Reuters attacks Israel's failure to take action over cameraman's death

Reuters has said it is "deeply disturbed" that the Israeli military has decided the tank crew that killed one of the news agency's cameramen and eight young bystanders in the Gaza Strip four months ago will not face legal action. Israel's senior military advocate-general told the London-based news agency in a letter sent on Aug. 12 that the official report into the incident concluded that troops could not see whether Reuters' Fadal Shana, 24, was operating a camera or a weapon. However, the official said reports found that the Israeli Defense Force tank crew were nonetheless justified in firing an airburst shell packed with flechettes -- metal darts -- that killed the Reuters cameraman and eight other Palestinians during fighting in the Gaza Strip on Apr. 16. The international news agency, a subsidiary of Thomson Reuters, issued a statement today saying it was "disappointed with and dissatisfied" by the Israeli military's decision that the tank crew would not face legal action. "Reuters is deeply disturbed by a conclusion that would severely curtail the freedom of the media to cover the conflict by effectively giving soldiers a free hand to kill without being sure that they were not firing on journalists," the news agency said. In a letter issued today to the IDF, Reuters responded to the report's conclusions with a number of questions. The agency asked the IDF why the soldiers ruled out the possibility that Shana was a cameraman, why his standing in full view of the tanks for several minutes did not suggest he had no hostile intent and why the crew, if concerned but unsure, did not simply reverse a few meters out of sight. In the letter to Reuters, Brigadier General Avihai Mendelblit, the IDF's advocate-general, wrote: "The tank crew was unable to determine the nature of the object mounted on the tripod and positively identify it as an anti-tank missile, a mortar or a television camera." According to Reuters, Mendelblit also wrote in the letter: "In light of the reasonable conclusion reached by the tank crew and its superiors that the characters were hostile and were carrying an object most likely to be a weapon, the decision to fire at the targets ... was sound." Reuters said the military lawyer cited an attack earlier in the day that killed three IDF soldiers, a separate grenade attack on a tank and the fact that Shana and his soundman were wearing body armor, "common to Palestinian terrorists", as reasons for the tank crew being suspicious of his activities. The Brigadier General went on to acknowledge that Shana's death was a tragedy, but concluded that the evidence "did not suggest misconduct or criminal misbehavior–and decided that no further legal measures would be necessary. "I'm extremely disappointed that this report condones a disproportionate use of deadly force in a situation the army itself admitted had not been analyzed clearly," said David Schlesinger, Reuters editor-in-chief. "They would appear to take the view that any raising of a camera into position could garner a deadly response." Shana, a Palestinian, had previously been wounded in August 2006 when an Israeli aircraft fired a missile at the vehicle he was traveling in. He was killed on Apr. 16 as he filmed two tanks positioned roughly a mile from where he was standing. Shana had been filming the tanks for several minutes and his own footage captured the tank shot that killed him. The final two seconds of the sobering pictures show a shell leaving the tank's gun on a hillside in the background. Reuters said x-rays showed several of the inch-long flechette darts were embedded in Shana's chest and legs as well as his flak jacket. Shana's flak jacket was marked with a fluorescent "Press" sign and his car, which was not armored and was set on fire in the incident, was marked Press and TV.