By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Emerging footage appears to challenge the Israeli military’s official account of the shooting that resulted in the death of seven-month-old Sam Abu Haikal. The video shows the family’s car slowing down near a military post before soldiers opened fire, contradicting the IDF’s claim that the vehicle was accelerating towards them. B’Tselem, an Israeli Information Center for Human Rights, stated the footage clearly demonstrates the car was slowing to a stop and posed no danger to the soldiers. The incident, which also injured Sam’s parents, has sparked widespread outrage, with the military police now investigating the soldier’s actions.
Read the original article here
The emergence of readily available video technology, particularly through the widespread use of mobile phones, has fundamentally altered the landscape of information dissemination, especially concerning events in the occupied West Bank. Previously, governments, including the Israeli government with its robust public relations apparatus, held a near-monopoly on shaping the narrative of incidents occurring in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. However, this era of singular control over the “truth” is demonstrably waning.
This shift is vividly illustrated by the incident where video footage of a 7-month-old infant being fatally shot by Israeli soldiers directly contradicts the official statement issued by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). The IDF’s account claimed that soldiers “perceived a vehicle accelerating toward them” and that one soldier “responded with single shots toward the vehicle.” This justification, presented as a response to a perceived threat, has been directly challenged by evidence captured on film.
The footage obtained by B’Tselem, an Israeli Information Center for Human Rights, presents a starkly different picture. It reportedly shows that the vehicle carrying the Abu Haikal family, which included the infant Sam Abu Haikal, was not accelerating towards soldiers in a threatening manner when the shots were fired. This discrepancy between the IDF’s official narrative and the visual evidence is not a minor point; it calls into question the veracity of the IDF’s explanation and raises serious concerns about the circumstances of the child’s death.
The implications of this footage are profound, particularly given the historical context. For years, there have been numerous reports and investigations detailing instances of Israeli soldiers allegedly shooting children and civilians, sometimes with impunity. Critics point to a pattern where the IDF’s versions of events have been exposed as false, leading to widespread skepticism and accusations of cover-ups. The incident involving the ambulances, bombed in a “double tap” strike and then allegedly buried in rubble, is cited as another example where independent footage, captured by a victim, revealed the truth when official accounts sought to obscure it.
The very act of the IDF issuing a statement that is demonstrably contradicted by video evidence fuels existing distrust. This is compounded by the fact that B’Tselem, an Israeli organization advocating for Palestinian rights, has been the one to bring this contradictory footage to light. Their findings have led to the IDF opening an investigation into the shooting of the 7-month-old. However, skepticism about the efficacy of such investigations runs deep, especially considering B’Tselem’s prior decision to cease filing complaints of Palestinian abuse with the IDF in 2016.
B’Tselem’s rationale for this decision was their conclusion that the military law enforcement system operates as a “whitewash mechanism,” designed to conceal unlawful acts rather than deliver justice. This historical stance casts a shadow of doubt over the current investigation, suggesting that the IDF’s internal reviews may not yield genuine accountability. The EU’s call for an independent investigation further underscores the international concern and the lack of confidence in a solely IDF-led inquiry.
The assertion that the soldiers “perceived a threat” is particularly scrutinized when contrasted with the video evidence. For any military force, especially one operating in a complex and politically charged environment like the occupied West Bank, the use of lethal force must be rigorously justified and transparently investigated. When that justification is directly undermined by verifiable footage, it suggests a broader problem of accountability and adherence to international law. The comparison to a foreign occupying military force shooting a civilian in their own country highlights the gravity of the situation and the expectation of a higher standard of conduct.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that the West Bank is an occupied territory. Palestinians residing there do not hold Israeli citizenship and are subject to military law, a dynamic that critics argue creates conditions akin to apartheid. This power imbalance, where the occupying force is also responsible for investigating its own alleged wrongdoings, is a significant factor in the persistent skepticism surrounding IDF investigations.
The broader societal context also plays a role. Reports of far-right demonstrators, including Knesset members, storming military bases to oppose the detention of soldiers and defend alleged abuses, further illustrate a concerning political climate. The lack of accountability for Knesset members and government ministers who publicly defended soldiers involved in alleged abuses indicates a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents. In this environment, the IDF’s official statements are often viewed through a lens of deep-seated distrust.
The notion that “America is also bad” or that occupying forces historically face challenges does little to exonerate the specific actions or the subsequent lack of transparency. Instead, it emphasizes the need to hold all countries, especially those in positions of power, to the highest standards of human rights and accountability. The shooting of an infant, regardless of the political complexities, demands a clear and truthful accounting, and when the official statement is demonstrably false, it erodes any remaining goodwill and fuels demands for genuine justice. The expectation that such incidents might occur due to occupation does not negate the moral imperative to prevent them and to ensure accountability when they do.