Wounded Gazans and jeep in which Reuters cameraman was killed by IAF missile (Mohammed Abed/AFP-Getty)I’m pretty jaded when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the depths of depravity to which it often sinks. But why, in heaven’s name would the IAF fire a missile at a clearly marked journalist’s jeep, killing him while wounding innocent civilians?
Fadel Shana, 23, a cameraman for Reuters, was killed when a missile struck his clearly marked jeep in the area, Reuters’ Gaza bureau said.
Asked about the many civilian casualties, Maj. Avital Leibovich, an Israeli Army spokeswoman, said the military had struck an armed group. “It could be that civilians were nearby; it would not be the first time,” she said.
Major Leibovich said that if a cameraman had been killed, “we apologize for that.”
“It was not intentional,” she said, adding that journalists took a risk by operating in fighting zones.
In the accompanying picture you see the cameraman’s vehicle clearly marked (“TV”) and the wounded civilians. Where is the “armed group” that the IDF struck? I realize the spokesperson wasn’t there and is probably talking out of her ass, but this is so clearly mendacious as to be almost laughable (in a very dark sort of way). [UPDATE: Reuters makes clear that he was killed by a tank shell and not a missile, which changes the complexion of some of the things I wrote above. It is more difficult to tell from inside a tank what you’re shooting at.]
Why would Israel want to kill journalists? Clearly, they would prefer no journalists cover Gaza as they’ve prevented their own Israeli journalists from doing so as Gideon Levy often laments in Haaretz. But killing them? Why are the lives of journalists as cheap as the lives of Palestinian civilians to the IDF? I realize I’m asking a rhetorical question. But I’d still like to know the answer.
The IDF lost three of its own in a firefight with Hamas militants yesterday, one of the largest losses of Israeli life I can remember in Gaza. The army must be seething. I guess it’s easier to kill an unarmed TV cameraman than it is to find and liquidate the gunmen who killed those Israeli boys. But isn’t taking it out on the media going a bit far?
In a related matter, Haaretz reports that one of the three IDF soldiers who died, a Bedouin, is slated to have the home he just built for his new bride demolished since Israel refuses to provide building permits for Bedouin. Let’s add insult to injury why don’t we? He can die for his country. He just can’t live in his own home.
“But why, in heaven’s name would the IAF fire a missile at a clearly marked journalist’s jeep, killing him while wounding innocent civilians?”
If you can believe the video that Reuters released, it appears that it wasn’t the Israeli Air Force at all, but n Israeli tank.
http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=80522&videoChannel=1
If it was – as the video seems to prove – a distant tank, it’s likely that the “TV” emblazoned on the car wasn’t visible by the gunner. Why the tank would fire at any car is an interesting question. Another question is, Why was the cameraman filming a tank on the horizon? Perhaps the cameraman was in the vicinity of some terrorists. Certainly someone or something drew his attention to the tank – and who would be more likely to keep their eyes peeled for tanks than terrorists? Just surmising…
When the Times wrote “missile” I assumed they meant a rocket fired from the air. If indeed it was a tank it is possible it couldn’t see the markings on his vehicle. But if I can plaining see the “TV” marking on his hood in the original photo I’d be hard-pressed to understand why a tank gunner sitting in a even higher position above the vehicle couldn’t see it.
How do you know that the cameraman was filming the tank? And besides is there anything wrong with filming an Israeli tank? Again, the IDF claims there were militants attacked but I see no militants in the vicinity injured or killed.
Tell me how you differentiate between civilians and Hamas men who mix in with civilians and don’t wear uniforms.?
The NYT caption said those wounded on the ground were “civilians.” The photographer who took that picture was there at the scene. If you weren’t but still insist that those wounded souls on the ground are “Hamas men,” be my guest. It wouldn’t surprise me.
The NYT once identified a Jewish kid who was rescued from a lynching has a Palestinian. Their not a beacon of accuracy.
Compared to you?
I’m not passing myself off has the paper of record. I’m biased and I admit it, their biased the other way and don’t admit it. BTW, no sarcasm, How much are you personally kicking in to this j-street thing.
I don’t agree w. you at all that the Times is biased. They just as often piss me off in their coverage as make me proud.
I’ve contributed to J Street and sent out a solicitation to friends, family & colleagues. It’s important to me.
RS: “But if I can plaining see the “TV” marking on his hood in the original photo I’d be hard-pressed to understand why a tank gunner sitting in a even higher position above the vehicle couldn’t see it.”
Yes, the tank was at a higher elevation. Indeed, the film seems to show that the road was slightly lower than the surrounding area and was bordered by foliage, so it seems to me that the car and its signage would actually be LESS visible to a distant tank gunner than to people like you and me who are able to see only selected photos and film footage. (If I understood the The Reuters commentary correctly,the cameraman was killed by a kind of anti-personnel weapon that explodes in the air, so I was puzzled as to how the car itself seemed to bear the brunt of the damage. I am NOT trying to say the whole thing was staged by terrorists or by journalists; I am genuinely puzzled.)
RS: “How do you know that the cameraman was filming the tank?”
You’re right: I don’t.He may have been filming the building or the fields. Perhaps if Reuters releases the rest of the footage shot before the attack we’ll be able to get some clue as to what Fadel Shana was working on.
RS: “And besides is there anything wrong with filming an Israeli tank? ”
I personally don’t think so. But I’m pretty sure that Israel’s military – like any other country’s military – for security reasons doesn’t like to have its installations, weaponry and personnel photographed (except for parades, etc.). Tragically, the fact that Shana was pointing his camera in the general direction of the tank may have been what caused the shelling to occur in the first place: a cautious or nervous tank gunner or spotter who sees someone pointing a bulky camera at him may mistake the camera for a weapon. Again,I’m not asserting the cameraman brought his death upon himself by filming an Israeli tank; I am, like you, trying to make sense out of it.
RS: “Again, the IDF claims there were militants attacked but I see no militants in the vicinity injured or killed.”
(Although others have responded to this already, because you were responding to me, I’ll add my two cents.)
I don’t know how to tell militants from innocent bystanders. Would you mind explaining your technique? Perhaps if militants/terrorists would be obliging enough to wear distinctive uniforms when firing rockets or carry placards identifying themselves it would make everyone’s life easier wouldn’t it? Instead the rascals have been known to pretend to be IDF soldiers and Red Cross/Crescent personnel.
Thank you, by the way, for adding the Reuters clip that I pointed out to you to the body of your text. Since you are in the habit of rewriting your posts would you mind being as courteous as other bloggers who credit the people who contribute to their columns by giving me credit – a “Hat tip” is I think the conventional term – in the body of your text? I do so want to be considered as your friend!
I’d like to wish you the traditional “Happy and Kosher Pesach.” But since you are an avowed pig-eater, let me amend that to a “Happy and Chametz-free Pesach….”
Thanks for pointing out the video clip. I appreciate your effort & it adds a great deal to the post.
Thanks too for your good wishes for Pesach though you might have avoided the zinger about my eating treif if it was really meant to be sincere.
A zis’n Peysach to you too
Y: “Tragically, the fact that Shana was pointing his camera in the general direction of the tank may have been what caused the shelling to occur in the first place: a cautious or nervous tank gunner or spotter who sees someone pointing a bulky camera at him may mistake the camera for a weapon.”]
Here’s what I don’t get. If the gunner could see Shana and a bulky camera which they could have mistaken for a weapon, how could they have not seen the very clearly marked vehicle which he was standing next to?
Y: “I don’t know how to tell militants from innocent bystanders. Would you mind explaining your technique? ”
I know you asked Richard that question, but I think it doesn’t matter one iota how people like you or Richard can tell. What’s important is how the IDF distinguishes between militants and innocent civilians. Surely there must be some rules of engagement that they use, because I suspect that *When In Doubt, Shoot!” isn’t an acceptable way of doing things…
btw, does anyone know how to do italics or bolding in these comments?
Violet,
“Here’s what I don’t get. If the gunner could see Shana and a bulky camera which they could have mistaken for a weapon, how could they have not seen the very clearly marked vehicle which he was standing next to?”
I pointed out the car was probably at least partially hidden because the road appeared to be lower than the adjacent fields and there also seemed to be a kind of hedge there, so the “TV” on the door – which would be about hip high next to the photographer – would be extremely difficult to see, and the marking on the hood of the vehicle could not possibly be read by the combatants in the tank. I simply offered the scenario of a man pointing something at a tank as a possible reason for the shelling. In the video the clear view of the tank strongly suggests that the photographer was visible from the tank. The man standing up and pointing something at them would most likely be seen by the IDF; the markings on the car were almost certainly invisible. The fact that the car’s hood seemed unscathed by the flechettes that killed the photographer, while the windshield was smashed, and the very fact that the vehicle seemed to have been blasted by something other than anti-personnel weaponry could lead some people to suggest that something very fishy happened. But that’s not the issue….
“I suspect that *When In Doubt, Shoot!” isn’t an acceptable way of doing things…”
I think it’s fair to assume that the tank had observed some kind of activity in an area where no activity would normally be expected (the shelling seemed to affect an area of country road) and that something – PERHAPS the photographer pointing a camera – spurred the tank to fire. We know only that a photographer was killed; we don’t know if, for instance, he was standing next to a rocket-launching crew at the time. One picture of victims depicts what appears to be a teenage boy and his bicycle. I’m certainly not insisting that this proves the presence of a rocket-launching crew, but something attracted these people to the empty stretch of road and – forget the notion of human shields – if I were a teenage boy living in Gaza I’m pretty sure I’d bike over to watch a rocket being launched. Again, I’m just offering a possible scenario.
“What’s important is how the IDF distinguishes between militants and innocent civilians.”
Yes, that’s important. But SOME people would counter that what’s more important is that Israel’s enemies do not distinguish between militants and innocent civilians at all. Which is why the IDF MAY have a tendency to “Shoot when in doubt…”
One way to do italics or bolding might be to write your comment as a Word document and then copy it onto the comment space.
HTML Test Revisited, for Violet
Bolding
B element test: Hello World
Strong element test: Hello World
Italics
I element test: Hello World
Em element test: Hello World
Escaping
Single escape: <hr />
Double escape: <hr />
Triple escape: <hr />
Violet, here’s what I recommend on the bold/italics front:
(1) Type up your comment in a text editor like Notepad (not in a word processor like Microsoft Word).
(2) (a) Bold text with either the b or strong HTML element, e.g.
<b>Hello World</b>
(b) Italicize text with either the i or em HTML element, e.g.
<i>Hello World</i>
(3) Cut and paste your comment into the Comment textarea box, and then submit.
At least I got it to work.
This is all the more reason to use Firefox as your browser & the BBCode Extra add on which allows you to format everything using a right mouse click.
This video clip (at 1:05) clearly shows a weapon being removed from one of the victims at the scene. Unfortunately the video has been edited; however it’s pretty clear that the sequence with the gun should follow the shot that begins 51 seconds into the clip, with the emergency rescue worker dressed in red…
Forgive me if I sound like one of those conspiracy theorists, but the footage does seem to indicate that either Reuters is doctoring footage to make it seem that there was at least one armed militant at the scene, or Fadel Shana was indeed consorting with terrorists when he was killed – which would surely vindicate the IDF and render your criticism of its conduct in this incident less cogent.
I looked at the video in question several times & all I can say is I can’t say what it was. It might be a weapon, it might not. I’m saying this sincerely. Perhaps someone who knows what these weapons look like can say more definitively than I. We don’t know the sequence of the video since as you say it was edited. So we don’t know whether whatever was removed was something one of the dead men was carrying before he died. Too many questions to make any definitive statements.
It would be absolutely stupid for a legitimate journalist to consort with armed militants for professional & safety reasons. I’m dubious about this till more evidence comes out.
Finally, it would be in the IDF’s interest to make precisely the claim you’ve made here because it would get them off the hook big time. Yet they haven’t. If there was any truth to yr supposition the IDF would’ve advanced it already.