Shooting child with machine gun is OK, says Israeli army

[amarain]

I'm sorry, but no matter how you feel about who's right or wrong in this conflict, there is no excuse for shooting a young girl with a machine gun, especially one who's already dead.

What I want to know is, why isn't this a huge story in the US like it is in the rest of the world? I guarantee you that if it were a 13-year-old Israeli girl who had been shot 20 times like this, it would be blared from every headline in the country and Bush would have already held a press conference to condemn the brutality and inhumanity of the act.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3733638.stm

Israel's top military prosecutor is investigating an army commander accused of repeatedly firing at the lifeless body of a young Palestinian girl.

Soldiers said they pleaded with the officer to stop as he sprayed Iman al-Hams, 13, with automatic gunfire.

"We saw her from a distance of 70 metres. She was fired at ... from the outpost. She fled and was wounded," a soldier said.

While Iman was lying, wounded or dead, about 70m from the Israeli guard post, the platoon commander approached her and fired two bullets from close range at her head, the soldiers said.

He then went back a second time, put his weapon on the automatic setting and - ignoring their objections on the walkie-talkie - emptied his entire magazine into her body.

"We couldn't believe what he had done. Our hearts ached for her. Just a 13-year-old girl," one soldier said.

[Koga]

This makes me sick.

[cascagrossa]

that is sickening.  the whole situation over there is so screwed up that other than nuking jerusalem or turning it over to UN control and making it a neutral state, i dont know what can be done.

[buddha]

The worst part of the situation is that if you got a bunch of law students together I bet we could hammer out a solution before happy hour.  The problem really isn't that complicated.

[cascagrossa]

The worst part of the situation is that if you got a bunch of law students together I bet we could hammer out a solution before happy hour.  The problem really isn't that complicated.

i definitely disagree with you.  law students know jack *&^% about foreign policy and the situation over there.  we've had the world's experts on the matter working on it for how long now and they havent come up with a real fix. what makes you think some 20something year old know it alls could do it?

[buddha]

i definitely disagree with you.  law students know jack *&^% about foreign policy and the situation over there.  we've had the world's experts in the matter working on it for how long now and they havent come up with a real fix. what makes you think some 20something year old know it alls could do it?

I say law students because as lawyers in training we're taught to value logic and legalism above all else.  Logically there are only two legalistic solutions.  There will have to be either two viable states living side by side and economically interdependent, or Israel will have to formally annex Gaza and the West Bank make the Palestinians living there citizens of the state of Israel.  The reason there has not been a solution so far is that the US, which let's be honest is the only country that can broker a solution, is quite frankly uninterested in the problem.

[coloroflaw.org]

Only if you made happy hour contingent on a solution!

The worst part of the situation is that if you got a bunch of law students together I bet we could hammer out a solution before happy hour.  The problem really isn't that complicated.

[cascagrossa]

i dont agree with the assumption that there are only 2 solutions but even if that were true, its not as easy as saying "ok, lets go with option 1."  theoretical solutions are VERY different from practical solutions.

the whole problem is rooted in religious differences. it would be nearly impossible to just tell either the palestinians or israelis to give up what they believe is their holy land.

[buddha]

i dont agree with the assumption that there are only 2 solutions but even if that were true, its not as easy as saying "ok, lets go with option 1."  theoretical solutions are VERY different from practical solutions.

the whole problem is rooted in religious differences. it would be nearly impossible to just tell either the palestinians or israelis to give up what they believe is their holy land.

You know, I really believe the holy land aspect of the conflict is overplayed.  Like many PoliSci people I see this as a conflict with its roots in nationalism.  Israel is fighting for the existence and expansion of their state and the Palestinians are fighting for a state.  If there were no holy sites anywhere in the Middle East this would still be a conflict because nationalism was the primary cause of conflicts in the 20th century.  Which in turn is related to terrorism because I think you can argue that the rise in Islamic extremism is related to the failure of Pan-Arab nationalism giving rise to a Pseudo-nationalistic expansion of radical Islam.

[cascagrossa]

"If there were no holy sites anywhere in the Middle East this would still be a conflict because nationalism was the primary cause of conflicts in the 20th century."

i agree, but religion complicates the issue, especially when it defines the society you are dealing with. its a hell of a lot harder to get people to compromise when their faith is involved.

the palestinians want a state, but they dont want it just anywhere.  and i dont believe that israel is fighting for expansion.  if it was purely an issue of nationalism i would expect that the problem would have been solved by now.