A
number of weeks ago a video about an
Israeli sniper went viral. The film appeared to show the sniper celebrating
a shot that injured a Palestinian approaching the border between Israel and
Gaza – hardly a war crime, but admittedly not admirable behavior. It then
transpired that the celebrating film had been done by someone else, not the
sniper. In the general hullaballoo most people didn't seem to notice the real significance
of the film, which documented the deliberation and care taken by the sniper and
his commander in identifying the target, ascertaining its legitimacy, and
shooting only once all the relevant questions had been satisfactorily answered.
In order to understand that one would have had to know Hebrew, and most people
who stridently proclaim about Israel's actions don't know Hebrew.
Then
an IDF reserve officer, Kinley Tur-Paz, came back from the field and posted his
experiences on the Times
of Israel website. This one was in English, and while it didn't go into
great detail, it repeated the same message: IDF snipers are very careful, to
the extent that every single shot they make must be entered in an Excel
spreadsheet file so as to be accounted for.
Over
the weekend Yochai Ofer published the most detailed description of all, in
Hebrew in Makor Rishon. Here's a synopsis of his article:
IDF
snipers are hand-picked for their ability to stay calm under pressure. They are
given special training, which includes the ability to remain still and stable
for protracted periods, and to synchronize their breathing with the operation
of their weapons. They never shoot in anger or excitement, only after
deliberation and careful identification of their targets.
The
weapons they use are chosen for the mission, and different contexts require
different rifles.
Before
shooting they will have carefully measured
distances and the force of the wind. Mistakes can happen and live shots can go
astray, but every reasonable precaution is taken that they won't. The snipers
are to identify specific targets, and hit only them.
The
snipers work in teams, rotating between them to prevent shooting in a state of
physical discomfort or exhaustion. Each team is commanded by an experienced
sniper armed with powerful binoculars.
Each
shot must be authorized by a colonel.
Prior
to the events of the Gaza fence the locations were visited by the Military
Attorney General, General Sharon Affek, who was briefed on the preparations and
authorized them. We are not told if he made corrections, but given his record
he well may have. Affek, it might be worth noting, was recently promoted to
full General, and became the first openly homosexual officer to reach that
rank.
The
men targeted by the snipers on the Gaza border were either engaged in harming
the border fence or leaders who had been identified for exhorting others to so
do.
So
what does all this tell us? It doesn't prove that no mistakes were made, and
that 100% of the shots made by the IDF never hit the wrong people. But it goes a
long way to explain how tens of thousands of demonstrators who remained back
from the fence went home unharmed at the end of each day of demonstrations; and
it explains why almost all of the casualties were members of Hamas or Islamic
Jihad. It also begs the question as to the identity of other casualties; if it
is true, for example, that a 14-year-old was killed, do we know the specific
context of his actions as he was shot? Was he standing 300 yards from the fence
waving a flag, or was he perhaps trying to cut the fence? Were the snipers able
to know his age?
You
read the furious denunciations of Israel for its massacre of innocents, and you
know how the IDF operates, and you ask yourself how it's possible to bridge the
two narratives and if it's not possible, what to learn from the chasm.
3 comments:
Dear Dr Lozowick,
Thank you for your post. I am a regular reader of your blog and consider myself a friend of Israel, not a neutral observer but someone whose moral convictions and (so I hope) rational deliberations have brought me to where I stand today.
I would like to bring to your attention this article by one Nathan J. Robinson, in which he rather impressively, in my view, dissects a recent op-ed piece by Shmuel Rosner in the New York Times.
The article is here: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/05/propaganda-101-how-to-defend-a-massacre
While the author himself engages in some of the same faults of which he accuses Rosner (such as taking rhetorical short-cuts and being sloppy on a number of brute facts; or the taking as settled-without-argument the appropriateness of the term “massacre”), I do believe that he raises many points that plainly deserve to be reckoned with – at least if our allegiance is to be not only to party, but to reason and thereby to reflective argument, as I believe it always should be.
For a regular defender of Israel and many of its policies, such as myself, this certainly was not a comfortable read.
I am wondering if you might have any thoughts on the article, should you happen to find the time.
Best wishes
Markus
Current Affairs is kind of huckerism. It's a bunch of recent graduates who purchased a domain name & tried to start their own Lefter-than-thou magazine & make it look like an established publication during 2016. Might be best to find similar arguments in other publications.
Dear Markus, I would suggest the following approach:
If you accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State, then the Rosner and Lozowick pieces are acceptable defences of the IDF's actions.
If (like Robinson), you favour a Palestinian right of return and prefer the end of Israel as an "ethnostate", then Robinson's response would be legitimate.
In other words, I do not think that there is a neutral moral position to be taken. Disclaimer-I obviously have never formally studied ethics.
Post a Comment