Ibrahim Abu Thuraya, a 29-year-old double amputee, was fatally shot by Israeli soldiers close to the perimeter fence in the Gaza Strip. Abu Thuraya, a resident of Deir al-Balah, had already been injured three times by the Israeli military: In 2001 he was hit in the leg by soldiers’ gunfire during clashes to the east of Gaza City. About three years later, in 2004, he was hit in the stomach by soldiers’ gunfire during clashes in the same area. The third time was in 2008, during Operation Cast Lead, when he was injured by a missile the military fired after entering al-Bureij Refugee Camp. Seven Palestinians, including four minors, were killed by the missile, while Abu Thuraya lost both his legs.
Abu Thuraya lived with his parents and six siblings. He was the family’s sole provider, washing cars and receiving a disability allowance from a government association that supports individuals who suffered injuries.
Video: Al Mayadeen News
President Trump’s “Jerusalem Declaration” on 6 December 2017 sparked a wave of protests. Abu Thuraya joined these demonstrations and threw stones at soldiers stationed on the other side of the perimeter fence. During protests, because of the lay of the land, he would get out of his wheelchair, crawl toward the fence, then crawl away and get back into his wheelchair. He became a familiar figure to the soldiers.
On the morning of Friday, 15 December 2017, at about 9:00 A.M., approximately one hundred youths gathered near the perimeter fence, by Nahal Oz Checkpoint to the east of Gaza City. After about two hours, the youths began to burn tires and throw stones at military jeeps and soldiers stationed by two towers approximately 15 meters from the fence; the soldiers were firing live ammunition and teargas at the demonstrators. When Abu Thuraya arrived, youths who were already there pushed his wheelchair nearer the fence. At about 4:30 P.M., while Abu Thuraya was on the ground some 10-20 meters from the perimeter fence, a soldier shot him in the head, killing him. Approximately half an hour earlier, at the same demonstration, soldiers fatally shot another protester in the head, 23-year-old Yasser Sukar from Gaza City.
Image
Ibrahim Abu Thuraya demonstrating near the perimeter fence following the Trump Declaration, 15 Dec. 2017. Photo: Mohammed Salem,
A.S., 22, from Gaza City, gave his testimony to B’Tselem field researcher Muhammad Sabah on 19 December 2017, recounting the day’s events:
Over the days leading up to the incident, Ibrahim Abu Thuraya and I became friends. He’d ask me to push him toward the border while he waved a Palestinian flag. I wasn’t afraid of the gunfire and I pushed him as near the border as he wanted. We’d get as close as 100 meters or so from the border. He thought that the soldiers wouldn’t shoot at him. Ibrahim would approach even nearer the border without his wheelchair, shout at the soldiers and then move back. Sometimes when he got to the border he’d wave a Palestinian flag or the flag of the Popular Front. Sometimes he’d throw stones. On Wednesday, a military jeep drove up and the soldiers in the jeep started addressing him on a bullhorn. One soldier said, in Arabic, “Go away, Ibrahim.” The jeep stopped there for a little while and then drove away.
On Friday, 15 December 2017, at about 9 o’clock in the morning, I walked to the Nahal Oz area. There were about a hundred teens and youths there, standing around 200 meters from the fence. Soldiers were stationed in both the military towers. No one was throwing stones because we were waiting for ambulances to arrive and for more youths to get there. After about two hours some more guys arrived. Ibrahim Abu Thuraya came too. He’d move from one place to another, sometimes approaching the border sometimes moving away again. Sometimes he’d lift up his shirt to show the soldiers that he wasn’t armed and that he posed no threat to anyone. Suddenly the soldiers fired teargas canisters and the air filled with gas. We couldn’t see anything in front of us. Then they fired live ammunition, and then teargas again. I saw that Ibrahim had been hit. The guys picked him up and took him toward the ambulance.
Another protester, J.H., 26, from Beit Lahiya, also described the shooting of Abu Thuraya. He gave a statement on 27 December 2017 to B’Tselem field researcher Muhammad Sabah:
The clashes that day continued until the afternoon and grew more intense because many youths came. The military fired live ammunition and teargas at us and every few minutes someone was injured either by live gunfire, by a direct hit from a gas canister, or by inhaling teargas.
At about half past four, Ibrahim approached the border. One of the guys pushed him on his wheelchair. Then he got out of the wheelchair and began to crawl toward us. We were standing a few meters from the fence. The soldiers swore at us and we swore back and threw stones at them. Ibrahim Abu Thuraya approached us, and suddenly we heard the loud sound of live fire. I saw Ibrahim collapse and fall on his back. As he fell we began to shout “Allahu akbar.” Straight away we picked him up and carried him to the ambulance.
Abu Thuraya was carried to a Red Crescent ambulance waiting about 250 meters from the fence which took him to a-Shifaa Hospital in Gaza City where he was pronounced dead.
His mother, E’tidal Abu Thuraya, 56, a resident of Deir al-Balah, a married mother of seven, related the following in the testimony she gave on 24 December 2017 to B’Tselem field researcher Olfat al-Kurd:
Image
E’tidal Abu Thuraya
Ibrahim got an injured person’s allowance from a government organization that supports people who have been injured, and we used that to pay the rent and buy groceries. My husband is already old and he can’t work, and Ibrahim has a younger brother and five sisters who aren’t working. The allowance wasn’t enough for us, and Ibrahim also worked washing cars on the streets of Gaza City. Even though he suffered a lot because of the loss of both his legs, Ibrahim was always smiling, optimistic, and friendly. He was kind and compassionate to me and his father. He always tried to make sure I had everything I need.
When Ibrahim heard about the declaration of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital he was very angry. After he heard about the clashes between the youths and the military, he decided to go to the demonstrations to the east of Gaza City. He wouldn’t let anything keep him from it and I couldn’t stop him. Nothing could stop him. Although he had been injured so many times, he didn’t give up or get tired. On Friday, 15 December 2017, he woke up at 9 o’clock in the morning, had breakfast, and told me and his brother and sisters that he was going to the demonstrations near Nahal Oz. He told me to look after the family because that day he was going to fall as a martyr, and he said goodbye to me and to his brother and sisters. I didn’t believe him because he always used to fool around and joke a lot.
He left home at 10 o’clock. We live in the Deir al-Balah area. The demonstration he wanted to go to was near Shuja’iyeh, by Nahal Oz. That’s far away and it’s difficult to get there. He was used to going there because until a few months ago we lived in Gaza City. Every time he went off to the demonstrations I was worried and scared, but I always expected that he’d come back home. I thought that the Israeli military wouldn’t shoot him because he was a cripple and he wasn’t a danger to anyone. He couldn’t walk, only crawl by the fence.
At about 5 o’clock one of his cousins phoned and told me that Ibrahim had been hit in the head and had fallen as a martyr. I didn’t believe him and I was sure Ibrahim would come home. I told his father and he went on his own to a-Shifaa Hospital and saw the body in the morgue to make sure it was true. He phoned and told me that Ibrahim was dead and that he had been hit in the head. I became hysterical and started screaming and crying. His sisters also completely fell apart when they heard the news that he was dead. What had he done to deserve this?! The next day we held his funeral and I said my goodbyes to him. I hugged him, wept over him, his brother and sisters and I said goodbye to him. I was sad, in shock. My heart was broken. May the Heavens comfort me. He’s left such a void behind. Sometimes I imagine that I can hear him laughing at home. I pray for him every day.
During the wave of protests sparked by President Trump’s declaration about Jerusalem, another seven demonstrators – apart from Abu Thuraya – were shot and killed by soldiers who were stationed on the other side of the perimeter fence. Like Abu Thuraya, none of the protesters who were killed posed mortal danger to the soldiers. According to figures from the Palestinian Ministry of Health, between 7 and 31 December 2017, a total of 322 Palestinians were injured by live ammunition fired by the military and 58 were injured by rubber-coated metal bullets. This reality is a direct result of the military’s open-fire policy near the perimeter fence, which includes gunfire – also by snipers – at stone-throwers who pose no danger whatsoever.
The media reported that the Military Police Investigations Unit has launched an investigation into the shooting of Abu Thuraya. However, past experience shows the investigation is highly unlikely to lead to the prosecution of those responsible for this unlawful killing, to say nothing of the prosecution of senior figures. This experience, which shows that such investigations almost always end in a whitewash, has led B’Tselem to stop sending demands to the MAG Corps to open investigations. That said, the obligation to investigate and bring to justice those responsible remains squarely on the shoulders of the military system. Yet as long as the MAG Corps continues its policy of systematically whitewashing instances in which Israeli security forces kill or injure Palestinians, with no one being held to account for these actions, the unlawful killing will continue.
* On 4 January 2018, media reports stated that an MPIU investigation had been launched. On 15 May 2019 media reports stated that that the case had been closed since no evidence had been found that soldiers fired directly at Abu Thuraya.
Over the course of five days of bombings and uncertainty in the Gaza Strip (“a round of fighting”), Israel killed 30 Palestinians. One-third of those killed did not participate in the fighting. All 10 were killed at the exact same moment, on the first night of the fighting, 9 May 2023, at around 2:00 A.M., when Israel, entirely on its own initiative, launched an air strike on three homes where Islamic Jihad operatives lived with their families: In the attack on the home of Tareq ‘Iz a-Din (48), he and his two children, ‘Ali (8) and Mayar (10), were killed. Neighbors living in the apartment above him were also killed: Dr. Jamal Khaswan (52), his wife Mirvat (44) and their son Yusef (19). In the attack on the home of Khalil al-Bahtini (44), he, his wife Layla (43), and their daughter Hajar (4) were killed. Two neighbors, who were sisters, were also killed, Daniyah ‘Addas (19) and Iman ‘Addas (17). In the attack on the home of Jihad Ghanam (62), he and his wife Wafa (61), were killed. Air strikes on homes are not an exception or an aberration, but part of Israel’s longstanding policy in the Gaza Strip. Thousands of Palestinians have already been killed, thousands more have been injured, tens of thousands of homes have been destroyed and hundreds of thousands of people have been left homeless. Entire families have lost their whole world in the blink of an eye, unable to protect their children or themselves inside their own homes. The difference is that in the past, when civilians were killed in Israeli strikes on Gaza, state officials made attempts to say the harm was unexpected: the unfortunate result of some sort of mishap or of bad, partial or obsolete intel, and other such claims. This time around, the masks were off and such claims were not even raised. Instead, Israel maintains the action was legal despite the foreseen results, since the innocents killed were simply “collateral damage,” and in any event, the blame lies with the Islamic Jihad operatives for hiding behind civilians. These justifications, and the legal opinions Israel provided to itself, clearing the strike, rely on an erroneous interpretation of international humanitarian law and a morally distorted worldview, both of which must be rejected. The claim that the action was proportionate and that the dead were just “collateral damage” nullifies the harm to civilians and drains all meaning out of one of the fundamental principles of international law. Furthermore, the question of whether the act was proportionate does not even come up in this case as the attack was aimed at residential buildings that are not legitimate military targets, making the entire strike illegal even before the extensive killing it caused. The claim that the blame for these deaths lies with the Islamic Jihad operatives automatically justifies any action Israel wishes to carry out in the Gaza Strip, no matter how horrifying the consequences, absolving it of the duty to keep harm to civilians and their property to a minimum. Israel is the one that chose to fire the missiles that caused death and destruction , and therefore, Israel alone bears full responsibility for the consequences. Israeli decision-makers chose the timing, the targets and the means for this attack. They consciously chose to fire missiles at homes in the middle of the night, while families were asleep in their beds, knowing it was expected that many - including small children - would be killed. As with any crime, there are people who are criminally liable, including the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense, the Chief of Staff, the Commander of the Air Force and the Military Advocate General. To read the full document
Over the course of five days of bombings, terror and uncertainty in the Gaza Strip (“a round of fighting”), Israel killed 30 Palestinians. One-third of those killed did not participate in the fighting. All 10 were killed at the exact same moment, on the first night of the fighting, 9 May 2023, at around 2:00 A.M., when Israel, entirely on its own initiative, launched an air strike on three homes where Islamic Jihad operatives lived with their families: In the attack on the home of Tareq ‘Iz a-Din (48), he and his two children, ‘Ali (8) and Mayar (10), were killed. Neighbors living in the apartment above him were also killed: Dr. Jamal Khaswan (52), his wife Mirvat (44) and their son Yusef (19). In the attack on the home of Khalil al-Bahtini (44), he, his wife Layla (43), and their daughter Hajar (4) were killed. Two neighbors, who were sisters, were also killed, Daniyah ‘Addas (19) and Iman ‘Addas (17). In the attack on the home of Jihad Ghanam (62), he and his wife Wafa (61), were killed. The three apartments were completely destroyed, along with two others. Two more apartments were damaged. This was no mistake. Reporters who attended the military’s secret press briefings after the assault said they were told the officials who ordered the strike knew other people were in the homes and that there was a high chance they would also be killed. For example, it was reported that “the IDF knew uninvolved individuals were present in the vicinity of the three Islamic Jihad commanders and that they were likely to be harmed, but these assessments were taken into account when making the decision to carry out the targeted killings.” Given that the strikes were to be launched in the middle of the night against homes where the families of Islamic Jihad operatives live, this was the logical assumption. In the past, when civilians were killed in Israeli strikes in Gaza, state officials tried to pass it off as an unexpected outcome – the unfortunate result of some sort of mishap or of bad, partial or obsolete intel, and other such claims. This time around, the masks were off and such claims were not even raised. Instead, Israel maintains the action was legal despite the foreseen results. Israel’s vain attempts to justify the killings Israeli justification No. 1: It is merely legal “collateral damage” One of the claims Israel made was that the strike was legal under international humanitarian law, as it was “proportionate”. The ten innocent people killed were, therefore, simply “collateral damage.” The IDF Spokesperson, for example, said: “We carried out a very targeted operation here with a very clear message and a quality level of extremely localized collateral damage.” Amos Yadlin, the former head of the IDF’s Intelligence Directorate, explained that “the IDF and the ISA showed, through the targeted killing itself, an impressive capacity for precision strikes, in multiple sites simultaneously, with minimum collateral damage (harming uninvolved individuals is unfortunate but proportionate), based on extremely accurate intelligence.” But this assertion is baseless. According to the principle of proportionality, a strike would be illegal if the “collateral damage” it is expected to inflict on civilians and their property is excessive in relation to the “direct and concrete” military advantage the attacking party can expect to gain from it. The application of this principle is elusive and vague, since there are no set definitions for what might be considered “excessive” harm or what “military advantage” is, nor is it clear how a balance can be struck between such disparate criteria. Given this, when setting out to examine proportionality in a specific case, dispassionate legal analysis is almost impossible, and it is inevitable that a person’s worldview will inform a given interpretation. Still, as with any other legal principle, not every interpretation can be considered legitimate and there are certainly cases in which the question of whether or not a strike was “proportionate” has an obvious answer. An interpretation entirely divorced from the purpose and spirit of international humanitarian law – such as an interpretation according to which a strike the military launched in the dead of night on family homes is proportionate – is unfounded. If this interpretation is seen as valid, it is difficult to see what point or value is left in international humanitarian law, as it nullifies those protections granted to civilians. Furthermore, the question of proportionality is relevant only when the strike itself is legal, meaning aimed at a legitimate military objective. Otherwise, the strike would be illegal, regardless of whether or not civilians and their property were harmed. A “legitimate military objective” is defined as one that makes an “effective contribution to military action”, that its total or partial destruction of a legitimate target is one that offers the attacking side a “definite military advantage.” The attack that night targeted the apartments of three Islamic Jihad operatives. Their homes, and two others belonging to neighbors, were completely destroyed. Can the homes of operatives be considered legitimate military targets according to the above definition? The answer is clearly no, and Israel never tried to claim otherwise. No official said the apartments were the site of any sort of activity that made an “effective contribution to military action” or that striking them offered Israel a “definite military advantage.” Damaging the homes was not the objective of the strike, but an incidental outcome of it, making the entire strike illegal, before even taking into account before the extensive killing it caused. Israeli justification No. 2: Islamic Jihad operatives are to blame, as they hide behind civilians Another justification Israeli officials have offered is that Islamic Jihad operatives are responsible, as they choose to hide behind civilians. Thus, for example, IDF Chief of Staff Herzl Halevy said: “If we could, we would have operated without hurting uninvolved people at all, but we must remember – terrorists act from inside the civilian population and put Gazan residents in danger.” This claim is puzzling given that the operatives were asleep in their homes with their families, not engaging in military activity “from inside the civilian population.” But more importantly, it leads to illegal outcomes. Armed organizations in Gaza do violate international humanitarian law and make no distinction between military and civilian targets. This conflation subverts the most fundamental principle of humanitarian law, namely, reducing harm to civilians as much as possible and keeping them out of combat zones. According to Israel, this conduct gives it carte blanche to do as it wishes, releasing it from the obligation to obey the law and justifying the extensive harm it inflicts on the civilian population. This interpretation automatically justifies any action Israel wishes to carry out in the Gaza Strip, no matter how horrifying the consequences, absolving it of the duty to keep harm to civilians and their property to a minimum and draining all meaning out of the principle that one party’s failure to follow the rules does not release the other from its obligation to do so. Israel is the one that chose to fire the missiles that caused death and destruction, and therefore, Israel alone bears the full responsibility for harming Palestinian civilians and their property. Any interpretation that puts the responsibility for this action and its consequences on the Palestinians must be flatly rejected. Until next time: During the rounds of fighting that have taken place in the Gaza Strip in recent years, Israel has attacked densely populated residential areas from the air, ground and sea. Thousands of Palestinians have been killed, thousands more have been injured, tens of thousands of homes have been destroyed and hundreds of thousands of people have been left homeless. Entire families have lost their whole world in the blink of an eye, unable to protect their children or themselves inside their own homes. Though patently illegal, this policy is fully backed by Israel’s political, legal and military leadership. Thus, the air strike on homes in the Gaza Strip on the night of 9 May 2023 is not an exception or an aberration. As in many other cases, it was not undertaken as an act of self-defense, in the face of clear and immediate danger that could not be averted by any other means. On the contrary: Israeli decision-makers chose the timing, the targets and the means. They consciously chose to fire missiles at homes in the middle of the night, while families were asleep in their beds, knowing it was expected that many - including small children - would be killed. The legal opinions Israel provided to itself, clearing the strike, rely on an erroneous interpretation of international humanitarian law and a morally distorted worldview, both of which must be rejected. As with any crime, there are people who are criminally liable, including the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense, the Chief of Staff, the Commander of the Air Force and the Military Advocate General. Not long ago Israeli officials were trying to claim the moral high ground by distancing themselves from illegal acts that blatantly violate International law. Such acts were described as having a “black flag” of flagrant “illegality that pains the eye and outrages the heart" flying over them. But nowadays Israeli decision-makers no longer even bother trying to hide the fact that for them, killing innocent people, including small children, is considered legitimate, not for lack of choice, not in the face of insurmountable, immediate life-threatening danger, but as the high road, as the culmination of a reflective decision-making process, by choice, by will.
