Footer Pages

The Proper Procedure for Killing Unarmed Civilians

An Israeli military spokesperson announced Sunday that an Israeli soldier referenced only as Staff Sergeant “S” would serve 45 days in prison for killing Ria Abu Hajaj and her daughter Majda during the January, 2009 invasion of Gaza code-named “Cast Lead”. The sentence was the result of a plea agreement.

I was able to locate “S’s” Commanding Officer, who was willing to be interviewed, but he asked me not to use his real name, so I am giving him the pseudonym Anders Breivik for the sake of this report.

BW: Can you tell me why Staff Sergeant “S” received only 45 days for killing a 64-year-old Palestinian woman and her 35-year-old daughter while they were carrying white flags?

AB: I’m sorry, but your information is incorrect. Neither of the women was carrying a white flag. At best, these were pieces of white cloth on a stick. To qualify as a flag it would have had to be of the proper dimensions and material, which these were not.

BW: But why only 45 days for killing two unarmed women?

AB: There are lots of reasons. He is Jewish. They are Palestinian. They are women. He is a man. Besides, they were not unarmed and Staff Sergeant “S” found himself in a “threatening situation endangering the lives of the soldiers.”

BW: What arms were they carrying?

AB: Sticks with white cloth on them.

BW: Do we at least agree that he killed them?

AB: Actually, the court found this allegation to be unproven. “S” admitted firing his weapon at the women and we have determined that the women were killed by gunfire. However, we cannot be sure that the two facts are related in any way.

BW: What other kind of proof do you need?

AB: Eyewitness corroboration would be helpful, but in fact the eyewitnesses all said the opposite. One said that the bullets that “S” fired actually ended up killing another Palestinian a few days later in a different place. “S” also said that he was aiming at their feet, and the witnesses corroborated that statement.

BW: So who were the witnesses?

AB: The other soldiers in his unit. Perhaps they didn’t want to embarrass him by saying that he’s a lousy marksman.

BW: What about the Palestinians who were at the scene?

AB: Their testimony is biased and unreliable. Only Israeli soldiers can be trusted to give accurate information, and only if the members of the court, including the judges, are also military personnel. Besides, “S” was convicted of a much more serious charge than killing two Palestinian women.

BW: What could be more serious?

AB: Firing his weapon when I had not ordered him to do so. If we’re going to kill Palestinian women, we have to follow proper procedure, and “B” failed to wait for my order.

BW: I thought his name was “S”.

AB: Sorry. I’m used to calling him by his first name.

Share Button

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

15 Responses to The Proper Procedure for Killing Unarmed Civilians

  1. Jonathon Blakeley August 14, 2012 at 7:19 pm #

    cool barb.. Very funny & tragic >> such is life. I like your interview stylie – it’s orginal.

    • Barb Weir September 2, 2012 at 5:18 pm #

      What can I say? Your help has been invaluable.

  2. pgg804 August 14, 2012 at 8:02 pm #

    Excellent. Very funny too. Better than anything written in the New York Times, Financial Times, etc.

    • Barb Weir August 15, 2012 at 7:16 am #

      I appreciate the sentiment, but isn’t that like saying that I smell better than Limburger cheese?

      • Roy Bard August 15, 2012 at 10:36 am #

        Barb, when people start saying you smell worse than Limburger cheese is when you really need to start worrying.

        • Barb Weir September 2, 2012 at 5:21 pm #

          To say that I smell better than the New York Times and the Financial Times is high praise, but then where does Limburger rank?

  3. etominusipi August 14, 2012 at 11:23 pm #

    Ms Weir’s interview typifies the anti-Israel bias that pervades all Western media coverage of the Middle East. suppose the jackboot had been on the other foot. suppose a terrified West Bank settler and her daughter had attacked a Hamas brigade with sticks? imagine the uproar then! imagine the histrionic groaning at the UN. imagine the scabrous propaganda attacks against Israel that would be pumped out 24 hours a day to our TV screens by the Muslim-dominated BBC and its equally controlled counterparts in Europe and the US!

    but us forget sentimentality. and let us also eschew the red herring of ‘flags’ so artfully introduced by M Weir. let us unveil a little reality.

    a stick, even if its wielder attempts to disguise the fact by attaching a white handkerchied to the lethal tip (the so-called ‘business end’), is undoubtedly a weapon. it is not a signalling device! this much is crystal clear to all serious students of military history, and is equally evident to all right thinking persons who have even the slightest knowledge of the facts on the ground with which the IDF is dealing..

    perhaps some recently published figures may bring this point home.

    FATALITIES FROM WARFARE 2000 BC – 2000 AD
    classified by main cause of death

    famine and disease 943 million
    nuclear blasts/radiation 0.3 million
    poison gas 8.9 million
    bullets and shells 497 million
    conventional bombardment 645 million
    swords, spears, arrows,
    pikes, halberds etc. 749.2 million
    drowning 427.34 million
    stones and hand combat 345 million
    sticks 3.9 billion
    paroxysm of fear 111 million
    lice, fleas etc. 71.8 million
    trampled by stampeding cattle 17.5 million
    gas chambers 6.00034 million
    all other causes 6,245

    (copied with permission from The Glory of War by Prof. Emmanuel Morderberg, Ben Gurion Institute of Genocide, Tel Aviv, 2001)

    although some liberals are squeamish about modern weapons, what strikes the more realistic military mind is the huge increase in the accuracy of targeting that we have seen over the last 100 years. the stick, on the other hand, which has hardly been developed beyond the clumsy prototypes of the palaeolithic Age, is a blunt instrument – once it is deployed, the unleasher has no effective means of damage limitation. hence the killing and maiming is quite indiscriminate. this conclusion is confirmed by Prof Moderberg’s more detailed statistical analysis of the database of casualties, which is too long to reproduce here.

    in the light of these indisputable facts soldier S would undoubtedly have been acquitted by a full military tribunal. his 45-day sentence was a result of the IDF bowing to political pressure. i am not competent to judge whether his sacrifice has been worthwhile, or if this lamentable interruption of his career was merely one more futile gesture of appeasement, leading in the end to yet more concessions, until our Arab foes succeed where the UN has so far failed, in pushing the entire Jewish population of Israel into the sea.

    • Barb Weir September 2, 2012 at 5:29 pm #

      You have some truly astonishing facts at your disposal, etominusipi! I wonder where hangnail ranks.

      With regard to the soldier, psychiatric wards in Israel are filled with such persons feeling guilt for harming Palestinians. But then, the whole nation is suffering from guilt for secretly not cleaning their plate as a child.

  4. Blake August 15, 2012 at 1:22 am #

    They are nothing but cowardly terrorists

  5. who_me August 15, 2012 at 7:11 am #

    “He is Jewish. They are Palestinian. They are women. He is a man.”

    he being an israeli, i find the accuracy of the latter term rather dubious.

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos August 15, 2012 at 8:58 am #

      Don’t be silly. Is that really the worst thing you can say about the Israelis? You’ll give first visitors to deLib the impression this is a homophobic site, which it ain’t.
      I take exception to that. Some of my good friends happen to be homosexuals (although not simultaneously Israelis) and I can tell you a woman’s best non-woman friend is a homosexual.

      • who_me August 15, 2012 at 9:17 am #

        “and I can tell you a woman’s best non-woman friend is a homosexual.”

        you mean mathis? :D

        • Ariadna Theokopoulos August 15, 2012 at 9:23 am #

          No, and not only because he is a virtual Israeli but also because they are good friends only in person, e.g.,: wardrobe appreciation, color coordination advice, etc.

          • who_me August 15, 2012 at 9:39 am #

            i dated a “fag hag” before. ;) trust me, gay men give poor advice regarding “women’s accessories”. they are pretty much clueless about it. they are like old women who buy their sons and husbands white jockey briefs. :D

Leave a Reply