Chroniques d'une photographe,specialiste des droits humains en Palestine et ailleurs,
Chronicles of a French photographer, specialist in human rights, in Palestine and elsewhere
Thursday, March 22, 2007
The shameful method of the Israeli army
The tale of the dog in Al-Ubeidiya: Israeli army says the dog is innocent
Date: 22 / 03 / 2007 Time: 14:18
Police dog bites Yusra Sbeih Rabay'a in Al-Ubeidiya Wednesday (MaanImages)
Bethlehem - Ma'an - It appears that the dog which bit a Palestinian woman's hand, during an incursion into a village near Bethlehem on Wednesday, was "innocent", according to the Israeli army.
The Israeli army spokesman failed to give a frank answer about who is responsible for "the dog attack" on the Palestinian citizen of Al-Ubeidiya village, Yusra Sbeih Rabay'a, on Wednesday.
The Israeli army entered Al-Ubeidiya, which is located east of Bethlehem in the south of the occupied West Bank, on Wednesday morning, searching for Yusra's brother, Daoud Sbeih Rabay'a, who is believed to be a member of the Fatah-affiliated Al-Aqsa Brigades. With 25 military vehicles and bulldozers, the Israeli army besieged the Rabay'a family houses and demolished part of it.
During the Israeli soldiers' siege, which lasted over seven hours, one of the police dogs attacked Daoud's sister, Yusra.
However, according to the story recounted by the military spokesman for Ma'an, the Israeli soldiers are "innocent" of giving orders to the dog to attack Yusra Sbeih Rabay'a. Rather, Yusra had approached the soldiers and failed to obey their orders.
According to the army's story, "during the operation, the citizen Rabay'a got near to the soldiers and refused to leave the area, which led to the result that she was attacked by the dog, that bit her in her right hand before the soldiers intervened to rescue her from the dog's teeth."
Despite the fact that the soldiers expressed regret for the attack, the content of the story justifies "the dog's action" and clarified that the woman, Yusra Sbeih Rabay'a, is the one responsible, because she was in a place that she should not have been in. Furthermore, the army clears the dog of responsibility because it was 'doing its duty' and defending the soldiers. Consequently, the dog carried out its instructions without obtaining permission.
However, what cannot be denied or proven is whether Yusra is the one who initiated the incident, and forced the dog to bite her hand. Did she really put her hand between the teeth of the "innocent" dog, as would be understood by the incredulous Israeli story of the incident?