|
Over
the last year ‘Breaking the Silence’ has collected testimonies given
by hundreds of IOF (Israeli Defense Forces) soldiers who served in
the territories during the last conflict. These testimonies reveal
the impossible reality those soldiers have to face, and the terrible
moral price this reality demands. Selected collections from those
testimonies have been published in testimonial collections produced
by ‘Breaking the Silence’.
The
present collection is not just one more testimonial-collection,
revealing the brutal routine of the territories’ reality, or the
constant moral degradation and erosion of soldiers’ values. The
collection focuses on IOF orders, rules of engagement and
operational procedures. It presents a grave picture of evidently
illegal orders given frequently, and in different times and places:
firing at civilians who pose no risk, revenge operations,
intentionally shooting at rescue-forces, and more. This collection
reveals the depth of the military administration’s moral corruption,
and the dimness of moral sense, which has spread to the highest
ranks. The testimonies in this collection concerns various units
that were operative in the territories in different times and at
different places, and is thus an evidence for the magnitude of the
moral decay, and for the depths to which flawed norms have diffused.
It
is also apparent that the IOF’s self-inspection system has failed to
fulfill its duty. This also applies to the civilian and
parliamentary inspection mechanisms, which, during the last
confrontations, have consistently refrained from criticizing the
army’s mode of conduct in general, and its rules of engagement in
particular. This brings out sharply an urgent need to create a
platform on which the information we have gathered here can be
presented, in order to examine what this information teaches, as
well as the IOF’s mode of conduct during the last confrontations. A
civilized and decent society cannot survive without a continuous
inspection and criticism of the most powerful organization operating
within it. ‘Breaking the Silence’ is therefore calling for the
establishment of an independent public inspection committee, which
will enable a responsible disclosure and examination of the facts.
Listening and taking responsibility is the very least that is
required of society and its representatives in a civilized and
decent society founded on basic moral values.
One Bullet and a Dog
Witnesses:
Two staff sergeants from Maglan (elite unit)
Place:
Bethlehem.
Date:
2004
Description:
Witness 1: I would like
to tell one more story before I tell you about the neighbor
procedure. In Al-Aidde, in
Bethlehem. It was around
Passover, I think it was around Passover 2004. In February two
suicide bombings took place in Jerusalem, and both came out from
Bethlehem.
They
decided to enter the city with great forces. There was a Duvdevan
(elite unit) operation there a week earlier, if you can remember it.
Someone was hiding in a ditch in Al-Aidde, and a soldier there, ***,
he was also paralyzed – shot in the chest. He was paralyzed from the
waist down. In short, a week later we entered to make an arrest in
house next door.
In
the house next door we arrested the terrorist’s cousin – the
terrorist who hit [and paralyzed one of the soldiers] and who was
killed by Duvdevan. We were after his cousin. I wasn’t involved in
the actual arrest. I stayed in the vehicle, but the force stood
right under the house and the lookout post told them there was
someone on the roof. So the platoon commander suddenly reported an
OK shooting [to let the other forces know not to take action] – he
shot once, and they just kept knocking on the door, and got no
response.
OK shooting
what?
Wittness 1: Wait. We were
waiting, waiting, waiting. Five minutes later the platoon commander
gets on the radio and says: “I might have hit someone.” So the
battalion commander gets on the radio and says: “what do you mean?
Did you see anyone armed?” So he [platoon commander] says: “No, I
only saw a head peeking on the roof. I took a shot in its direction.
I don’t know if I hit him or not.” So he [battalion commander] says:
“What do you mean you don’t know?” “What does that mean? Did you see
anyone armed?” So he [platoon commander] calls the outlook post,
because they reported having seen someone on the roof: “You said he
was armed, didn’t you?” so they tell him: “No. We didn’t see
anything armed.” He [platoon commander] goes: “Well, I don’t know if
I hit him or not.” Meanwhile there is no response from the house. We
had some dog-handlers with us. They got a dog in. The dog worked on
that person for some 20 minutes.
What does that
mean?
Witness 1: When he
identifies a person he…
Witness 2: He eats him.
Witness 1: He eats him.
After 20 minutes…
What, does that
mean that this is the dog’s job?
Witness 1: We hear him
barking inside for some 20 minutes.
Witness 2: An assault
dog. It eats people.
Witness 1: 20 minutes
later they decide that the force will go inside. They see the
person…
Because the dog
did not come back?
Witness 1: Yes. They take
the dog out. The force enters. The dog dragged the person from the
roof one floor down – the person was all eaten and all. They called
a doctor to make sure the guy was dead, only that the minute the
doctor touched him the man jumped – he was still alive. He was in a
hospital for a week and then died.
Where
did he take the bullet?
Witness 1: in the head
And
that did not kill him?
Witness 1: Neither the 20
minutes the dog was eating him.
And
did the doctor manage to take any care of him?
Witness 1: he was
evacuated to Haddasah Ein-Karem hospital, where he was hospitalized
for a week, and then died.
Witness 2: I think he got
respiration aid.
On the spot?
Witness 2: Yes.
And he wasn’t
armed?
Witness 1: An hour later,
we searched for weapons in the house, like, ‘You got to find weapons
here’ (the platoon commander said) but we didn’t find any. He wasn’t
armed.
Witness 2: You see, ‘You
have to find weapons here.’
Witness 1: No, what do
you mean ‘have to’… He wanted to search the place.
Witness 2: had we found a
weapon it would mean the man had been armed.
Witness 1: It is not as
if he would put a weapon next to the body to cover up his ass. This
is not the point. He wanted that for his conscience. The minute he
shot him… He didn’t even know whether this was the person we came to
arrest. Later, we learnt it was he. It calmed his conscience. I
think… At least this was indeed the man we came to arrest. Also, it
wasn’t really clear how much of a terrorist he was, if at all. He
was a cousin of a terrorist. I don’t know, he might have been a
terrorist, and he might not. I don’t know.
What happened in
debriefing ?
Witness 2: Also, when the
guy died he [the platoon commander] said, “I made it. I killed him.”
Witness 1: the
investigation did not find that anyone operated wrongfully.
Did it end
there?
Witness 1: Yes. There was
a debriefing
– like after any operation in which
something unusual happens. I can also understand him, as a platoon
commander standing at a house with fifteen guys and sees someone
watching him. I would have at least fired a warning shot in the air.
He was the only one with the guts to take the responsibility and
shoot. Especially since he was a platoon commander and all, and this
is a place where shots are fired. One has to do something to stop
him from spraying the force. One can shoot in the air, one can do
many things, but one does not have to shoot him in the head. He also
claimed he couldn’t tell whether he hit him or not. At least that is
what he claimed initially. What he reported on the radio was just
that there has been an OK shooting.
Has no one asked
whether he put a person in his rifle sights?
Witness 1: I didn’t hear
the investigation. The battalion commander might have asked him. It
didn’t reach us. The battalion commander sounded angry on the radio.
And what was the
talk in the company later?
Witness 1: No one was
really sorry about it.
Wasn’t there any
talk about it?
Witness 1: In our team we
talked about it. There wasn’t much…
Witness 2: We were
already expecting things like that from him.
|
