IDF has come out to say that it was not aimed at her but aimed at the key instigator ie she was NOT the instigator. I still remember when news first broke and so many came out saying she deserved it because she instigated it… well now we know she wasn’t.
koniboni on
Were the instructions “kill everyone” not specific enough?
MrDeekhaed on
I hope I don’t sound callous but why should I care much about this? How many Palestinians have been killed? I don’t value a us citizens life anymore than theirs.
Away-Coach48 on
Israel: My bad!
HalJordan2424 on
“Unintentionally”. They totally meant to shoot her, but they would have held fire if they knew she was an American.
MamasGottaDance on
If I told a judge and jury that I unintentionally shot someone, that’s an admission of guilt and I’d definitely go to prison so…Whoever shot her won’t though. Her name will be dragged through the dirt and then added onto the “Oopsy” list of people the IDF unintentionally killed.
I always see people say that israeli settlers occupying the West Bank are bad no matter where you stand on Gaza but when someone is “unintentionally” killed demonstrating for what’s supposed to be a just cause that “all sides can agree on” suddenly people are justifying the actions of whoever killed her.
Hippie11B on
Oh well I unintentionally would like my taxes to stop going to Israel
SteakForGoodDogs on
“Oopsie!”
“Oopsie!”
“Oopsie!”
Seems like a whole lot of ‘accidental’ activist killings….
Space_Bungalow on
People in the west don’t fully understand what these protests in the West Bank mean. When the protests turn violent – more often than not the instigators and those joining in are there with an intent to _kill_, if a soldier was hospitalized because of a rock, that would cause them to throw MORE rocks, not less.
When protests in the west result in police officers being hospitalized it causes an outcry, the protesting group gets criticized and future protests are policed more heavily. In the Gaza border and West Bank it’s the opposite – soldiers getting hospitalized results in MORE rocks, molotovs and slings being used, MORE rioters intending to kill and maim. This has been the case since before the first Intifada. The use of force in response by border patrol and soldiers is by far the most effective way to quickly stop riots once they break out. The decision to weigh is whether injuring several of theirs with live fire is preferable to risking your own soldiers to brutal beatdowns, kidnapping or death. Most police forces would choose the former. In Israel it’s been evident enough that it became the norm.
I’m not justifying the death of any person in a riot, but to those of you saying live fire isn’t justifiable in protests, sorry to say but unless you’ve lived through two and a half Intifadas (that includes you, Anthony Blinken) you can’t really tell Israel how to do or not do riot response. If the woman that died didn’t know what she was going into when she decided to join a riot against Israel police forces then she was incredibly naive and misguided.
MrX_1899 on
just think how many others they’ve “unintentionally” killed too not just the American … an eye witness said 14 people have been shot from that one village
edit – downvote all you want it doesn’t change the truth
EmpiricalAnarchism on
Collateral damage happens when you throw rocks at soldiers during a war. Sucks but it’s not a serious issue.
Husbandaru on
Look, look. We may have, accidentally, unintentionally. By mistake, shot someone that, may have been completely innocent.
manticore124 on
Two bullets on the back of the head… on accident.
WeAreAllFallible on
Any insight into possible good reasons to not be arming IDF in these cases with rubber bullets? Not really sure on the exact technical concerns that might exist with such a changeover, but I feel like a lot of these travesties could be avoided without compromising the intent of quelling lower-threat violence like stone throwing in particular.
Still leave soldiers lethal sidearms in case they are needed (you never know the exact threat someone can pose), and give lethal rifles to some or all soldiers deployed to a site based on higher threat level, but in general it seems like in the majority of these stories where the violence was from thrown objects or melee weapons, starting with less-lethal munitions would be an ideal choice. You can still stop the real- albeit lower- threat posed by such crude weaponry while minimizing the risk of the level of international outrage homicide elicits.
Bigfamei on
Let’s be real. It was intentional.
Cantomic66 on
“Unintentional” shot an American because they thought they intentionally shot a Palestinian.
Apexnanoman on
You start screwing around in a war zone and this is a risk you take. Same way that combat photographers get killed at times.
Tragarful_Law on
Never heard of accidently shooting someone in the head that’s a new one.
Icy-Macaroon1070 on
Israel completely lost it but completely. It’s just killing without spare. They lost many people supporting that once loved and supported it. God knows the reasons. They could handle this issue without spilling civilians blood but no they preferred this. I still can’t understand.
im_coolest on
“During Friday’s demonstration, clashes broke out between Palestinians throwing stones and Israeli troops firing tear gas and ammunition, **according to Jonathan Pollak, an Israeli protester who witnessed the shooting of Eygi.**
**Pollak said** the violence had subsided about a half hour before Eygi was shot, after protesters and activists had withdrawn several hundred meters (yards) away from the site of the demonstration. Pollak said he saw two Israeli soldiers mount the roof of a nearby home, train a gun in the group’s direction and fire, with one bullet hitting Eygi.
**Israel said** its inquiry into Eygi’s killing “found that it is highly likely that she was hit indirectly and unintentionally by (Israeli army) fire which was not aimed at her, but aimed at the key instigator of the riot.” It expressed its “deepest regret” at her death.
**International Solidarity Movement, the activist group Egyi was volunteering with, said** it “entirely rejects” the Israeli statement and that the “shot was aimed directly at her.””
This presentation of testimonials devoid of substance is beyond disingenuous and anyone who can read an article like this without shaking their heads is merely seeking confirmation for their existing beliefs. Despicable journalism.
The IDF must provide more details and the press needs to better contextualize events based on known facts.
21 Comments
More [info](https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-says-indirect-and-unintended-fire-likely-killed-american-woman-in-west-bank-expresses-regret/) on the matter.
IDF has come out to say that it was not aimed at her but aimed at the key instigator ie she was NOT the instigator. I still remember when news first broke and so many came out saying she deserved it because she instigated it… well now we know she wasn’t.
Were the instructions “kill everyone” not specific enough?
I hope I don’t sound callous but why should I care much about this? How many Palestinians have been killed? I don’t value a us citizens life anymore than theirs.
Israel: My bad!
“Unintentionally”. They totally meant to shoot her, but they would have held fire if they knew she was an American.
If I told a judge and jury that I unintentionally shot someone, that’s an admission of guilt and I’d definitely go to prison so…Whoever shot her won’t though. Her name will be dragged through the dirt and then added onto the “Oopsy” list of people the IDF unintentionally killed.
I always see people say that israeli settlers occupying the West Bank are bad no matter where you stand on Gaza but when someone is “unintentionally” killed demonstrating for what’s supposed to be a just cause that “all sides can agree on” suddenly people are justifying the actions of whoever killed her.
Oh well I unintentionally would like my taxes to stop going to Israel
“Oopsie!”
“Oopsie!”
“Oopsie!”
Seems like a whole lot of ‘accidental’ activist killings….
People in the west don’t fully understand what these protests in the West Bank mean. When the protests turn violent – more often than not the instigators and those joining in are there with an intent to _kill_, if a soldier was hospitalized because of a rock, that would cause them to throw MORE rocks, not less.
When protests in the west result in police officers being hospitalized it causes an outcry, the protesting group gets criticized and future protests are policed more heavily. In the Gaza border and West Bank it’s the opposite – soldiers getting hospitalized results in MORE rocks, molotovs and slings being used, MORE rioters intending to kill and maim. This has been the case since before the first Intifada. The use of force in response by border patrol and soldiers is by far the most effective way to quickly stop riots once they break out. The decision to weigh is whether injuring several of theirs with live fire is preferable to risking your own soldiers to brutal beatdowns, kidnapping or death. Most police forces would choose the former. In Israel it’s been evident enough that it became the norm.
I’m not justifying the death of any person in a riot, but to those of you saying live fire isn’t justifiable in protests, sorry to say but unless you’ve lived through two and a half Intifadas (that includes you, Anthony Blinken) you can’t really tell Israel how to do or not do riot response. If the woman that died didn’t know what she was going into when she decided to join a riot against Israel police forces then she was incredibly naive and misguided.
just think how many others they’ve “unintentionally” killed too not just the American … an eye witness said 14 people have been shot from that one village
edit – downvote all you want it doesn’t change the truth
Collateral damage happens when you throw rocks at soldiers during a war. Sucks but it’s not a serious issue.
Look, look. We may have, accidentally, unintentionally. By mistake, shot someone that, may have been completely innocent.
Two bullets on the back of the head… on accident.
Any insight into possible good reasons to not be arming IDF in these cases with rubber bullets? Not really sure on the exact technical concerns that might exist with such a changeover, but I feel like a lot of these travesties could be avoided without compromising the intent of quelling lower-threat violence like stone throwing in particular.
Still leave soldiers lethal sidearms in case they are needed (you never know the exact threat someone can pose), and give lethal rifles to some or all soldiers deployed to a site based on higher threat level, but in general it seems like in the majority of these stories where the violence was from thrown objects or melee weapons, starting with less-lethal munitions would be an ideal choice. You can still stop the real- albeit lower- threat posed by such crude weaponry while minimizing the risk of the level of international outrage homicide elicits.
Let’s be real. It was intentional.
“Unintentional” shot an American because they thought they intentionally shot a Palestinian.
You start screwing around in a war zone and this is a risk you take. Same way that combat photographers get killed at times.
Never heard of accidently shooting someone in the head that’s a new one.
Israel completely lost it but completely. It’s just killing without spare. They lost many people supporting that once loved and supported it. God knows the reasons. They could handle this issue without spilling civilians blood but no they preferred this. I still can’t understand.
“During Friday’s demonstration, clashes broke out between Palestinians throwing stones and Israeli troops firing tear gas and ammunition, **according to Jonathan Pollak, an Israeli protester who witnessed the shooting of Eygi.**
**Pollak said** the violence had subsided about a half hour before Eygi was shot, after protesters and activists had withdrawn several hundred meters (yards) away from the site of the demonstration. Pollak said he saw two Israeli soldiers mount the roof of a nearby home, train a gun in the group’s direction and fire, with one bullet hitting Eygi.
**Israel said** its inquiry into Eygi’s killing “found that it is highly likely that she was hit indirectly and unintentionally by (Israeli army) fire which was not aimed at her, but aimed at the key instigator of the riot.” It expressed its “deepest regret” at her death.
**International Solidarity Movement, the activist group Egyi was volunteering with, said** it “entirely rejects” the Israeli statement and that the “shot was aimed directly at her.””
This presentation of testimonials devoid of substance is beyond disingenuous and anyone who can read an article like this without shaking their heads is merely seeking confirmation for their existing beliefs. Despicable journalism.
The IDF must provide more details and the press needs to better contextualize events based on known facts.