Israel: Killing cameraman was justified

Four months after an Israeli tank opened fire on a Reuters crew in Gaza stationed a mile away from the tank's position, the Israeli military has cleared itself of any wrongdoing in the chilling incident in which Reuters cameraman Fadel Shana captured his own impending death on film.

In a letter to Reuters, Israeli Brig. Gen.l Avihai Mendelblit said that the tank crew reached the "reasonable" conclusion that Shana and his soundman were "hostile" and that the camera mounted on a tripod for several minutes was "most likely" a weapon of some sort.

The contorted Israeli military conclusion drew sharp retorts from Reuters, the Committee to Protect Journalists and the Foreign Press Association in Israel.

"Reuters is deeply disturbed by a conclusion that would severely curtail the freedom of the media to cover the conflict by effectively giving soldiers a free hand to kill without being sure that they were not firing on journalists," the company said in its response to the Israeli decision to close the case without taking any action against the tank crew.

"I'm extremely disappointed that this report condones a disproportionate use of deadly force in a situation the army itself admitted had not been analyzed clearly.” said Reuters Editor-in-Chief David Schlesinger. "They would appear to take the view that any raising of a camera into position could garner a deadly response."

"These findings mean that a journalist with a camera is at risk of coming under fire and there's not that much that can be done," said Joel Campagna of the Committee to Protect Journalists in New York. "That's unacceptable. It's difficult to believe ... that the IDF took the necessary precautions to avoid causing harm to civilians -- as it is obliged to do under international law."

No journalist working in a war zone expects soldiers to take unnecessary risks in dangerous situations.

But the video (below), a Reuters investigation, and eyewitnesses all made it clear in this case that Shana and the Reuters crew posed no immediate danger to the tank crew, which was stationed on a hill a mile away.

Here is one particularly relevant factoid worth considering: Palestinian militants in Gaza have never used a serious anti-tank weapon with the range capable of hitting a target from a mile away.

That means that, even if Shana was preparing to fire a weapon, the Israeli soldiers should have known that they weren't facing any real danger.

The Israeli general said that the soldiers weren't able to determine if the item mounted on the tripod was a mortar, a camera or an anti-tank missile. For that reason, they opened fire.

If Israeli soldiers can't distinguish a mortar tube from a mounted camera, their training is sorely lacking.

One would expect that Israeli soldiers fighting in Gaza would have precise information on the risks they are facing, what weapons might be used against them, and what they need to do to protect themselves.

In this case, there is little to support the Israeli military conclusion that the tank crew made a reasonable determination that the Reuters crew was hostile and preparing to fire a weapon capable of doing any serious damage.

Fadel was on a road a mile away from the tank, he was driving a car with "TV" written on the side, he was wearing a flak jacket clearly marked with a "press" sticker, he had been filming for several minutes and was not working in an area of active fighting.

Though the Israeli conclusion drew criticism from journalist groups, the finding was hardly surprising.

Israel rarely takes action against soldiers in such cases. In this case, since the incident was captured on film, there was some reason to believe that the Israeli military would have a difficult time coming up with an excuse to clear its soldiers of any wrongdoing.

It took them four months, but they managed to do just that.

Comments

[Ms. Missive]

I think it's absolutely possible that the cameraman could have been mistaken as a threat. Mistakes happen. Accidents aren't strangers to any nations military. I realize that punishing the tank crew for a mistake is reasonable (which I secede should have happened) but the Israeli investigation of the matter was correct... they did not intentionally attack an unarmed member of the press.

[Yisrael Medad]

"Never"?

1.
May 2008
An IDF spokeswoman confirmed a strike had been carried out against militants who had fired an anti-tank missile at troops, moderately wounding a soldier. The soldier was evacuated by helicopter to the Soroka Medical Center in Be'er Sheva.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/986333.html

2.
January 2008
An IDF soldier was moderately injured from an anti-tank missile fired at IDF forces a short while ago. An additional four soldiers were lightly injured in the attack and the five were sent to hospital to receive medical treatment. The IDF forces were operating in the central Gaza Strip
http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/the_Front/08/01/0601.htm

3.
December 2002. An IDF Engineering Corps soldier was moderately wounded and two civilians were lightly wounded when an anti-tank missile that was launched toward civilian targets on the Israel-Egypt border near Rafah, struck nearby them. The three were transferred for further medical treatment to Be'er Sheba.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6465/is_200301/ai_n25816852

That took me 4.5 minutes to find.

And this:

The Russian-made antitank missile Metis-M9 is returning to the battle field – this time to the Gaza Strip Posted in November 1st, 2006
http://noisyroom.net/blog/2006/11/01/the-russian-made-antitank-missile-metis-m9-is-returning-to-the-battle-field-%E2%80%93-this-time-to-the-gaza-strip/

Medium-range missiles are capabel of a range of 4 km.

Dion, enough or do you want more?

[Yisrael Medad]

sorry. capable

[carlos townsend]

buenos,

tx 4 the update.

as far as im concerned the idf fails the smells like, looks like test.

godspeed.

los

[Casey]

I am still baffled at journalists' naive assumption that just because they are media, they are immune in a combat zone.

It is a COMBAT ZONE people. Friendly fire incidents happen all the time, so you are always taking a life and death risk.

That risk gets compounded when you point a black shoulder mounted unit towards a tank.

It's a sad accident, but war is hell.

[Yisrael Medad]

Will Dion comment on this from today:

GORI - Four Israeli journalists, including Haaretz correspondent Anshel Pfeffer and photographer Nir Kafri, were robbed at gunpoint by Russian soldiers in the Georgian city of Gori on Thursday.

None of the Israelis was injured in the incident, which occurred as a number of foreign journalists gathered near a Russian checkpoint stationed at the entrance to the city. The Russian troops opened fire on the journalists without warning, trying to disperse the crowd.
============================

or this:

A Dutch journalist was killed and another wounded after a fragmentation shell exploded outside a press centre where western reporters in Gori, including The Daily Telegraph, have been based since the conflict began. An Israeli reporter was also in a serious condition after being shot in the chest and shoulder. Russian fire has now claimed the lives of three reporters in the past three days.

Despite claims by the Georgian government, there was no sign of Russian ground troops in the town, although the artillery assault suggested that they were probably only about two miles from the outskirts.

====================

and there was a previous incident from which, I can only presume, journalists didn't learn the lesson on taking precautionery measures, especially when carrying video cameras and even more so if on tripods aimed at a tank:

"Italian journalist reported killed by Israeli tank fire Dan Milmo MediaGuardian, Wednesday March 13 2002

An Italian journalist working for the Corriere della Sera newspaper has been killed in the West Bank town of Ramallah, according to Palestinian hospital officials.

Raffaele Ciriello, a freelance journalist, was killed by Israeli tank fire this morning,"

and this:

"He and two other journalists had been trailing a group of Palestinian gunmen near a refugee camp where fighting between Israelis and Palestinians was taking place"

with this

"In the wake of these incidents, RSF has published a safety charter for journalists working in war zones and other dangerous areas, urging editors to adopt and observe its principles. The charter, drawn up by a range of organisations including the World Press Freedom Committee, UNESCO, the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), aims to reduce the risks under which war reporters work.

The charter comprises eight principles, including urging the media not to force journalists to cover wars against their will and to offer psychological counseling if requested."

Does Dion think that it is normative IDF policy to go after journalists? That out of hundreds of reporters in Israel and over thousands who have been here over the past decade alone, that these incidents are minimal in comparison to other war zones in the world?

[Gary Rosen]

Yisrael, Dion is lying out his ass and he knows it. He just wants to stay in good with his JO buddy Kuntar.

[Edie]

Blaming the victim.

Not only Dion, but so many other independent, international organizations have concerns about how this whole fiasco was handled.

Yes, Israel has followed up on some investigations into crimes, but there are just as many other cases of deaths and mutilations by the military have either gone unpunished or under-punished such as in this case.

Regardless of what people wish to think, journalists should have a minimal expectation that if their vehicles and persons are reasonably marked as 'Press' or 'TV', even in a perpetual, 40 plus year old 'military zone' that a supposedly well-trained soldier would give them the benefit of a doubt before firing. IDF members are too use to getting away with what they want with the 'sub-human' Palestinians.

May Fadel Shana rest in peace along with the other, young VICTIMS of this crime.

[SiberianRat]

"...the camera mounted on a tripod for several minutes was 'most likely' a weapon of some sort." It was: It was a weapon of truth, exposing the Israeli brutality. Israel doesn't like when that happens and this is not the first time they've killed journalists, peace activists, etc. They don't like when the truth gets out.

[Yisrael Medad]

Edie, the amount of Israelis in general and Israeli soldiers in particular who hold a view that there are " 'sub-human' Palestinians" is much much less than there are antisemites who disguise there hatred of Jews in a setting of "antizionism". It isn't a great comfort but that's a fairer way of looking at things.