a suspect would *still* be carrying rocks as he fled?
        A: No, that’s totally unreasonable.

        Q: Did that officer have any reason to believe that the fleeing suspect will harm anyone else as he is fleeing?
        A: No, that’s totally unreasonable.

        Therefore according to Tennessee v. Garner it is totally unreasonable for this officer to shoot that fleeing suspect, precisely because that fleeing suspect no more represented a deadly threat than did suspect Garner as he fled from Tennessee Police Officer Hymon.

        Reply to Comment
        • Hercules

          Re-read Ginger’s post, donkey-head, and stop misrepresenting folks. The post you reference is up-thread and there for everyone to read for himself. What you claim Ginger said, I did not read in that post. I have read Tennessee vs Garner over and over again and I don’t see how it contradicts the post you are responding to. Both Ginger and Bar’s posts are very careful to point out what the CCTV clip does not contain. You on the other hand make assumptions and confuse your assumption with facts and start rambling and making false claims and render your response unresponsive.

          Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “The post you reference is up-thread and there for everyone to read for himself.”

            Let’s do that, shall we?

            Ginger: “In ALL Western countries, deadly force is allowed if (a) necessary to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect and (b) the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”

            The key word is the word *AND*.

            As in: (a) alone is not sufficient. (b) alone is not sufficient.

            Both (a) **AND** (b) must be true before the shooting of a fleeing suspect is reasonable.

            Now, let’s read on……

            Ginger: “The mere fact that a suspect in this case was fleeing the crime scene is not reason not to use deadly force against him.”

            Note the use of the double-negative (…”not reason not to”…).

            It is very easy to see why Ginger is reduced to using double-negatives i.e. what Tennessee v. Garner really means is that the mere fact that a suspect is fleeing is not a reason to use deadly force against him.

            Or, in short: (a) alone is not sufficient.

            Let’s continue on….

            Ginger: “The fact that the suspect (1) is a stone thrower (2) actually attempted to kill or cause crippling bodily injury to the victim who shot and killed him makes him (3) a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer and others that must be neutralized ”

            That is, of course, utter and complete nonsense.

            A person has a rock in his hand.
            He throws that rock.
            He then turns and flees.

            Q: Is that person a “significant threat of death or serious physical injury” at the time that he turned and fled?
            A: No.

            Q: Why not?
            A: He no longer has the rock, stupid. It’s now in that car, far beyond his reach.

            So not only didn’t he cause any death or serious physical injury but the very fact – the indisputable fact – that his one and only “weapon” (i.e. the rock)is now in the possession of those cops means that… he now poses no threat whatsoever to those officers.

            Here, a simple hypothetical that illustrates this clearly:
            a) A police car drives thru an intersection.
            b) A Disaffected Youth rushes out and throws a rock through the windscreen
            c) The (unhurt) cop steps out and confronts that rock-thrower
            d) That (now ex-)rock-thrower just stands there, not moving an inch.

            Question: Does this cop have the “right” to shoot that youth?
            Answer: No. He can (and should) arrest that youth, but he has no reason to shoot that youth.

            What Tennessee v Garner says is that if the Youth suddenly panics and sprints away from that officer then THAT ACT ALONE does not give the officer any more right to shoot.

            Or, in short: if the cop has no reason to shoot a suspect then he is not allowed to start shooting merely because the suspect attempts to flee, precisely because the action of HIM FLEEING makes that suspect no more of a threat than does the inaction of HIM JUST STANDING THERE.

            Got that, dumbass?

            Reply to Comment
    2. Bruce Gould

      http://www.btselem.org/firearms/20150628_firing_live_ammunition_at_demonstrators

      “In the last few months, B’Tselem has documented dozens of cases in the Ramallah area of the West Bank in which Palestinians were injured, some severely, by live ammunition fired by Israeli security forces. In most cases, it appears that the ammunition used was 0.22 inch caliber bullets…”

      Maybe if Netanyahu would allow a Palestinian radio station so they can communicate their frustrations peacefully there would be less stone throwing…

      Reply to Comment
    3. bar

      Has B’Tzelem released the entire uncut video? I’m asking because there are a number of lies that were told newspapers by “witnesses.” For example, Haaretz reported that there was a traffic jam. Clearly there wasn’t. Other outlets reported the young man was on his way to prayers. Obviously he wasn’t.

      The video does not show how many cars he and his friends attacked and for how long. It does show a very severe attack on this vehicle, one that must have come as quite the shock to the officer and his driver and must have seemed quite threatening. The video also doesn’t show the shooting itself or whether the young man turned as he was running and hurled any other stones at the officer.

      It seems to me that attacking soldiers is a very bad idea. If this officer used unnecessary violence, he should be punished in some way. However, let’s not ignore what happened here: a young man aggressively and violently attacked a military vehicle with intent to harm.

      Reply to Comment
    4. Pedro X

      Attacking a police vehicle with a brick, endangering the occupants’ lives, made me wonder if this young man had a death wish. He did as this Palestinian video in honor of his martyrdom proudly points out. His mother began indoctrinating her son in vitro.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIsWv8onsz4

      Reply to Comment
    5. Pedro X

      Of course, Lisa, leaves out the commander’s reasons why he shot the perp. Algemeiner reports:

      “The soldiers responded exactly as army protocol, and common sense, dictate. They jumped out of the car and pursued the terrorist and his comrades. The terrorist, with an object in his hand, turned to confront the brigade commander, IDF Col. Yisrael Shomer, who shot and killed him.”

      It would appear that the terrorist got exactly what he deserved. Why do Palestinian supporters believe that terrorists should be given an opportunity to attempt to injure or kill Israelis and escape to do it again. Attorney Stephen M. Flatow addresses this question:

      http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/07/13/do-terrorists-get-one-free-shot-at-israeli-soldiers/

      Reply to Comment
      • Ben

        Well for one thing the officer ran down and shot the fleeing kid in the back. Oops. Eyewitness testimonies and the forensic evidence contradicts the Allgemeiner’s fiction. The officer ran down and slew the kid. That is murder. I’m always amused at the “highly edited” defense. BTW, why is what they do to Israeli occupiers “terrorism” but what Israeli occupiers do to them is not “terrorism”? There is no logic to that.

        Reply to Comment
        • Hercules

          Eyewitnesses also repot that the 17yrs kid was shot in the face. And, amazingly, you do not ever condemn those stoning innocent people to death just because they are Jews. But anytime a stone thrower meets his death, you come here ranting about how he was shot in the back by his would-be victims. For you, it is not about human rights, but your irrational fixation on- and obsession with Jews and Israel.

          And Oh, BTW

          Terrorism is …. well, look it up yourself and you will see the logic in that.

          Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Eyewitnesses also repot that the 17yrs kid was shot in the face.”

            Oh, I’ve seen the video of him lying on the ground, and it’s very clear that he has been shot in the face.

            Which – when you think about it (you obviously haven’t) – is the traditional method of delivering the coup d’ grace to someone you’ve just put down by shooting them in the back.

            One in the chest too, I understand, which is the other place you pump the bullets into once the victim has been brought down.

            So, one to the back to bring him down. One to the face to ensure the kill. And one to the chest for giggles.

            Which will still leave a few in the cylinder just in case someone else pisses him off on the way back to the squad car…..

            A Most Methodical Man, that Colonel.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “Terrorism is …. well, look it up yourself and you will see the logic in that.”

            Hmmm. Odd that, since Gustav avoids the thorny question of what actually constitutes “terrorism”.

            Apparently it means whatever Gustav wants it to mean.

            Here is an Officer of the Law.
            Here is the vehicle he is travelling in.
            There is a Disaffected Youth, and he has a brick in his hand.

            Watch that disaffected youth throw that brick through the windscreen of the vehicle of an Officer of the Law.

            Question: Would you call that “terrorism”?
            Answer: No, it’s pretty common occurrence in civil disturbances, riots, whatever.

            Question: A serious crime?
            Answer: Oh, yeah, sure.

            But it’s not “terrorism”, unless you want to make the rather ludicrous claim that Law Enforcement Officers are “terrorised” at the thought of a kid with a brick in his hand.

            Honestly, the amount of self-delusion emanating from Hasbara-land is getting to be quite breathtaking in its stupidity.

            Reply to Comment
          • Hercules

            “Gustav: “Eyewitnesses also repot that the 17yrs kid was shot in the face.”

            Oh, I’ve seen the video of him lying on the ground, and it’s very clear that he has been shot in the face. Which – when you think about it (you obviously haven’t) – is the traditional method of delivering the coup d’ grace to someone you’ve just put down by shooting them in the back. One in the chest too, I understand, which is the other place you pump the bullets into once the victim has been brought down.”

            And right there you have “yeahright” confirming that his poor “innocent” victim was indeed shot in an angle that defeats his argument that the suspect was fleeing and shot in the back. YOU “yeahright” are the ultimate donkey-brain!

            Btw

            You are still rambling, ranting and saying nothing about terrorism. And, I am not Gustav. Get that thru your thick skull.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “And right there you have “yeahright” confirming that his poor “innocent” victim was indeed shot in an angle that defeats his argument that the suspect was fleeing and shot in the back.”

            Oh, please, are you really that stupid?

            I said that the correct method for dealing out summary execution is:
            a) One bullet to the back of the fleeing suspect, which brings him down
            b) The executioner can then walk up to the (now prostrate) suspect and shoot him in the face to “confirm” the kill.
            c) And, heck, why not one to the chest as well.. you know.. just in case.

            Standard. Operating. Procedure.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Chilling!!!

            Read the expertise exhibited by [Yeah Right] about how to execute a human being. He acts as if he himself undertakes this task routinely.

            In reality though, he is just a loud mouth internet warrior, a legend in his own mind. Albeit with the tendencies of a psychopath.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Incidentally, my above post was my 2nd post on this thread. And this is my third…

            Reply to Comment
        • Pedro X

          Forensic evidence? There was no autopsy performed by the Palestinians even though they said he was shot in the back. Of course, other Palestinians say he was shot in the face. Other Palestinians said he was climbing a wall when shot. There is no credible evidence which contradicts the evidence of the commander.

          Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            “The physician who treated Kasbeh confirmed that the fatal bullet entered the boy’s back. Beaumont wrote that the medical report, which he obtained, supports the physician’s conclusion.”

            So the officer shot the kid in the face because the kid was “confronting him” and then turned him over and shot him in the back? And then walked away without summoning any assistance and without protecting that crime scene that supposedly exonerates the officer? In contradiction to several eyewitness testimonies. Sure. I’ll buy that. What I suspect you’re really trying to do here is find more palatable excuses for something that you don’t really want to quite come out and say: that you think the officer had every right to execute that kid on the spot for having the effrontery to throw a rock at the jeep of a senior army officer. Because that officer is a lord of the land.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ben: “you don’t really want to quite come out and say: that you think the officer had every right to execute that kid on the spot for having the effrontery to throw a rock at the jeep of a senior army officer.”

            Well, let’s be honest here: Pedro did say this….
            PX: “It would appear that the terrorist got exactly what he deserved.”

            He threw a rock at one of his Overlords, ergo, he got exactly what he deserved: summary execution.

            Reply to Comment
          • Pedro X

            Ben says the physician who treated him said the fatal bullet entered through the back. Yet Maan News reported on July 3, 2015 that:

            “Al-Kasbah died when he was shot with two bullets in the head and chest after allegedly throwing stones at an Israeli military vehicle close to the Qalandiya checkpoint south of Ramallah, medics told Ma’an following reports of his death.”

            So the medics on the scene said nothing about a back wound. A chest wound would suggests that the perp was facing the commander as the commander stated. This young man told everyone he wanted to be a martyr and he got his wish.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Ben didn’t say it. Peter Beaumont reported it. Somebody has a lot of explaining to do about (1) The trajectories and angles of entry of those bullets, (2) the fact that the officer fired at the upper not lower body, (3) the fact that the officer left the scene without assisting or summoning assistance for the downed kid and without securing the crimes scene evidence, (4) the multiple eyewitness accounts, from independent sources, independently obtained, that contradict the officer’s account and that are consistent with the multiple eyewitness accounts.

            http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/08/palestinian-teenager-shot-back-senior-israeli-soldier-mohammed-kasbeh

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            correction: consistent with the medical evidence.

            Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, Right

        PX: “The terrorist, with an object in his hand, turned to confront the brigade commander, IDF Col. Yisrael Shomer, who shot and killed him”

        That object is therefore evidence and (obviously) since the youth who was in possession of that object was shot dead by Col Shomer then he – quite naturally, standard procedure ‘n’ all – came into possession of that Very Material Piece Of Evidence.

        Correct, Pedro?

        Or are you really going to pretend that this “terrorist” was shot in the back while “confronting” Shomer (and how does that work, exactly?) by waving Something Dastardly at him, and after shooting him in the back while facing him then Shomer just… decided…. that it was a good idea to leave that Dastardly Weapon lying there on the ground before casually walking back to his car and driving away from the scene.

        Correct, Pedro?

        Honestly, you can’t really believe that fairy-tale, can you?

        Reply to Comment
    6. The Times of Israel of July 14, 2015 reports on this case, saying in its final paragraphs,

      ‘After the incident, Central Command chief Maj. Gen. Roni Numa arrived at the scene, and after initial questioning of those involved said the brigade commander had acted as expected in incidents of this type.

      “I give my full backing to the brigade commander and support his handling of this situation where the troops were in clear and present danger,” he said.

      The Military Police Investigations Unit then opened an investigation into the incident’

      So you have the Central Command chief Major General publically stating that the trigger finger is innocent of any malfeasance just as the Military Police Investigation unit begins its work. Normally, Command, military or governmental, remains silent until inquiry is completed. The Major General has tainted the investigation by declaring his preference, publically, to underlings tasked with the investigation.

      When the State maims or kills it subverts the due process of justice. That the agent on the ground defines the attacked as a suspect in itself cannot legitimize the attack; for, if so, no trial would ever be necessary. The reason why an “extreme seizure” requires a higher standard is that such a seizure is irreversible; as said, it usurps the power of a trial.

      In the present case, once the military car stopped, the military personnel exiting, seeing the youth running away, any motivation for extreme seizure ended. The boy was shot from behind and the shooter left without feeling obligated to await debriefing on the scene, another indicator of a caviler attitude toward the regulation of force.

      What the youth did was wrong. What the brigade commander did was worse, for he had a far superior weapon to the youth’s with exact result.

      None of these conclusions are difficult. Yet we see above attempts to what if the event away. The reality is that Palestinians in this area are lawless. By this I mean not that they are all criminal, but rather that they cannot assume they are protectively clothed in the law. Nor can they make law in political process. Nor can they ever be in a position to judge those controlling them on the ground. They are lawless. And so some become lawless in another sense.

      This piece reports that the dead suspect “lost two brothers, aged 11 and 15, during the Second Intifada.” He, at 17, went berserk with anger, resentment, spite, even hatred. But Palestinians are never subject to causes. They just do things for what they inherently are. They hate, for no reason. So they must be taken out for immediate protection and lesson to others.

      The above thread is replete with excuses for the trigger finger, all amounting to confrontation of race against race.

      This is what you have become.

      Reply to Comment
    7. Hercules

      For the record

      +972 moderators/Lisa Goldman are playing their dirty games ones again of allowing only the comments of their foreign supports! Most of my comments from yesterday and all of my comments from today are still in limbo.

      Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, Right

        *chortle*

        Damn that bullshit detector, heh?

        Reply to Comment
      • Ben

        “playing their dirty games ones again”

        As clear a case of projection as ever there was

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          Poor old [Yeah Right] he has gone demented again. He keeps on calling my name on this thread, even though this is my first post here. Sooooo

          Would one buy a used car from this man who calls himself by the dubious name of [Yeah Right]?

          …before one is tempted to say ‘yes’, looky here on the following thread. He outs himself as a man who doesn’t even own up to words which he himself uttered…

          http://972mag.com/occupation-is-the-problem-not-the-people-talking-about-it/107897/

          [Yeah Right]:”I will now point out to you that I have never once used the word “legit” in this oh-so-tedious thread.”

          Oh dear. Now he is in denial.

          So tell me, sunshine, who posted the following words earlier on this thread, in response to Pedro’s post?….

          [Yeah Right]:”Because – du’oh! – the acquisition of territory by war was perfectly legit Way Back Then…”

          Yep, it was little old you, you little rascal. Don’t be bashful… Own up for once in your miserable life!!!

          Reply to Comment
    8. Electric Avenue

      This is all,healthy debate. Bravo to the participants and the freedom that allows such engagement.

      I wonder if we can look forward to the near-term reflection of Palestinians regarding the hundreds of not thousands of Dylan Roof’s that their community and culture have produced.

      Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, Right

        EA: “I wonder if we can look forward to the near-term reflection of Palestinians regarding the hundreds of not thousands of Dylan Roof’s that their community and culture have produced.”

        I wonder how “forward looking” the French are, and how much they “reflect upon” the way in which “their culture” produced thousands of Frenchmen who indulged in sabotage, violence, assassination, and the summary execution of collaborators.

        And all with the quiet – and sometimes not-so-quiet – approval of “the French community”

        Mind you, that “cultural thing” did seem to be restricted to a particular point in time, and provoked by a most peculiar set of circumstances.

        I believe they even coined a name for it: “the occupation”.

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          [Yeah Right]:”I believe they even coined a name for it: “the occupation”

          Seeing that you chose to constantly invoke my name in vain on this thread, [Yeah Right], you won’t mind if I will quote what you said on the following thread, would ya, [Yeah Right]? … You know that dreadful thread wherd you made such a fool of yourself? Where you even denied your own words?

          …this little thread…

          http://972mag.com/occupation-is-the-problem-not-the-people-talking-about-it/107897/

          …this is what you said…

          [Yeah Right]:”There is nothing illegal about a “belligerent occupation”, Gustav”

          …sooooooooo, given all that, care to tell us what have you got against “the occupation”, sunshine?

          Reply to Comment
        • Electric Avenue

          Terrible analogy.

          There were no accounts I ever saw about French Resistance going into Germany and slaughtering non-combatants. People praying in church or children in kindergartens for example. Here is where Palistinians, like Dylan Roof, excel.

          French Resistance actions were militarily activated. Dylan Roof was political. Palistinian Dylan Roofs are and were politically and religiously motivated. In fact, Palistinian Dylan Roofs were in action long before the occupation. In fact, they want to go further than ending the occupation. So, you have some ‘splainin to do.

          Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            EA: “Here is where Palistinians, like Dylan Roof, excel. ”

            Remind me again: who was driving the car when Mohamed Kasbeh threw a brick into its windscreen?

            The analogy is apt: this act was an act of violence directed against a soldier of an army of occupation.

            The retaliation to that act of resistance was also analogous: summary execution.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            This is the type of logic which YR employs…

            He finds a bunch of left handed people and he makes the assertion that most people are left handed.

            Similarily, he points at a few attcks by Palestinians against the IDF and YR tries to claim that the resistance by Palestinians is analogous to the French Resistance against the German military in WW2.

            What YR forgets to mention is that unlike the French Resistance, Palestinian Arabs also perpetrate a myriad of Dylan Roof type atrocities against Israeli civilians.

            Soooooo, to claim that Palestinian resistance to the occupation is no different to French Resistance to the German Military during WW2 is in fact analogous to claiming that most people are left handed.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Hands up everyone else who notices that while the hasbarah bots will repeat Dylann Roof’s name ad-nauseam (Roof is white, after all), the name of Mohamed Kasbeh appears to be unable to pass their lips.

            I can only conclude that they consider the Palestinians to be so untermensch that they are undeserving of individual acknowledgement as human beings, even though a white man like Roof is deserving of that courtesy.

            Here, let me help you get over your phobia: a Palestinian called Mohamed Kasbeh was executed by an IDF soldier called Yisrael Shomer just over a week ago. Discuss.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Hands up anyone who noticed the sleight of hand which YR is attempting to pull…

            EA mentioned the very relevant fact that not withstanding this particular incident, the context of the situation is that the Palestinian Arabs have been perpetrating lotsa Dylan Roof type atrocities against Israeli civilians.

            YR then invoked the French Resistance and tried to pretend that the Palestinian Arab Resistance to occupation is the same.

            EA then rightly pointed out that it is a bad analogy because the Palestinian Arabs, unlike the French Resistance, is routinely targeting civilians.

            YR then tried to pull his sleight of hand. He mentioned that THIS PARTICULAR incident involved a Palestinian youth who attacked a military target for which he paid with his life. YR tried to pretend that therefore, the overall resistance by the Palestinians is no different than the French resistance.

            I then reminded YR that his logic is skewed. Just because he can point to a sample of left handed people, he cannot dedduce from it that most people are left handed. Similarily, just because he can point to a few incidents in which Palestinians attack the IDF, he cannot pretend to ignore the myriad of incidents in which Palestinians attacked Israeli civilians. Unlike the French resistance which targeted mostly the German military.

            Now, YR is trying to reset the conversation. Typical.

            Reply to Comment
          • Electric Avenue

            Hi YR,
            Thereis nothing about Mohamed Kasbeh that I know of that likens him to Dylan Roof. Mr Kashbesh’s actions were not part of my calculus when I created the posting that you responded to. Let’s put the Kabosh on that idea.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Your calculus when you created your post about Dylan Roof was to introduce a cheap, mindless, distracting, emotionally-laden irrelevancy in order to smear an entire people. Pure propaganda. The fact is, the closest analogue in Israel-Palestine to the mentality of Dylan Roof is the mentality of Lehava:

            Dylan Roof: “You rape our women, and you’re taking over our country, and you have to go.”

            Lehava:

            http://imeu.org/article/lehava-state-sponsored-incitement

            In recent weeks, numerous requests, including from the Israeli police, have been made to Israel’s Attorney General to launch a criminal investigation into a group called Lehava, which is dedicated to preventing Jews, particularly Jewish women, from mixing with Palestinians and other non-Jews. The requests come in the wake of a series of violent assaults carried out against Palestinians by Israeli Jews fueled by rumors or the mistaken belief that Jewish women had been harassed by Palestinian men. So far, Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein has failed to take any action against Lehava, which receives indirect financial and political support from the government.

            In the most high-profile case, in mid-August several Palestinian teenagers were attacked and one of them severely beaten by a group of young Israeli Jews in Jerusalem in what witnesses and police described as a “lynching.” According to police, the attack took place after a Jewish girl claimed she had been raped by an Arab man a few weeks earlier, prompting her friends to roam the neighborhood looking for Palestinian men to assault. Just last week, another Palestinian man was beaten and had his leg broken by a group of Jewish teens as he attempted to help a Jewish female friend who had been drinking get home safely. Five Jewish teenagers were arrested, one of whom claimed that he acted because “the Arab was exploiting a Jewish girl.”

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            AE: “Thereis nothing about Mohamed Kasbeh that I know of that likens him to Dylan Roof.”

            And there you have it: the first time that a Palestinian is actually referred to by name. Wasn’t so hard, was it?

            Now, back to the point: I mentioned that the analogous situation to that in which Palestine finds itself is… France, 1940-1945.

            Both are under a belligerent occupation. Tick.
            Both spawned resistance movements. Tick.
            Both resistance movements carried out acts of extreme violence that would not be “socially acceptable” absent that occupation. Tick.

            All of that is true. Indisputably true.

            Not so, says AE. He keeps pointing to Dylan Roof.

            A man who is not the citizen of a country under a belligerent occupation. Fail.
            A man who is not confronted with an Army of Occupation. Fail.
            A man who sees no prospect of that occupier ever voluntarily agreeing to end that occupation. Fail.

            So sorry, but yours is the terrible analogy.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Both resistance movements carried out acts of extreme violence that would not be “socially acceptable” absent that occupation. Tick.”

            NOT Tick!!!!

            Compare and contrast…

            The French Resistance attacked military targets. That was and is socially acceptable.

            Palestinian Arab Resistance incessantly attacks Israeli civilians, men, women, children, old and young… is that socially acceptable? Only in YR world!

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Gustav: “The French Resistance attacked military targets. That was and is socially acceptable.”

            Dude, there were *only* military targets to attack inside occupied France, precisely because the Germans weren’t attempting to colonize France.

            Gustav: “Palestinian Arab Resistance incessantly attacks Israeli civilians, men, women, children, old and young”

            Incessantly?

            The 2nd Intifada involved indiscriminate attacks upon “all Israeli targets”, civilian and military, in the occupied territories and inside Israel itself.

            Soooooo, there you have it: Electric Avenue no longer has to “look forward to the near-term reflection of Palestinians” because Palestinian society has already had that conversation amongst themselves.

            And they decided that, no, such indiscriminate terror has no role in their legitimate resistance against a decades-long and (apparently) endless military occupation.

            They have already been there, done that, and decided that the 2nd intifada was an exercise in pointlessness.

            But you two clowns haven’t even noticed, correct?
            You both still think that the 2nd intifada is still raging?

            Dudes, read the memo: the 2nd intifada was So The Naughties.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            More BS from YR…

            He is pretending that there were no civilian targets for the French Resistance to attack, but there was…

            Note, most of the attacks on Israeli civilians was carried out in Israel proper, within the Green Line, NOT within the occupation zone.

            So back to the analogy… No, the French Resistance did not attack German Civilians within German territories.

            YR:”And they decided that, no, such indiscriminate terror has no role…”

            Yea? You ain’t kidding… took them a while… oh and by the way, did someone tell about that decision to Hamas… and did Hamas listen? Of course not! At least judging by the fact that attacks against Israeli civilians in Israel continues….

            Oh yeah… please don’t bother giving your usual weasely excuses… I know … I know … what ya gonna say in advance… lone wolf attacks, right?! Well… you might believe your own lies but we sure as hell don’t!

            Reply to Comment
    9. Brian G

      It seems reactionary White police and military around the world are taking a special interest in containing’ non-whites with extra force

      Reply to Comment
    10. Average American

      Greg makes some very good Civil law points, and even under Martial law I think there is supposed to be preservation of evidence and an investigation. And true, we can’t see exactly what happened out of the range of the camera. Still, it seems reasonable that the military people involved in this matter would have at least stayed at the scene until the dead body was taken off the street, for public health reasons if nothing else. Unless the military people didn’t give a damn about the dead dog they left lying there like a hit in a Godfather mafia movie.

      Reply to Comment
    11. Click here to load previous comments