http://www3.haaretz.co.il/eng/scripts/article.asp?mador=4&datee=5/9/01&id=118965
Behind the tank shell is a soldier
By Amira Hass, Ha'aretz,
Wednesday, May 9, 2001
Behind the tank shell that killed a four-month-old baby girl, Iman
Hijo, in the Khan Yunis refugee camp on Monday morning is an Israeli
soldier. Behind that soldier are parents who are supporting him and
giving him moral backing in the course of his compulsory military
service. Behind those parents is Israeli society, which is convinced
that the tank shell was justifiably fired in the defense of both the
State of Israel and its citizens. Similarly, Israeli society justifies
the hundreds of tank shells that have been lobbed over the past seven
months, as well as the millions of live bullets and rubber-coated
metal bullets and the hundred missiles that have been fired during
this period.With a rather primitive pair of binoculars, the Israeli
soldier who killed Iman Hijo could have seen the surroundings in which
she died. The positions of the Israel Defense Forces in the Gush Katif
area are located a few dozen or, at the most, a few hundred meters
from the Palestinian refugee camps.
Those who are not satisfied with what they can see with their own eyes
can use IDF aerial photographs. After all, the photographs are the
reason why the IDF's pilotless planes constantly patrol the skies of
the Palestinian refugee camps and why cameras have been mounted on
watchtowers. This sophisticated military voyeurism produces an endless
series of photographs, in which you can easily discern the dusty
alleys; the small asbestos or corrugated tin roofs on which concrete
bricks have been placed (to prevent them from flying off); the thin
walls of the refugees' homes; some of the two-story houses that their
inhabitants managed to build with their savings and which are today
riddled with pockmarks after having been fired upon by IDF troops; the
masses of people wandering the streets, looking for the cheapest
tomatoes and dragging a bag of lentils (they are not hunting for jobs,
because there are none available).
The soldier who fired the tank shell perhaps lives in Mevasseret Zion
or Yehud or Karnei Shomron. He said goodbye to his parents, who are
concerned for his welfare, last Sunday morning in their split-level
home or in their small apartment. Many IDF soldiers find in the
settlements, between whose lawns IDF positions are spread out, a
standard of living or a lifestyle with which they are unfamiliar.
Nonetheless, all IDF soldiers have pledged to defend that standard of
living or that lifestyle.
The soldier who fired the tank shell was born long after 1967 and thus
see nothing wrong with a situation in which 6,500 Jews are living in
incredibly comfortable conditions on 20 percent of the territory of
the Gaza Strip, where more than 1.1 million Palestinians reside.
Undoubtedly, the soldier, his parents, his commanders and all of
Israeli society, which stands behind them, know that Israel
unquestionably has military superiority vis-a-vis the Palestinians.
However, that fact in no way diminishes their trust in the justness of
Israeli tactics aimed at putting an end to the Palestinian intifada
which, as senior IDF commanders explain day in and day out, is not a
popular uprising but rather a campaign of organized terror.
The soldier's parents can remember every mortar shell that has landed
in Israeli territory or in the settlements. However, they have not the
faintest idea how many Palestinian children below the age of 18 have
been killed (on Monday, the figure was 148). The disclosure that the
Israel Navy had discovered a fishing boat with a cargo of weapons and
ammunition bound for the Gaza coast has only served to reinforce
Israeli feelings of paranoia.
When the parents of the soldier who shot the fatal tank shell sent him
to his base, they had full confidence in the official Israeli version
of the history of this intifada. According to that version,
Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat and his officials planned
the uprising in order to achieve political goals: The Palestinians
attacked the Israelis first and they were the first to use firearms
against the Israelis. While the IDF only retaliates, uses its
deterrent force and employs preventive tactics, the Palestinians are
constantly on the offensive.
Perhaps the parents of the Israeli soldiers who will fire more tank
shells that will kill, wound and destroy should remember what the
Mitchell Commission has said about the events of the last seven
months. The commission is dealing with the recent past in order to
prevent escalation in the near future. Established under American
aegis, the commission has come out with some harsh criticism of the
PA. (It blames the PA for its failure to exert control over its own
security agencies, over the shooting coming from residential areas,
and over the actions of demonstrators, and for its failure to prevent
terrorist attacks.)
The commission also describes how the present intifada unfolded and
its description sharply differs from the official Israeli version (or
from the American version, which is extremely similar to the Israeli
one). According to the Mitchell Commission, the uprising was not
planned in advance by the Palestinians; the use of live ammunition by
members of the Israel police last September 29 and the firing by IDF
soldiers on unarmed demonstrators at the Al-Aqsa mosque in the days
that immediately followed had a major impact on the subsequent clashes
between Palestinians and Israelis.
Israel made no attempt to avoid the use of lethal weapons against
unarmed persons, and there was an exaggerated reliance on force and on
lethal weapons from the very beginning. In the last three months, only
about a third of the Palestinians' actions (2,900 in total) involved
the use of firearms; nonetheless, the majority of Palestinians killed
have been unarmed. In response to small arms fire from the
Palestinians, Israel has used heavy arms fire. The commission has
indirectly referred to this situation as "inappropriate or excessive
uses of force."
The Mitchell Commission's conclusion is common knowledge:
"Inappropriate or excessive uses of force ... often lead to
escalation."
However, the parents who send their children to defend the settlements
are convinced that it is the Palestinians who are the aggressors, who
constitute the threat and who are escalating the conflict, whereas
their children are merely engaging in defensive action
(c) copyright 2000 Ha'aretz. All Rights Reserved
