|
[Previous entry: "Al-Zubayr morgue"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Recommended: Spinsanity"] 06 April 2003: "Another ISM casualty, and an observation on civil disobedience"
I'm trying to build up a coherent picture of the shooting incident in Jenin in which an ISM activist (Brian Avery, 24, of Albuquerque, NM) was wounded in the face, allegedly by an IDF bullet. It's not proving very easy. Karlsson said he, Avery and a Palestinian medical worker not with the group were approached slowly by the troops and stood with their hands up for about 10 minutes.Lasse LNU in Ha'aretz: We walked in the direction of Brian and a Swedish volunteer standing at the main junction and we saw them holding their hands up in the air.ISM: There were no Palestinians on the streets in the area, armed or otherwise.Karlsson describes this Palestinian medical worker as being present, Lasse LNU does not mention him, and the ISM account denies there were any Palestinians present at all. The ISM is remarkably inconsistent, stating first that Avery was "shot in the face by a burst of machine gun fire," but later stating that upon arrival at the Doctor Khalil Suleiman Hospital in Jenin, Avery "was treated for shrapnel wounds to his face including bone fractures below the eyes, lacerations of the tongue and lacerations of his left cheek." Ha'aretz is more specific, stating: Avery [...] was wounded by a bullet in the jaw on the right side of his face, which [passed through] and exited on the left side and caused serious severe damage.This unequivocal description raises certain issues; if we accept that Avery was standing still, and assume he was roughly facing the APC, a bullet which entered from his right and exited on his left could not have been travelling directly from the APC, in which case it must have been a ricochet off the ground. There are, of course, other possibities; Avery might have averted his face when the debris started flying, but even so, the fact that the bullet's point of entry was lower than its point of exit is still consistent with a ricochet off the ground, rather than a direct strike (as the various ISM accounts go to some length to imply). Possibly, Avery was not standing still, in which case, Karlsson and Lasse LNU are not being entirely truthful. Another point on which the AP version and the other versions clash is where the incident took place; assuming Karlsson's account is not being too seriously mangled by the AP writer, Avery and Karlsson sighted the APC almost immediately upon leaving the ISM apartment and immediately stood still; the ISM and Lasse LNU accounts put Karlsson and Avery some distance away (at least 100 metres - more than a minute's walk at a brisk pace) from the apartment. Karlsson claims he and Avery stood still with their hands raised for some ten minutes upon sighting the APC; if Karlsson's estimate is correct, the APC would have to have been moving extraordinarily slowly. Moreover, according to the ISM version, "the two armoured vehicles rolled past without stopping," which seems to indicate that the speed at which the AFVs were moving was significantly faster than in Karlsson's description. Clearly, there a lot of inconsistencies, and a number of unanswered questions and doubts about this incident, and the inconsistency of various ISM accounts fails to dispel those doubts. According to various sources, there had been clashes in Jenin that day, with rocks and possibly Molotov cocktails thrown at IDF vehicles (as well as reported SAF), so it seems a safe assumption that the IDF vehicles were operating "buttoned up." Karlsson claims there was no communication with the APC, which doesn't surprise me, since you can't communicate with a buttoned-up APC; you get the hell out of the way, even if it's friendly. Karlsson goes on to claim that the APC opened fire without provocation, and the ISM site, rather indignantly, points out that IDF rules of engagement forbids the firing of warning shots using mounted weapons; but this strikes me as somewhat disingenuous. Here we have people in a building who, when they hear SAF outside during an army-imposed curfew, react by heading into the street. I mean, how many warnings do you need? There is also a very real possibility that the APC crew did initially fire warning shots as set out in the RoE, using hand-held small arms not fired in the direction of the persons to be warned; but with two AFVs' heavy diesel engines rumbling in the street, the ISM members might not have heard the shots, or—given the ISM's usual modus operandi—simply ignored them. And when that happens, how do you, as an IDF APC commander, get the point across "get the fuck off the street"? But a further consideration in this context is raised by question of the Palestinian medical worker Karlsson refers to. Why do the later accounts not only omit, but deny the presence of this person? (Also, we only have Karlsson's word that this person was a medical worker, and given the inconsistency of his account, this is less than reassuring.) The fact that this person would, if present, have been violating the IDF-imposed curfew may provide us with an answer as to why the other ISM accounts prefer not to mention him. Perhaps the shooting was not as unprovoked as ISM would have us believe; perhaps the two ISM members came upon this Palestinian violating the curfew, and were shielding him from the IDF. The APC crew may have been unwilling to dismount for any number of reasons—suspected sniper activity, even suspicion that the trio were bait for a trap, or they may have been responding to a call for backup elsewhere and not had time to stop as a result—in order to deal with the situation; in the face of the activists' defiance, the IDF personnel may have finally resorted to a warning burst from the mounted GPMG to show they meant business. You know, I was taught that civil disobedience worked as follows: You feel that a law is unjust; you go out and break that law, and accept the consequences (arrest, etc.), the object being that public opinion will be so incensed at the injustice perpetrated in enforcing this law that they will call for the law's abolition. But the essential element is that you, the civil disobedient, accept the consequences of breaking the law. These days, when activists speak of "civil disobedience," they seem to leave that bit out; their attitude is that the law doesn't apply to them because it is—in their opinion—unjust, and besides, they're special. This is reflected in the attitude that curfew doesn't apply to people wearing reflective jackets. What happened to Brian Avery strikes me, like the death of Rachel Corrie, to have been a predictable consequence of their behaviour in the face of IDF policy. If the ISM made the case that these casualties are an unintended by-product which illustrates the flaws inherent in Israeli policy, I might subscribe to their position. But since the ISM has, in both the Corrie and Avery cases, gone to some length to fabricate evidence against the IDF, I can only conclude that the ISM itself thinks the truth about the IDF's behaviour is not sufficiently damning to arouse condemnation. I'll accept that unspoken assessment. Note: this entry replaces yesterday's on this subject. Thank to my bro-in-law, Steve, for bringing this incident to my attention. |
Navigation: home archives backgrounder Blogs:
au currant Miscellanea:
Care to contribute |
