Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: La giornalista Israeliana Amira Hass sull'uccisione del suo collega Palestinese

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=286219&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
Cameraman under the streetlamp 
By Amira Hass
 One of the answers often used by the army when its soldiers kill
someone who clearly had nothing to do with the fighting or even
stone-throwing (which nobody questions is a crime punishable by
death), is that the situation is dangerous, there's combat going on,
and the risks about being in the area are known. That's what was said
Sunday when Palestinian cameraman Nazeh Darwazeh, 45, a father of five
- the youngest, four months old - was killed.
Anyone who lives, works or learns in the territories knows very well
it is dangerous. Every foreign correspondent or solidarity activist
who has chosen to be there is well aware of the dangers; so are quite
a few Israelis who, despite the ban, choose to meet with Palestinians
in their besieged communities - for example, the Ta'ayush activists
who were attacked.
Most Palestinians choose to stay away from dangerous places, because
in any case, they live in constant danger. But it was Darwazeh's
choice, like other cameramen and reporters, Palestinian and foreign,
to run around documenting slices of life in hours of danger. Thus,
Darwazeh, as a Palestinian and a journalist, lived with a double
jeopardy.
For civilians, and not only reporters, there is always the danger of
becoming a dead or wounded casualty from a piece of shrapnel fired
from a rocket aimed at a Fatah or Hamas activist or a Palestinian
Authority building or from a stray bullet fired by a careless
Palestinian gunman or a bullet fired by frightened, angry or careless
soldiers at a checkpoint. That's why the shepherds are afraid to move
between the hills and stay in the fields closest to their homes. It is
dangerous to be alone in a field, because a soldier can always claim
he suspected you were a terrorist. There's constant danger lurking for
Palestinian civilians and their visitors in Gaza's refugee camps,
since every IDF raid there is accompanied by deadly fire.
Nonetheless, the civilians who do take the risk figure that being
close to the focal point of the danger provides a measure of
protection: it enables certain identification of the reporter, medic,
doctor, International Solidarity activist, and schoolgirl in uniform.
The IDF is supposed to be able to distinguish them from armed men or
stone-throwers from a distance. The army's spokesmen, after all, take
pride in their sophisticated equipment, which can spot armed men at
night from a distance. If the equipment is so advanced, why can't it
identify a woman at a window during a curfew or reporters and
cameramen or medical evacuation crews? The fact that these people have
been wounded and killed doesn't prove that the army doesn't have the
vision enhancement equipment, but that it doesn't always bother to use
it.
That's why the professionals who move in the dangerous areas always
wear flak jackets plastered with day-glo writing with various
identifications. It presumably helps the soldier using the
sophisticated equipment to spot them. Darwazeh was very close to the
soldiers who were stuck Saturday in a tank at the western entrance to
the old city of Nablus' Yasmina neighborhood, near the girls' schools
Abed Nasser and Fatima just as the girls were on their way to class.
True, Darwazeh went there. People say that in the last two-and-a-half
years, he showed courage as someone who would be among the first to
reach dangerous places.
In other words, he had "battle" experience. As a freelancer, he
naturally learned the rules of safety and how to get around. Like his
colleagues, he learned to stay away from armed Palestinians, even from
children throwing rocks. Grab a distant corner, be enough in the open
not to be mistaken by the soldiers for an armed man, and stay put in
one place, that's better for documentation (and safer) than running
like the gunmen who are constantly on the move from cover to cover in
the alleyways and on the roofs.
The soldiers stuck in a tank that didn't want to move had every reason
in the world to panic in the middle of a neighborhood that is known as
a terrorists' den. Less than a week earlier, a soldier was killed
there. Perhaps he was a friend of theirs. Was it panic motivating the
shooting soldier, who was documented by another camera firing one
shot, which apparently was the one that hit Darwazeh? Was it panic
that made him shoot straight at a man who was standing 15-50 meters
away from him? Maybe it was the flash of sunlight that made him think
the camera was a weapon? In other words, a regrettable human error, as
the IDF inquiry will say.
In any case, it wasn't panicky fire in every direction. That happened
elsewhere that day, wounding 18 people, mostly schoolgirls, some
distance from the cameramen.
The shot that killed Darwazeh was intentional, precise, on target. One
shot that was aimed at the upper torso. Israeli soldiers have been
heard saying what the Palestinians have felt: a shot to the upper
torso is meant to kill. The difference between shooting an armed man
and shooting a cameraman is that the former is hiding while the latter
is the coin you find under the streetlamp.
Did the soldier decide on his own - or with his buddies and commander
- that a direct hit of one man will scatter the crowd, make them
concentrate on the wounded person, and enable a quicker escape for the
stuck tank? The Palestinians were quick to deduce that the shooting of
the cameraman was deliberate; so nobody would document the tank's
failure, the children running under whistling bullets, and the panic
of the soldiers from the strongest army in the Middle East (except the
Americans) in the face of some poorly trained armed men and
schoolgirls.

cameraman was deliberate;
E questo dovrebbe dimostrare che hanno ragione? :)
*LOL*
-Stefano

http://www.bynoi.tk/decesari.html