Avigdor Liberman, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s second hand man and Yisrael Beytenu chairman (who is also on trial for corruption), wants to change IDF rules of engagement so that soldiers should open fire at stone throwers rather than use dispersal methods, such as tear gas. My first gut reaction to this article from The Jerusalem Post, was man, this is definitely stuff that makes me mad. It’s totally messed up to shoot Palestinians that are throwing stones. A gun seems like excessive force.
Rating: Stuff that makes me mad/ Sh*t is complicated
Sh*t is also complicated because of the context behind the comment. On Thursday, The Times of Israel reported that, “Six people were injured, one critically, after stones thrown by Palestinians caused a car to collide with a truck near the West Bank settlement of Ariel.” That one critically injured was a 3-year-old. She’s currently in a hospital, fighting for her life.
Additionally, violence in the West Bank has been on the rise. Here’s a good tally of attacks from The Jerusalem Post:
“A total of 139 attacks, including firebombings and the use of improvised explosives, took place in February, compared to 83 in January.
One hundred of February’s attacks took place in the West Bank – 84 of them firebombings – compared to 56 in the previous month.
In the capital, 38 attacks – 35 of them firebombings – were registered by the Shin Bet in February, compared to 27 in January.”
In general, I support a 2-state solution and hope for as little violence as possible. I don’t want soldiers to shoot at Palestinians throwing stones, but I also want stone throwing to recede.
Maybe President Obama can give his thoughts on the subject when he visits Israel this week. Although I doubt he will, considering he’s coming here on a “listening tour.”
What do you suggest?
Bus damaged by stones on Route 5 near Ariel, March 14
Photo: Channel 10
Laura Rosbrow-Telem 
After reading the post, a friend that has served in the IDF clarified that if someone is throwing a rock that will put the lives of people in danger, and is about to throw said rock, the IDF is allowed to shoot. For example, if the rock were pointed in the direction of a moving car (such as was the case with the family), a soldier could have shot the stone thrower. But in general, if the stone thrower isn’t putting someone’s life in danger, the overall guideline of the IDF is to not shoot.
A good clarification.
a few remarks regarding your blog laura… as someone who drives through many roads which are under threat I’d like to share my thoughts. number one, the extent of the phenomenon is not represented proportionately in the news. we are talking about an everyday occurence on many of these roads. there have been dozens of cases where innocent people, men women and children have been injured. on a good day- it might be mentioned on the scrolling down notifications on the side of the news sites and removed after a few hours. there have been dozens of cases where people have been killed or seriously wounded in the past year or two. we’re talking real life threatening attacks on a daily basis.
now I don’t know about other people, but when someone comes at me with the intent of killing me, I usually don’t do to much phylosophising- I simply do my best to eliminate the threat in any way possible. we’re talking basic right to self defense- I believe it’s a widely accepted right pretty much anywhere in the world and in any culture. as we have seen- rocks kill. period. so if I happen to be in a situation where stones are being thrown at traveling cars, or stationary people or any other situation in which I feel human life is in danger, and if I happen to have the ability to eliminate the threat- I will do my best to do so and I would expect any other person on the site to do the same. as for soldiers, they generally have the tools to disperse crowds such as rubber bullets and such, but not always. very often, a soldier or armed civilian will have only a live weapon on them (especially the civilians) and won’t have a non-lethal crowd dispersal arms, in such cases- is there is indeed a threat to human life, it’s a no brainer in my opinion. I have serious issues with claims that somehow try and reverse responsibility for the loss of life in some of these clashes.
bottom line to some things up: the rule of thumb in life threatening situations is to eliminate the threat with the least possible amount of lethal force used. If however, only lethal force will suffice or only lethal force is available- there’s no choice…
Hello! I really like this blog. Tell me please – from where do you have information for ths post?
Hi, thanks for liking my blog! I found this article on The Jerusalem Post’s website: jpost.com