IDF intentionally killed briton

[AlonzoMourning23]

The family of a Briton shot dead by an Israeli soldier in Gaza has demanded the UK government take action against the man's commanding officers.

An inquest on Monday returned a verdict that Tom Hurndall, 22, was "intentionally killed" in April 2003.

He was moving children away from the army in the Palestinian town of Rafah.

His family and their QC, Michael Mansfield, want the government to pursue five named Israeli soldiers named. One has already been jailed.

Taysir Hayb, a Bedouin Arab soldier, was convicted of manslaughter in 2005 and jailed for eight years.

But the family say he was made a scapegoat for Israeli army policy and blame for the killing goes higher up.

Jury's 'dismay'

A jury at St Pancras Coroner's Court in London ruled he had been unlawfully killed.

The jury said: "He was shot intentionally with the intention of killing him.

"The jury would like to express its dismay with the lack of cooperation from the Israeli authorities."

Outside the court Mr Mansfield said: "Make no mistake about it, the Israeli defence forces have been found culpable by this jury of murder,"

Murder of a civilian by a soldier is regarded as a war crime under the Geneva Convention, and can be tried in British courts regardless of where the death took place.

Mr Mansfield called on the government to consider prosecuting the people in command, not just those who pulled the trigger.

'There's no point in having Geneva Conventions, international criminal law incorporated into domestic law unless that is a possibility," he said.

'Scapegoated' soldier

Tom Hurndall, a journalism and photography student at Manchester Metropolitan University, was with the International Solidarity Movement acting as a human shield when he was shot.

He died from his injuries nine months later.

Tom's father, Anthony, said: "It's now down to the British Government to take action.

"There have been five officers of the Israeli army named in the proceedings today and they should be investigated by the government here.

"British citizens in Israel are not safe, nor are the local civilians safe.

He said that he would consider bringing a private prosecution against the individuals he believes killed his son.

Asked what he thought of ex-soldier Taysir Hayb, who is serving eight years in jail for his son's manslaughter, Mr Hurndall said: "He would say he's been scapegoated.

"He was simply doing what he had been told."

Second murder

Another coroner, Dr Andrew Reid, is to write to the attorney general about the case and the death of James Miller, who was shot three weeks later.

An inquest last week decided Mr Miller had been murdered.

Dr Reid will ask if there is any further legal action which could be taken relating to the deaths.

Mr Miller was killed by a member of the Israeli Defence Force just a mile away in Rafah three weeks after Mr Hurndall was shot.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4897856.stm

[penmyst]

Usually, I see these kinds of situations as hard to cipher out. When in warzones or areas of heightened military interests I believe it can be hard to paint things as fully black or white. Just like in the Vietnam War when you had children carrying grenades into groups of U.S. soldiers, and resultant tendencies to gun down ANY Vietnamese by those same soldiers.. things can get kind of hazy in the middle of a war.

Stepping out into the normal world and viewing with 20/20 hindsight with no regards to the situation creates slanted understandings and judgements of those involved.


But seeing this part of the story:

"Tom Hurndall, a journalism and photography student at Manchester Metropolitan University, was with the International Solidarity Movement acting as a human shield when he was shot."

Leads me to believe that the Israeli soldier really was doing nothing more than his job. At that point, this guy is aiding and abetting the Israeli's enemy. The fact that they treated him therefore as their enemy and he was shot down doesn't seem discordant with his actions. He put himself intentionally in the position of being their (Israelis) enemy at that point and the result isn't exactly shocking. Tragic, but not shocking.

[AlonzoMourning23]

pen:

He was moving children away from the army in the Palestinian town of Rafah.

He was putting himself at risk to protect children. He wasn't protecting targets that should have been shot at to begin with. Then again, it's not like the israeli military hasn't shot unarmed kids before. And, according to article, the soldier was doing his job. They argue he was told to shoot from those higher in rank.

And 20/20 hindsight isn't the issue. No ones going to think "well, the soldier was just confused when he kill my father/friend/kid etc." That's a soldiers job, they need to do it well. If they end up killing civilians without a legitimate reason (ie. they ran into the fire zone) then they need to be punished. It's unfortunate, just like if you accidentally kill someone while changing a radio station in a car, but it cannot be allowed.

They need to be held accountable for what they do. Just like if my wife was sleeping with another man, I walk in, discover them, and kill the guy. Many things lead to that, and I wouldn't normally do that, but I still need to take responsibility.

Whether the soldier should be blamed, I don't think so. It should be the officers. But since we don't allow the "following orders" defense, then the soldier needs to be punished.

Though it says another briton was killed in the same area as well.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

PING!

Got em'.

Added to the Rachel Corrie Memorial list of Westerners too stupid to live.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Heroes kill soldiers

Idiots protect civilians

?

[penmyst]

The problem I see is that in these aggression zones (basically one step below full scale wars tbh), the line between "civilian" and "enemy" isn't as clear cut as it might seem.

Many on both sides in these areas don't differentiate between civilians and soldiers. As witnessed by the constant attacks on Israeli civilians by suicide bombers, or the retaliatory attacks of the Israeli army. The suicide bomber attacks are 100% targetted at innocent civilians, and the Israeli army counters are often careless enough to catch civilians in the collateral damage.

These outsiders, I'm just not shocked when they die. They are putting themselves in the middle of a dangerous area, and in those areas sometimes people shoot first and NEVER ask questions later. That's the deal you accept when you step in the middle of a warzone.

[AlonzoMourning23]

The problem I see is that in these aggression zones (basically one step below full scale wars tbh), the line between "civilian" and "enemy" isn't as clear cut as it might seem.

Many on both sides in these areas don't differentiate between civilians and soldiers. As witnessed by the constant attacks on Israeli civilians by suicide bombers, or the retaliatory attacks of the Israeli army. The suicide bomber attacks are 100% targetted at innocent civilians, and the Israeli army counters are often careless enough to catch civilians in the collateral damage.

These outsiders, I'm just not shocked when they die. They are putting themselves in the middle of a dangerous area, and in those areas sometimes people shoot first and NEVER ask questions later. That's the deal you accept when you step in the middle of a warzone.




Well, there are suicide attacks directed at military personal, directed at civilian, directed at both, or directed at problematic civilians. By that I mean people central to the problem, though still civilians (ie. israeli settlers).

Israeli soldiers have been reported to kill innocent palestinians intentionally, or to kill needlessly.

But a government is held to a higher standard that individual militant groups. But, nevertheless, we don't allow soldiers, or anyone, to intentionally kill civilians, or to engage is completely reckless behavior. I cases such as this, it isn't an "ask questions later", since nothing suggests there was any confusion over what was being shot at. A white guy in Palestine, moving children away from occupying forces, that's not very threatening. And Israel itself has not suggested otherwise.

[Old Corps Gunny]

The shooting occurred in April 2003, 3 years ago. The article cited in the original post doesn't say why the IDF was moving on Rafah, nor does it say what their mission was. Were they going to relocate the villagers, were they searching for terrorists, had they taken fire from the village? The article doesn't say. It doesn't say what the circumstances surrounding the actual shooting were, either. It only states that Hurndall was moving children; was he escorting them by foot or moving them by vehicle? If the latter, was he ordered to stop so IDF could inspect the vehicle and he refused? The article doesn't say. Until further information is made available, it's impossible to make a judgement either way. Common sense dictates that unless you have business in a combat zone, it's best to stay out of that area. If you insist on putting yourself in harm's way, you should expect to get hurt.

[AlonzoMourning23]

The shooting occurred in April 2003, 3 years ago.Â*Â*The article cited in the original post doesn't say why the IDF was moving on Rafah, nor does it say what their mission was.Â*Â*Were they going to relocate the villagers, were they searching for terrorists, had they taken fire from the village?Â*Â*The article doesn't say.Â*Â*It doesn't say what the circumstances surrounding the actual shooting were, either.Â*Â*It only states that Hurndall was moving children; was he escorting them by foot or moving them by vehicle?Â*Â*If the latter, was he ordered to stop so IDF could inspect the vehicle and he refused?Â*Â*The article doesn't say.Â*Â*Until further information is made available, it's impossible to make a judgement either way.Â*Â*

I've been following it since it happened.

The IDF was on a mission in the area where him and his group had set up a peace protest. They fled when they realized that military was approaching. At this point this guy saw some palestinian children who were exposed and ran out to get them away from the IDF. When he got to the kids he was shot.

The person who shot him admitted to shooting at him as a deterrent. There was no warning. He was convicted of manslaughter. Investigations have been underway since then over whether it should be upgraded, and whether others were involved. Evidence has been presented, which led to the article above, that it was intentional and that the shooter was ordered to shoot.

Common sense dictates that unless you have business in a combat zone, it's best to stay out of that area.Â*Â*If you insist on putting yourself in harm's way, you should expect to get hurt.


The whole of palestine has essentially been made into a combat zone. International aid workers are plentiful, be it left wing jewish israeli's, muslims from other areas, or westerners, they're all over. It makes no sense to go into a place like palestine and then flee everytime civilians are in danger. You're there to help them, not leave them behind. International workers being around palestinians usually gives them safety from israeli soldiers, and makes their life a little easier during that time.

I expect any army to have enough training not to shoot at people aiding children. It appears that the orders were to shoot at him.

[penmyst]

You're there to help them, not leave them behind. International workers being around palestinians usually gives them safety from israeli soldiers, and makes their life a little easier during that time.

And I'm also sure that many of the militant palestinians also use this to their advantage. Which is part of my point that enemies and civilians in these zones often aren't separated as varying degree of threats. I don't condone military gunning down innocent civilians, but in these zones civilians are at risk always. And each confrontation can have many varying factors that cause certain reactions.

[AlonzoMourning23]

You're there to help them, not leave them behind. International workers being around palestinians usually gives them safety from israeli soldiers, and makes their life a little easier during that time.

And I'm also sure that many of the militant palestinians also use this to their advantage. Which is part of my point that enemies and civilians in these zones often aren't separated as varying degree of threats. I don't condone military gunning down innocent civilians, but in these zones civilians are at risk always. And each confrontation can have many varying factors that cause certain reactions.


A guy running out to get kids away from the army isn't exactly a call for alarm. And besides, there's a strong case for it being intentional, not accidental.

But cases of Israel being careless, or simply not caring, are nothing new. Isolated incidents can use your reasoning, but the volume of innocents killed overrides that. Recently Israel has been shelling gaza, shooting int he "general area" of rockets that militants launched (I believe militants launched about 200, israel about 2000). These are the circumstances for one of the civilians killed by Israel firing in the general area:

She was watching television in her house in the northern village of Beit Lahiya when an Israeli shell came crashing through the roof, killing her instantly.

Seven of her brothers and sisters were hurt.

The Israelis admit there was no militant rocket fire from the area at the time but they say there had been earlier, and that they had been trying to deter more.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4900796.stm