[News] Why is Israel Amending Its Open-Fire Policy: Three Possible Answers

[Anti-Imperialist News]

english.palinfo.com
<https://english.palinfo.com/articles/2021/12/28/Why-is-Israel-Amending-Its-Open-Fire-Policy-Three-Possible-Answers>
Why
is Israel Amending Its Open-Fire Policy: Three Possible Answers
By Ramzy Baroud - December 28, 2021
------------------------------
At the outset, the Israeli military decision to revise its open-fire
policies in the occupied West Bank seems puzzling. What would be the logic
of giving Israeli soldiers the space to shoot more Palestinians when
existing army manuals had already granted them near-total immunity and
little legal accountability?

The military's new rules now allow Israeli soldiers to shoot, even kill,
fleeing Palestinian youngsters with live ammunition for allegedly throwing
rocks at Israeli 'civilian' cars. This also applies to situations where the
alleged Palestinian 'attackers' are not holding rocks at the time of the
shooting.

The reference to 'civilians' in the revised army manual applies to armed
Israeli Jewish settlers who have colonized the occupied West Bank and East
Jerusalem in defiance of international law and Palestinian sovereignty.
These settlers, who often operate as paramilitary forces in direct
coordination with the Israeli army, endanger the lives of their own
families by residing on occupied Palestinian land. Per Israel's twisted
standards, these violent Israelis, who have killed and wounded numerous
Palestinians throughout the years, are 'civilians' in need of protection
from rock-throwing Palestinian 'assailants.'

In Israel, throwing rocks is a "serious crime" and Palestinians who throw
rocks are "criminals", according to Liron Libman, Israel's former chief
military prosecutor, commenting on the new rules. For Israelis, there is
little disagreement on these assertions, even by those who are questioning
the legality of the new rules. The point of contention, according to Libman
and others, is that "a person who is fleeing does not present a threat,"
though, according to Libman himself, "the new policy could potentially be
justified," The Times of Israel reported.

The 'debate' on the new open-fire policy in Israeli media, gives one the
false impression that something fundamental has changed in the Israeli
army's relationship with occupied Palestinians. This is not the case at
all. There are numerous, daily examples in which Palestinians, including
children, are shot and killed with impunity, whether throwing rocks or not,
going to school or merely protesting the illegal confiscation of their land
by the Israeli military or armed settlers.

In the Palestinian village of Beita, in the northern occupied West Bank,
eight unarmed Palestinians have been killed since May. This small village
has been the scene of regular demonstrations against Jewish settlement
expansion and against the illegal settlement outpost of Eviatar, in the
Palestinian rural area of Mount Sabih. The victims include Muhammad Ali
Khabisa, the 28-year-old father of an eight-month-old child, who was shot
dead last September.

Though the new rules have placed much emphasis on the status of the
supposed Israeli victims, labelling them 'civilians', in practice, the
Israeli military has used the exact same standard to shoot, maim and kill
Palestinian alleged rock-throwers, even when armed settlers are not present.

A famous case, in 2015, involved the killing of a 17-year-old Palestinian
teenager, Mohammad Kosba, at the hands of an Israeli army colonel, Yisrael
Shomer. The latter alleged that Kosba had thrown a rock at his car.
Subsequently, Shomer chased down the Palestinian teenager and shot him in
the back, killing him.

The Israeli officer was "censored" for his conduct, not for killing the
boy, but for not stopping "in order to aim properly," according to The
Times of Israel. The Israeli military chief prosecutor at the time
concluded that "Shomer's use of deadly force under the framework of the
arrest protocol was justified from the circumstances of the incident."

Israel's disregard of international law in its targeting of Palestinians is
not a secret. Israeli and international human rights groups have repeatedly
condemned the Israeli army's inhumane and barbaric behavior in the occupied
territories.

In an extensive report as early as 2014, Amnesty International condemned
Israel's "callous disregard for human life by killing dozens of Palestinian
civilians, including children, in the occupied West Bank" over the years.
AI said that such killings had taken place "with near total impunity."

"The frequency and persistence of arbitrary and abusive force against
peaceful protesters in the West Bank by Israeli soldiers and police
officers – and the impunity enjoyed by perpetrators – suggests that it is
carried out as a matter of policy," the Amnesty report read.

Even Israel's own rights group, B'tselem, concurs. The organization decried
the Israeli army's "shoot-to-kill policy", which is also applied to "people
who have already been 'neutralized'". Indeed, in the case of Abdel Fattah
al-Sharif, a Palestinian man who was shot point-blank in Al-Khalil
(Hebron), by an Israeli military medic, Elor Azaria, in 2016, was not only
'neutralized' but also unconscious.

According to B'tselem, Israeli "soldiers and police officers have become
judge, jury and executioner". With this tragic and sinister trajectory in
mind, one is left to wonder why the Israeli army would amend its open-fire
policy at this particular moment. There are three possible answers:

One, the Israeli government and army are anticipating a surge in
Palestinian popular resistance in the coming months, possibly as a result
of the massive expansion of illegal settlements and forced evictions in
occupied East Jerusalem.

Two, by perfectly aligning the existing open-fire policy with the
aggressive shoot-to-kill military practice already in place, Israeli courts
would no longer have to contend with any legal repercussions for killing
Palestinians, including children, regardless of the circumstances of their
murders.

Finally, the revised rules would allow Israel to make a case for itself in
response to the open investigation by the International Criminal Court
(ICC), concerning human rights violations and war crimes in occupied
Palestine. Israel's Attorney General will now argue that no war crimes are
taking place in Palestine since the killing of Palestinians is consistent
with Israel's own military conduct and judicial system. Since the ICC is
investigating alleged war criminals, not the government itself, Israel
hopes that it can spare its own murderers from having to contend with the
legal expectations of the Court.

Though the timing of the Israeli military decision to amend its open-fire
policy may appear sudden and without much context, the decision is still
ominous, nonetheless. When a country's military decides that shooting a
child in the back without any proof that the alleged 'criminal' posed any
danger whatsoever is a legal act, the international community must take
notice.

It is true that Israel operates outside the minimum standards of
international and humanitarian laws, but it is the responsibility of the
international community to protect Palestinians, whose lives remain
precious even if Israel disagrees.

*- Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and the Editor of the Palestine Chronicle.
He is the author of five books. His latest is 'These Chains Will Be Broken:
Palestinian Stories of Struggle and Defiance in Israeli Prisons'. Baroud is
a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global
Affairs (CIGA) and also at the Afro-Middle East Center (AMEC). *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20211228/ec9ed888/attachment.htm>