|
|
Samir ‘Awad 16, jan 15 2013 |
14 mar 2018
The Israeli prosecution is negotiating a plea bargain in the case of two Israeli soldiers accused of manslaughter in the fatal shooting of a Palestinian teenager in 2013.
According to the Israeli daily Haaretz, the soldiers were serving in the occupation army, when they shot and killed 16-year-old Samir Awad.
The lawyers for the two men claimed that convicting the soldiers would be a selective enforcement of the law, since it is rare for an indictment to be brought against Israeli soldiers who shoot and kill Palestinians.
The two soldiers were participating in an ambush in the vicinity of an apartheid fence near the West Bank village of Budrus in January, 2013 when the murder was perpetrated.
According to the indictment, the soldiers emerged from the ambush and began chasing Awad, who was trapped between the two fences. At that point, one soldier fired two bullets at Awad. His commander then fired three more bullets. Awad was taken to a hospital in Ramallah, where he succumbed to the gunshot wounds.
Alleging that it was not possible to determine which of the bullets was the fatal one, the prosecution decided not to indict the soldiers for manslaughter, but instead on the lesser charges of recklessness and negligence — which carries a maximum penalty of three years in prison.
During the hearing, attorneys for the accused claimed that their clients should not be convicted because it was not proven that they acted negligently and because the law was being selectively enforced in their case. The attorneys presented military data showing that in the last seven years, out of 110 cases in which soldiers had shot and killed Palestinians, only four indictments were filed. The court expressed doubts as to its ability to convict the two men due to the issue of selective enforcement.
The defense lawyers also noted that firing at Palestinians attempting to cross the separation fence is allowed under army regulations.
The defense brought up the possibility of dismissing the charges. Negotiations are underway for a plea agreement and the prosecution is expected to present its decision prior to the next court hearing in the case on March 26.
According to the Israeli daily Haaretz, the soldiers were serving in the occupation army, when they shot and killed 16-year-old Samir Awad.
The lawyers for the two men claimed that convicting the soldiers would be a selective enforcement of the law, since it is rare for an indictment to be brought against Israeli soldiers who shoot and kill Palestinians.
The two soldiers were participating in an ambush in the vicinity of an apartheid fence near the West Bank village of Budrus in January, 2013 when the murder was perpetrated.
According to the indictment, the soldiers emerged from the ambush and began chasing Awad, who was trapped between the two fences. At that point, one soldier fired two bullets at Awad. His commander then fired three more bullets. Awad was taken to a hospital in Ramallah, where he succumbed to the gunshot wounds.
Alleging that it was not possible to determine which of the bullets was the fatal one, the prosecution decided not to indict the soldiers for manslaughter, but instead on the lesser charges of recklessness and negligence — which carries a maximum penalty of three years in prison.
During the hearing, attorneys for the accused claimed that their clients should not be convicted because it was not proven that they acted negligently and because the law was being selectively enforced in their case. The attorneys presented military data showing that in the last seven years, out of 110 cases in which soldiers had shot and killed Palestinians, only four indictments were filed. The court expressed doubts as to its ability to convict the two men due to the issue of selective enforcement.
The defense lawyers also noted that firing at Palestinians attempting to cross the separation fence is allowed under army regulations.
The defense brought up the possibility of dismissing the charges. Negotiations are underway for a plea agreement and the prosecution is expected to present its decision prior to the next court hearing in the case on March 26.
The 2 soldiers in court
Armored Corps reservists face criminal charges in civil court following 2013 shooting and death of Palestinian teen suspected of damaging West Bank separation fence; 'We're not robots,' officer involved testified; soldiers' former battalion commander: 'You don't tell your soldier, "Take your weapon, go out in the field and don't open fire." Otherwise we might as well be sending them out there with broom handles.'
Two young men in their mid-twenties have been on trial for more than a year in the Ramla Magistrates' Court for their alleged involvement five years ago in the death of a Palestinian teen they suspected to be a terrorist.
The two—whose names were not released—have been indicted for "a reckless act and negligence," despite the fact that more serious charges were considered earlier in the investigation. The pair, soldiers at the time of the incident, claimed they first shot in the air and later aimed at the Palestinian teen's feet.
The incident took place in early 2013, when a force from the 71st Armored Battalion, tasked with overseeing a sector near Ramallah, ambushed Palestinians suspected of damaging the separation fence near the village of Budrus.
The force split to twos and hid on both sides of the double separation fence in the early hours of the morning, to carry out the pincer movement against anyone trying to damage the fence.
The operation turned complicated, however, when teens began throwing rocks at the soldiers' location near 7am. The force nevertheless lied in wait for the first Palestinian to be found between the two fences and when one arrived, soldiers initiated a suspect arrest protocol that included at least five shots being fired by two of the soldiers—one of them a platoon commander.
Attorneys for two from the Office of the Chief Military Defense alleged selective enforcement during their trial, as data obtained by the IDF showed that 112 Criminal Investigation Division (CID) inquiries were opened in the past seven years regarding IDF soldiers' involvement in the deaths of Palestinians during operations, but only three other cases concluded with an indictment.
The attorneys demanded that Chief Military Advocate General Brig.-Gen. Sharon Afek should also be called in to provide testimony, but the judge has yet to render her decision on the request.
The first defendant—at the time a junior officer and the force's commander—began testifying Tuesday. After the incident, he was promoted to a more senior role in the battalion and commanded a tank company that fought in Gaza's Shuja'iyya neighborhood during Operation Protective Edge.
When he was released from his mandatory army service, he left for a post-army trip abroad, and was surprised to learn of the indictment upon his return. He currently resides in the south and is studying for a bachelor's degree.
"It was the first time I carried out a suspect arrest protocol that included shooting and more than shouts of 'halt' in Arabic," he said in his testimony. "I planned the mission out together with the company commander after many instances in the sector of Palestinians damaging or defacing the fence.
"Palestinians teens arrived at 7am and began throwing rocks at the fence. Two of the soldiers in the force were hit, but we didn't go out to them because we didn't want to blow our cover. The mission was to apprehend the perpetrators rather than scare them away.
"At some point, one of them passed the fence. The ambush was sprung and the perpetrator ran towards the spot where I was lying in wait. The ambush was not sprung as I planned (throwing stun grenades—ed) so when the perpetrator ran towards me, I cocked me weapon and shot at a 60 degree angle.
"He did a virtuoso jump, rolled and fell into a concertina wire fence. We trained our weapons on him. Seconds later, he extricated himself from the concertina wire and took off running towards another wire fence. I then shot again, this time three times. The first (shot) was aimed at the side of the perpetrator's leg and the remaining two towards his lower limbs—from the knees down.
"After my shots, another soldier shot once or twice in the air and asked me whether to throw a stun grenade as well. I then saw the perpetrator was down. I ran towards him and saw he was bleeding from the face and chest. I tried providing medical attention. The village erupted into chaos. I didn't prevent the terrorist's brother from taking him back into the village."
The defendant claimed in court his actions were immaculate, saying, "I violated no protocol and obeyed all standing IDF orders. I clearly communicated to soldiers the conditions of opening fire and made sure they understood them.
"The ability to think clearly in the midst of an incident like that is not really identical to your ability before the incident, so soldiers learn to follow procedures. We're not robots.
"I do agree that once he turned his back and took off running towards the Palestinian area, he was less of a threat to the force. I didn't shoot him in the back. My judgment is not what I feel or think but what IDF orders say and categorize that teen—as someone present between the two fences and suspected of committing a dangerous crime."
The second defendant is expected to provide the court with his own account at a later date, and the two have thus far enjoyed the complete backing of their former commanders, who have already testified.
The battalion's then-commander, Col. Nir Rosenberg, provided decisive testimony in which he told the judge, "Soldiers are permitted to open fire in cases of action and reaction necessitating a suspect arrest protocol, even if the end result is someone unfortunately dying. We expect that of them.
"I never tell my soldiers, 'You have a weapon but don't use it.' That isn't a message that can be part of military discourse. If we have no confidence in our methods, or we can't trust our soldiers' judgment, then we had best abort the mission altogether. In this instance, it was soldiers I trust one hundred percent."
Col. Rosenberg admitted that faults were found in the mission's case file. "I think there are operational situations in the field, such as this one, which are complex and are related to the tactical world of exercising violent force to carry out a military mission. We aren't doing PR.
"We, as commanders who send our soldiers to carry out missions, take into account such complications, but don't expect them to face criminal charges. I hope the lesser count of reckless use of weapons will lead to as lenient a punishment as possible if they are convicted—which I hope they aren't.
"As their commander, I think there's a cynical attrition and use of soldiers we sent into battle. Professionally, this was a complex situation that didn't end well, but was within the rules of engagement. The situation isn't so complex."
Later in his testimony, the senior officer reiterated the difficulties soldiers face in similar incidents. "I have enough experience under fire (to know) that once an operational situation such as this occurs, adrenaline plays a considerable role in the ability to reach coherent decisions, and then your professional level carries immense weight.
"You don't tell your soldier, 'Take your weapon, go out in the field and don't open fire.' Otherwise we might as well be sending them out there with broom handles."
Having said the above, Col. Rosenberg went on to illustrate how complex the situation in the West Bank was and also criticized the force's conduct, saying, "When we prepared the ambush we realized we were dealing with a young populace and in general, there's no intention to reach situations involving killings in the West Bank.
"I expect the force in the field to arrest (suspects) because they are teenagers, not terrorists. That is, we're going in to apprehend people operating in a closed military zone and are suspected of a dangerous crime. We're not looking at a terrorist enemy in the abstract sense of the word, but boys severely damaging the fence. They therefore needed to have—or would have been more correct—to stop at shooting in the air.
"The force did not act as expected of it in relation to the operational goal set or binding protocol and procedures, regarding rules of engagement, for instance. There were several dozen bullet casings in the field, and we came to the conclusion the shooting was carried out by two or three soldiers at different points in time.
"The amount of fire was exaggerated, which in my opinion attests to an action that was not sufficiently professional."
Armored Corps reservists face criminal charges in civil court following 2013 shooting and death of Palestinian teen suspected of damaging West Bank separation fence; 'We're not robots,' officer involved testified; soldiers' former battalion commander: 'You don't tell your soldier, "Take your weapon, go out in the field and don't open fire." Otherwise we might as well be sending them out there with broom handles.'
Two young men in their mid-twenties have been on trial for more than a year in the Ramla Magistrates' Court for their alleged involvement five years ago in the death of a Palestinian teen they suspected to be a terrorist.
The two—whose names were not released—have been indicted for "a reckless act and negligence," despite the fact that more serious charges were considered earlier in the investigation. The pair, soldiers at the time of the incident, claimed they first shot in the air and later aimed at the Palestinian teen's feet.
The incident took place in early 2013, when a force from the 71st Armored Battalion, tasked with overseeing a sector near Ramallah, ambushed Palestinians suspected of damaging the separation fence near the village of Budrus.
The force split to twos and hid on both sides of the double separation fence in the early hours of the morning, to carry out the pincer movement against anyone trying to damage the fence.
The operation turned complicated, however, when teens began throwing rocks at the soldiers' location near 7am. The force nevertheless lied in wait for the first Palestinian to be found between the two fences and when one arrived, soldiers initiated a suspect arrest protocol that included at least five shots being fired by two of the soldiers—one of them a platoon commander.
Attorneys for two from the Office of the Chief Military Defense alleged selective enforcement during their trial, as data obtained by the IDF showed that 112 Criminal Investigation Division (CID) inquiries were opened in the past seven years regarding IDF soldiers' involvement in the deaths of Palestinians during operations, but only three other cases concluded with an indictment.
The attorneys demanded that Chief Military Advocate General Brig.-Gen. Sharon Afek should also be called in to provide testimony, but the judge has yet to render her decision on the request.
The first defendant—at the time a junior officer and the force's commander—began testifying Tuesday. After the incident, he was promoted to a more senior role in the battalion and commanded a tank company that fought in Gaza's Shuja'iyya neighborhood during Operation Protective Edge.
When he was released from his mandatory army service, he left for a post-army trip abroad, and was surprised to learn of the indictment upon his return. He currently resides in the south and is studying for a bachelor's degree.
"It was the first time I carried out a suspect arrest protocol that included shooting and more than shouts of 'halt' in Arabic," he said in his testimony. "I planned the mission out together with the company commander after many instances in the sector of Palestinians damaging or defacing the fence.
"Palestinians teens arrived at 7am and began throwing rocks at the fence. Two of the soldiers in the force were hit, but we didn't go out to them because we didn't want to blow our cover. The mission was to apprehend the perpetrators rather than scare them away.
"At some point, one of them passed the fence. The ambush was sprung and the perpetrator ran towards the spot where I was lying in wait. The ambush was not sprung as I planned (throwing stun grenades—ed) so when the perpetrator ran towards me, I cocked me weapon and shot at a 60 degree angle.
"He did a virtuoso jump, rolled and fell into a concertina wire fence. We trained our weapons on him. Seconds later, he extricated himself from the concertina wire and took off running towards another wire fence. I then shot again, this time three times. The first (shot) was aimed at the side of the perpetrator's leg and the remaining two towards his lower limbs—from the knees down.
"After my shots, another soldier shot once or twice in the air and asked me whether to throw a stun grenade as well. I then saw the perpetrator was down. I ran towards him and saw he was bleeding from the face and chest. I tried providing medical attention. The village erupted into chaos. I didn't prevent the terrorist's brother from taking him back into the village."
The defendant claimed in court his actions were immaculate, saying, "I violated no protocol and obeyed all standing IDF orders. I clearly communicated to soldiers the conditions of opening fire and made sure they understood them.
"The ability to think clearly in the midst of an incident like that is not really identical to your ability before the incident, so soldiers learn to follow procedures. We're not robots.
"I do agree that once he turned his back and took off running towards the Palestinian area, he was less of a threat to the force. I didn't shoot him in the back. My judgment is not what I feel or think but what IDF orders say and categorize that teen—as someone present between the two fences and suspected of committing a dangerous crime."
The second defendant is expected to provide the court with his own account at a later date, and the two have thus far enjoyed the complete backing of their former commanders, who have already testified.
The battalion's then-commander, Col. Nir Rosenberg, provided decisive testimony in which he told the judge, "Soldiers are permitted to open fire in cases of action and reaction necessitating a suspect arrest protocol, even if the end result is someone unfortunately dying. We expect that of them.
"I never tell my soldiers, 'You have a weapon but don't use it.' That isn't a message that can be part of military discourse. If we have no confidence in our methods, or we can't trust our soldiers' judgment, then we had best abort the mission altogether. In this instance, it was soldiers I trust one hundred percent."
Col. Rosenberg admitted that faults were found in the mission's case file. "I think there are operational situations in the field, such as this one, which are complex and are related to the tactical world of exercising violent force to carry out a military mission. We aren't doing PR.
"We, as commanders who send our soldiers to carry out missions, take into account such complications, but don't expect them to face criminal charges. I hope the lesser count of reckless use of weapons will lead to as lenient a punishment as possible if they are convicted—which I hope they aren't.
"As their commander, I think there's a cynical attrition and use of soldiers we sent into battle. Professionally, this was a complex situation that didn't end well, but was within the rules of engagement. The situation isn't so complex."
Later in his testimony, the senior officer reiterated the difficulties soldiers face in similar incidents. "I have enough experience under fire (to know) that once an operational situation such as this occurs, adrenaline plays a considerable role in the ability to reach coherent decisions, and then your professional level carries immense weight.
"You don't tell your soldier, 'Take your weapon, go out in the field and don't open fire.' Otherwise we might as well be sending them out there with broom handles."
Having said the above, Col. Rosenberg went on to illustrate how complex the situation in the West Bank was and also criticized the force's conduct, saying, "When we prepared the ambush we realized we were dealing with a young populace and in general, there's no intention to reach situations involving killings in the West Bank.
"I expect the force in the field to arrest (suspects) because they are teenagers, not terrorists. That is, we're going in to apprehend people operating in a closed military zone and are suspected of a dangerous crime. We're not looking at a terrorist enemy in the abstract sense of the word, but boys severely damaging the fence. They therefore needed to have—or would have been more correct—to stop at shooting in the air.
"The force did not act as expected of it in relation to the operational goal set or binding protocol and procedures, regarding rules of engagement, for instance. There were several dozen bullet casings in the field, and we came to the conclusion the shooting was carried out by two or three soldiers at different points in time.
"The amount of fire was exaggerated, which in my opinion attests to an action that was not sufficiently professional."
22 dec 2016
Two IDF soldiers shot Samir Awad from behind eight times in January 2013, killing him. Nearly four years and a string of investigative failures later, it looks unlikely that either of the accused will go to jail — In January 2013, Israeli soldiers killed Palestinian teen Samir Awad in the West Bank village of Budrus, after shooting him eight times from behind.
The shooters, A. and B. — a commander and a soldier — were indicted last January, three years after the killing, on charges of “recklessness and negligence.”
The names of the accused are barred from publication. At a hearing last November, the state prosecutor proposed a compromise of three months’ community service for the two soldiers, along with a conditional sentence and damages payable to Awad’s family.
The proposal was made with the intention of seeing off any potential future civil lawsuit from the teen’s relatives. The defense rejected the offer, demanding that the two soldiers escape conviction altogether.
Although the proposed punishment is minimal given nature of the incident, it is surprising that the indictment stage was reached at all, given the attempts of the IDF’s investigative and prosecutorial authorities to try and undermine the inquiry….
The shooters, A. and B. — a commander and a soldier — were indicted last January, three years after the killing, on charges of “recklessness and negligence.”
The names of the accused are barred from publication. At a hearing last November, the state prosecutor proposed a compromise of three months’ community service for the two soldiers, along with a conditional sentence and damages payable to Awad’s family.
The proposal was made with the intention of seeing off any potential future civil lawsuit from the teen’s relatives. The defense rejected the offer, demanding that the two soldiers escape conviction altogether.
Although the proposed punishment is minimal given nature of the incident, it is surprising that the indictment stage was reached at all, given the attempts of the IDF’s investigative and prosecutorial authorities to try and undermine the inquiry….
19 dec 2016
Samir Awad is evacuated for medical treatment after being shot in the back of the neck by Israeli soldiers, January 13, 2013. (Nader Morar/B’Tselem). Awad later died from his wounds.
Two IDF soldiers shot Samir Awad from behind eight times in January 2013, killing him. Nearly four years and a string of investigative failures later, it looks unlikely that either of the accused will go to jail.
In January 2013, Israeli soldiers killed Palestinian teen Samir Awad in the West Bank village of Budrus, after shooting him eight times from behind. The shooters, A. and B. — a commander and a soldier — were indicted last January, three years after the killing, on charges of “recklessness and negligence.” The names of the accused are barred from publication.
At a hearing last November, the state prosecutor proposed a compromise of three months’ community service for the two soldiers, along with a conditional sentence and damages payable to Awad’s family. The proposal was made with the intention of seeing off any potential future civil lawsuit from the teen’s relatives. The defense rejected the offer, demanding that the two soldiers escape conviction altogether.
Although the proposed punishment is minimal given nature of the incident, it is surprising that the indictment stage was reached at all, given the attempts of the IDF’s investigative and prosecutorial authorities to try and undermine the inquiry.
In prior hearings, the defendants’ attorneys had declared that should the trial go ahead, the soldiers would claim that the law was being selectively enforced against them, by arguing that the IDF tends not to prosecute soldiers who have killed Palestinians.
The two defense attorneys have both previously served with the IDF’s Military Advocate General, and are well-versed in how the army enforces its own rules.
They are, of course, correct: the case in question is being handled differently from dozens of others involving the killing of Palestinians – some even more serious than Awad’s death — in which no indictments were submitted. During the trial this year of Hebron shooter Elor Azaria, for example, former IDF general Uzi Dayan recounted how he had whitewashed the killing of three innocent Palestinians.
There are numerous examples of other cases that the attorneys could have presented to support the claim that their clients were the victims of selective law enforcement.
A flawed investigation
The indictment states that at around 3.30am on January 16, the IDF set up an ambush of six soldiers near the separation barrier in Budrus, in order to stop any youths who might come to throw stones at the fence. The barrier, which runs through land belonging to the village, consists of rolls of barbed wire, a primary fence, a dirt road, and a secondary fence, which is electrified and touch-sensitive. The soldiers were split up into three pairs. One of the pairs, which included the accused soldier B., was stationed next to a breach in the first fence. The remaining two pairs lined up along the path.
At 10.06am, more than six hours after the ambush was set up, several teenagers approached the fence. One of them, Samir Awad, crossed through the breach in the barrier. The two soldiers who had been lying in wait revealed themselves and blocked Awad’s path back. The teen started trying to escape back to the village via a different route, and B. shot into the air three times.
With the route back through the gap in the fence blocked, Awad was forced to try and jump over the first fence, but fell and got tangled up in the barbed wire. At the same time, the remaining two pairs of soldiers revealed themselves and started to chase after Awad. According to the indictment, B. trained his gun on Awad and shot twice from a distance of a few meters, while the teen was still caught in the barbed wire. Awad nonetheless managed to disentangle himself and run away, despite having a bullet wound in his thigh.
The indictment recounts that as Awad was escaping, A. also fired his gun three times: once to the side of the fleeing teenager, and twice at his legs. At the same time, B. shot another five bullets, this time without looking through his gun sights, according to the indictment. One of the bullets hit Awad in the back; another struck him in the back of the head. It was this wound that killed him.
The contents of the IDF’s preliminary investigations immediately following the incident were exposed as lies. The group of soldiers concerned claimed that they had not initially fired live ammunition, but had rather used crowd dispersal measures against stone throwers — even though no stones had been thrown. After it became known that Awad was dead, this version of events was changed, with the soldiers instead saying that they had fired live bullets as warning shots (i.e. they hadn’t shot in anyone’s direction), and that Awad fell and injured himself.
Then, when the pathology results made clear that Awad had been shot, the soldiers changed their story again, claiming that he had posed a threat to their lives.
How much is a Palestinian teenager’s life worth?
According to the indictment, every bullet shot towards Samir Awad was fired contrary to orders, implying that the claim he was endangering the soldiers’ lives was false. Yet despite the killing clearly being unjustified, the district prosecutor submitted an indictment on charges of “recklessness and negligence,” after a delay of nearly three years.
The prosecutor claimed that the military police investigation had failed to assess which of the two accused soldiers had fired the lethal round; although both of them had shot Awad, it’s unclear whose bullet hit him in the back of the head. The investigative authorities failed to find the bullet in question, and were therefore unable to match it to the weapon it had been fired from. Consequently, no one could be charged with lethal use of fire.
Although this legal claim is reasonable in principle, it’s difficult to imagine that a deal of three months’ community service would have been offered to two shooters who were not soldiers, and who had killed a teenager by shooting him in the back of the head after already having injured him. It’s also difficult to imagine that an investigative body other than the military police would have displayed such negligence and failed to find the deadly bullet.
Moreover, the IDF possesses footage of the incident, but has not allowed anyone outside the army to view it. Although it may be difficult to determine who fired the bullet that killed Awad, a thorough examination of the footage could nonetheless point to who was responsible.
It was reported last week that a plea bargain is about to be signed in the case of Ben Deri, the Border Police officer on trial for the May 2014 killing of Nadim Nawara in the West Bank town of Beitunia. Under the terms of the deal, the former officer will be charged with causing death by negligence rather than manslaughter. Deri’s punishment is likely to be symbolic, perhaps even just community service.
These two cases demonstrate what everyone knows: that Israel’s investigative and prosecutorial authorities are incapable of dealing with criminal acts committed by IDF soldiers, in particular when they have killed Palestinian youths. Only a minority of cases come to trial; within those, community service, and sometimes even less, is given in exchange for the lives of teenagers. The authorities are effectively collaborating in the killing of innocents and the military repression of the Palestinian population.
*John Brown is the pseudonym of an Israeli academic and a blogger. This article was first published in Hebrew on Local Call. Read it here. Translated by Natasha Roth.
Two IDF soldiers shot Samir Awad from behind eight times in January 2013, killing him. Nearly four years and a string of investigative failures later, it looks unlikely that either of the accused will go to jail.
In January 2013, Israeli soldiers killed Palestinian teen Samir Awad in the West Bank village of Budrus, after shooting him eight times from behind. The shooters, A. and B. — a commander and a soldier — were indicted last January, three years after the killing, on charges of “recklessness and negligence.” The names of the accused are barred from publication.
At a hearing last November, the state prosecutor proposed a compromise of three months’ community service for the two soldiers, along with a conditional sentence and damages payable to Awad’s family. The proposal was made with the intention of seeing off any potential future civil lawsuit from the teen’s relatives. The defense rejected the offer, demanding that the two soldiers escape conviction altogether.
Although the proposed punishment is minimal given nature of the incident, it is surprising that the indictment stage was reached at all, given the attempts of the IDF’s investigative and prosecutorial authorities to try and undermine the inquiry.
In prior hearings, the defendants’ attorneys had declared that should the trial go ahead, the soldiers would claim that the law was being selectively enforced against them, by arguing that the IDF tends not to prosecute soldiers who have killed Palestinians.
The two defense attorneys have both previously served with the IDF’s Military Advocate General, and are well-versed in how the army enforces its own rules.
They are, of course, correct: the case in question is being handled differently from dozens of others involving the killing of Palestinians – some even more serious than Awad’s death — in which no indictments were submitted. During the trial this year of Hebron shooter Elor Azaria, for example, former IDF general Uzi Dayan recounted how he had whitewashed the killing of three innocent Palestinians.
There are numerous examples of other cases that the attorneys could have presented to support the claim that their clients were the victims of selective law enforcement.
A flawed investigation
The indictment states that at around 3.30am on January 16, the IDF set up an ambush of six soldiers near the separation barrier in Budrus, in order to stop any youths who might come to throw stones at the fence. The barrier, which runs through land belonging to the village, consists of rolls of barbed wire, a primary fence, a dirt road, and a secondary fence, which is electrified and touch-sensitive. The soldiers were split up into three pairs. One of the pairs, which included the accused soldier B., was stationed next to a breach in the first fence. The remaining two pairs lined up along the path.
At 10.06am, more than six hours after the ambush was set up, several teenagers approached the fence. One of them, Samir Awad, crossed through the breach in the barrier. The two soldiers who had been lying in wait revealed themselves and blocked Awad’s path back. The teen started trying to escape back to the village via a different route, and B. shot into the air three times.
With the route back through the gap in the fence blocked, Awad was forced to try and jump over the first fence, but fell and got tangled up in the barbed wire. At the same time, the remaining two pairs of soldiers revealed themselves and started to chase after Awad. According to the indictment, B. trained his gun on Awad and shot twice from a distance of a few meters, while the teen was still caught in the barbed wire. Awad nonetheless managed to disentangle himself and run away, despite having a bullet wound in his thigh.
The indictment recounts that as Awad was escaping, A. also fired his gun three times: once to the side of the fleeing teenager, and twice at his legs. At the same time, B. shot another five bullets, this time without looking through his gun sights, according to the indictment. One of the bullets hit Awad in the back; another struck him in the back of the head. It was this wound that killed him.
The contents of the IDF’s preliminary investigations immediately following the incident were exposed as lies. The group of soldiers concerned claimed that they had not initially fired live ammunition, but had rather used crowd dispersal measures against stone throwers — even though no stones had been thrown. After it became known that Awad was dead, this version of events was changed, with the soldiers instead saying that they had fired live bullets as warning shots (i.e. they hadn’t shot in anyone’s direction), and that Awad fell and injured himself.
Then, when the pathology results made clear that Awad had been shot, the soldiers changed their story again, claiming that he had posed a threat to their lives.
How much is a Palestinian teenager’s life worth?
According to the indictment, every bullet shot towards Samir Awad was fired contrary to orders, implying that the claim he was endangering the soldiers’ lives was false. Yet despite the killing clearly being unjustified, the district prosecutor submitted an indictment on charges of “recklessness and negligence,” after a delay of nearly three years.
The prosecutor claimed that the military police investigation had failed to assess which of the two accused soldiers had fired the lethal round; although both of them had shot Awad, it’s unclear whose bullet hit him in the back of the head. The investigative authorities failed to find the bullet in question, and were therefore unable to match it to the weapon it had been fired from. Consequently, no one could be charged with lethal use of fire.
Although this legal claim is reasonable in principle, it’s difficult to imagine that a deal of three months’ community service would have been offered to two shooters who were not soldiers, and who had killed a teenager by shooting him in the back of the head after already having injured him. It’s also difficult to imagine that an investigative body other than the military police would have displayed such negligence and failed to find the deadly bullet.
Moreover, the IDF possesses footage of the incident, but has not allowed anyone outside the army to view it. Although it may be difficult to determine who fired the bullet that killed Awad, a thorough examination of the footage could nonetheless point to who was responsible.
It was reported last week that a plea bargain is about to be signed in the case of Ben Deri, the Border Police officer on trial for the May 2014 killing of Nadim Nawara in the West Bank town of Beitunia. Under the terms of the deal, the former officer will be charged with causing death by negligence rather than manslaughter. Deri’s punishment is likely to be symbolic, perhaps even just community service.
These two cases demonstrate what everyone knows: that Israel’s investigative and prosecutorial authorities are incapable of dealing with criminal acts committed by IDF soldiers, in particular when they have killed Palestinian youths. Only a minority of cases come to trial; within those, community service, and sometimes even less, is given in exchange for the lives of teenagers. The authorities are effectively collaborating in the killing of innocents and the military repression of the Palestinian population.
*John Brown is the pseudonym of an Israeli academic and a blogger. This article was first published in Hebrew on Local Call. Read it here. Translated by Natasha Roth.
10 aug 2015
More than two and a half years ago, soldiers killed sixteen-year-old Samir ‘Awad. A year and two months later, his father petitioned the High Court of Justice (HCJ) together with B'Tselem, demanding the Military Advocate General (MAG) reach a decision whether to take action against the soldiers involved or close the case. The State Attorney’s Office continues the foot-dragging in this case, repeatedly ignoring interim court decisions.
In its last decision, the HCJ ordered [PDF] the state to make a final decision on the case by 3 August 2015. Instead, on the very day of the ordered deadline, the State Attorney’s Office told the HCJ it needed more time to reach a final decision and requested to make an additional submission to the court by 10 September 2015, in which it would provide a progress report. Justice Hanan Melcer granted the motion by the State Attorney’s Office and ordered to schedule a hearing.
This motion by the State Attorney’s Office is another instance of the repeated delays by authorities in handling the Samir ‘Awad investigation, as seen in other cases as well. The delays, which in this case have continued even into the proceedings held in the HCJ petition, show that even the mechanisms ostensibly responsible for monitoring the work of the MAG Corps are party to the policy of lack of enforcement in terms of perpetrators of harm to Palestinians.
Below is the chain of events in the case to date:
On 15 January 2013, 16-year-old Palestinian Samir ‘Awad was killed by live ammunition Israeli soldiers fired at him near the Separation Barrier near the village of Budrus, the West Bank. A B’Tselem inquiry revealed that although ‘the soldiers were not in danger at any time during the incident, they shot ‘Awad three times. According to media reports, the initial investigation by the Israeli military found that ‘Awad was shot in contravention of open-fire regulations. The military was also reported to have video footage of the incident captured on the Separation Barrier surveillance cameras.
On 27 March 2014, Ahmad ‘Awad, Samir’s father, petitioned the HCJ together with B'Tselem, demanding that the MAG, Maj. Gen. Danny Efroni, make the decision of whether to indict the soldiers who killed his son, or close the case.
On 1 December 2014, the HCJ ordered the MAG Corps and the State Attorney’s Office to make a decision with regard to the investigation of Samir ‘Awad’s death by 1 March 2015. The court added the Attorney General as a respondent in the petition since it was found that the soldiers suspected in the case had been discharged from the military and were, therefore, no longer subject to the Military Justice Law.
After further deferrals, on 14 April 2015, the State Attorney’s Office finally informed the HCJ that, “subject to a hearing and the conclusion of privilege proceedings”, it had decided to file an indictment on the charge of “a reckless and negligent act using a firearm”. On 10 June 2015, the State Attorney’s Office asked the HCJ to dismiss the petition because privilege proceedings had ended and the hearings for the two suspects had begun. The petitioners objected, stating that should the petition be dismissed, the authorities might continue the foot-dragging and delays.
On 22 July 2015, Justice Hanan Melcer ruled [PDF] that the State Attorney’s Office must inform the court by 3 August 2015 of the results of the hearings held for the two suspects and the resultant decision.
On 3 August 2015, the State Attorney’s Office informed [PDF] the HCJ that hearings were held for the two suspects on 21 and 23 June 2015 and that following arguments presented by their counsel, the State Attorney’s Office would have to make some further inquiries and even conduct supplementary investigations. The State Attorney’s Office also said that given the “complexity and sensitivity of the investigation”, the case was transferred from the Central District Attorney’s Office to the office of the Deputy State Attorney (Special Functions) and is expected to be transferred to the State Attorney himself for a final decision. According to the state’s submission, further inquiries would include a probe into whether or not additional suspects should be investigated.
In its last decision, the HCJ ordered [PDF] the state to make a final decision on the case by 3 August 2015. Instead, on the very day of the ordered deadline, the State Attorney’s Office told the HCJ it needed more time to reach a final decision and requested to make an additional submission to the court by 10 September 2015, in which it would provide a progress report. Justice Hanan Melcer granted the motion by the State Attorney’s Office and ordered to schedule a hearing.
This motion by the State Attorney’s Office is another instance of the repeated delays by authorities in handling the Samir ‘Awad investigation, as seen in other cases as well. The delays, which in this case have continued even into the proceedings held in the HCJ petition, show that even the mechanisms ostensibly responsible for monitoring the work of the MAG Corps are party to the policy of lack of enforcement in terms of perpetrators of harm to Palestinians.
Below is the chain of events in the case to date:
On 15 January 2013, 16-year-old Palestinian Samir ‘Awad was killed by live ammunition Israeli soldiers fired at him near the Separation Barrier near the village of Budrus, the West Bank. A B’Tselem inquiry revealed that although ‘the soldiers were not in danger at any time during the incident, they shot ‘Awad three times. According to media reports, the initial investigation by the Israeli military found that ‘Awad was shot in contravention of open-fire regulations. The military was also reported to have video footage of the incident captured on the Separation Barrier surveillance cameras.
On 27 March 2014, Ahmad ‘Awad, Samir’s father, petitioned the HCJ together with B'Tselem, demanding that the MAG, Maj. Gen. Danny Efroni, make the decision of whether to indict the soldiers who killed his son, or close the case.
On 1 December 2014, the HCJ ordered the MAG Corps and the State Attorney’s Office to make a decision with regard to the investigation of Samir ‘Awad’s death by 1 March 2015. The court added the Attorney General as a respondent in the petition since it was found that the soldiers suspected in the case had been discharged from the military and were, therefore, no longer subject to the Military Justice Law.
After further deferrals, on 14 April 2015, the State Attorney’s Office finally informed the HCJ that, “subject to a hearing and the conclusion of privilege proceedings”, it had decided to file an indictment on the charge of “a reckless and negligent act using a firearm”. On 10 June 2015, the State Attorney’s Office asked the HCJ to dismiss the petition because privilege proceedings had ended and the hearings for the two suspects had begun. The petitioners objected, stating that should the petition be dismissed, the authorities might continue the foot-dragging and delays.
On 22 July 2015, Justice Hanan Melcer ruled [PDF] that the State Attorney’s Office must inform the court by 3 August 2015 of the results of the hearings held for the two suspects and the resultant decision.
On 3 August 2015, the State Attorney’s Office informed [PDF] the HCJ that hearings were held for the two suspects on 21 and 23 June 2015 and that following arguments presented by their counsel, the State Attorney’s Office would have to make some further inquiries and even conduct supplementary investigations. The State Attorney’s Office also said that given the “complexity and sensitivity of the investigation”, the case was transferred from the Central District Attorney’s Office to the office of the Deputy State Attorney (Special Functions) and is expected to be transferred to the State Attorney himself for a final decision. According to the state’s submission, further inquiries would include a probe into whether or not additional suspects should be investigated.
