Center for the Defence of the Individual - "Cell phone procedure" – long before operation "Cast Lead" during which Israeli soldiers shot Palestinians for talking on their cell phones, HaMoked demanded that the military investigate a similar death incident from 2001: the investigation closed without indictments
العربية HE wheel chair icon
חזרה לעמוד הקודם
06.02.2012

"Cell phone procedure" – long before operation "Cast Lead" during which Israeli soldiers shot Palestinians for talking on their cell phones, HaMoked demanded that the military investigate a similar death incident from 2001: the investigation closed without indictments

On October 31, 2001, soldiers shot and killed a resident of Tulkarem who was busy parking his car in the courtyard of his sister's home. The military police launched an investigation some 18 months after the killing, and only after another 18 months, did it depose the soldiers and officers. The investigation material, made available to HaMoked, indicates that the decision to kill the deceased was based on a tenuous suspicion that the man was keeping watch and directing gunfire on to the soldiers’ posts, using his cell phone. A week or so before the killing, based on this suspicion – unverified then or since – the company commander contacted the battalion commander, requesting permission for the shooting: "I asked permission to kill […] we discussed it a few times, and after he refused a few times, I got permission."
 
In June 2008, HaMoked petitioned the High Court of Justice (HCJ) to order the military advocate general (MAG) to decide whether to prosecute those responsible for the killing. In September 2008, the MAG announced the investigation closed, stating that the shooting was made "in light of the commanders' cognizance that the deceased was repeatedly implicated in directing Palestinian gunfire at the IDF forces, jeopardizing the soldiers' lives". HaMoked's objection to the closure of the case contained the depositions of the implicated soldiers and battalion commanders of that time, which presented various versions of the event, some contradictory. The disparities diminish their credibility and give reason to suspect an attempt had been made to present the soldiers' conduct as cautious and levelheaded.

On January 23, 2011, HaMoked received the military's response to its objection to the closing of the case. The MAG dismissed the objection, asserting that "an analysis of the action of the forces suggests that within their hearts, the understanding developed that the man at whom the firing was directed – was a person who had removed himself from the circle of the 'protected'", i.e. directly participated in the acts of hostility, rendering himself a "legitimate target for attack". Recall that the man's "horrific" crime was to talk on his cell phone inside the courtyard of his sister's home in Tulkarem.

The MAG's response is even more outrageous given the fact that that she does not hold that the soldiers abided by the open-fire regulations, rather that "within the soldiers' heart, and the heart of the company commander, the sincere understanding developed that the deceased was fleeing […] and that without stopping him by opening fire he would remain as a real source of threat to the soldiers.

HaMoked is opposed to the military's practice to refrain the criminal prosecution of soldiers who have killed innocent civilians, while deviating from the military's own open-fire regulations, and acting contrary to the provisions of Israeli and international law. The open-fire regulations are in no way concerned with the "soldiers' heart", these regulations must be set according to international law, and enforced with the aim of preventing the killing of innocent people.

Related topics