<div dir="ltr">
<div id="gmail-toolbar" class="gmail-toolbar-container">
</div><div class="gmail-container" dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail-header gmail-reader-header gmail-reader-show-element">
<a class="gmail-domain gmail-reader-domain" href="https://english.palinfo.com/articles/2021/12/28/Why-is-Israel-Amending-Its-Open-Fire-Policy-Three-Possible-Answers">english.palinfo.com</a>
<h1 class="gmail-reader-title">Why is Israel Amending Its Open-Fire Policy: Three Possible Answers</h1>
<div class="gmail-credits gmail-reader-credits">By Ramzy Baroud - December 28, 2021<br></div>
</div>
<hr>
<div class="gmail-content">
<div class="gmail-moz-reader-content gmail-reader-show-element"><div id="gmail-readability-page-1" class="gmail-page">
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?<p>
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.</p><p>
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.'</p><p>
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.</p><p>
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.</p><p>
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.</p><p>
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.</p><p>
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.</p><p>
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."</p><p>
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.</p><p>
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."</p><p>
"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.</p><p>
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.</p><p>
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:</p><p>
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.</p><p>
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.</p><p>
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.</p><p>
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.</p><p>
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.</p><p>
<em>- 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). </em></p></div></div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="gmail-pocket-cta-container" class="gmail-pocket-cta-container-cta-only gmail-pocket-cta-container-logged-out">
<div class="gmail-pocket-cta-inner" id="gmail-pocket-cta-only">
<div class="gmail-pocket-cta"><br>
</div>
</div></div><div id="gmail-pocket-cta-container" class="gmail-pocket-cta-container-cta-only gmail-pocket-cta-container-logged-out">
</div>
</div>