One
Shot in Ramallah
By
Michael Penn MA'97
Before you were shot — despite all that you
knew about the violence in Ramallah — had you
ever considered that you might be in danger?
I thought it was a precarious situation, but I didn't
feel in danger. The first day, I stayed pretty much
in the hotel, worried that it was too risky with all
the firing. The second day, I got out a little more,
but carefully and only with the permission of Israeli
soldiers manning checkpoints. On the third day, I
felt more comfortable. There was less fighting, and
it was easier to walk around.
The
irony is that I was shot when I felt safest. I was
walking back to the hotel, I was laughing and, for
the first time that weekend, I was at ease.
You
believe the shooting was deliberate. Do you think
you were targeted because you were a journalist?
I don't know the answer to that. I was clearly marked
as a journalist, with "TV" taped on my back. I was
walking in the middle of the street to avoid looking
suspicious. And I was up-front at every checkpoint
that I passed. It would have been hard to mistake
me for a combatant. In the end, one shot was fired
— in full daylight — and I was struck in
the back.
Your newspaper filed a complaint with the Israeli
Defense Forces, but the IDF maintains Israeli soldiers
weren't involved. Their most recent statement suggests
Palestinian fighters were responsible. As you've said,
you didn't see the shooter. What makes you believe
it was an Israeli soldier who shot you?
I was shot in an area that was under full and complete
control of the Israeli military and had been for days.
There was a tank behind me, an Israeli checkpoint
ahead of me; snipers were everywhere, and Israeli
soldiers had seized houses along the way. There was
no army response to the shot being fired, and there
was no attempt to find the shooter. I suspect if a
Palestinian had got off a round — in that area
and that time — the response would have been
severe.
I have to add that I was by no means the only journalist
targeted by the Israeli army over those few weeks,
and the Committee to Protect Journalists, among others,
has complained about the harassment.
I imagine the IDF might say that journalists are
putting themselves in danger by entering off-limits
areas.
The IDF has a point. The area was off-limits, though
not to the reporters already there. At the same time,
I think it's dangerous when journalists aren't on
site. However limited, we do provide eyes and ears
that wouldn't otherwise be there, sometimes the only
ones. And it's difficult to overstate the importance
of that.
Did
you find much compassion for the job you were trying
to do?
I found people remarkably compassionate about the
risks we took in covering the story. While authorities
on any story are ambivalent or worse about extensive
or hard-hitting reporting, I found readers expressing
their admiration and appreciation for what it took
to file on a daily or semi-daily basis.
Would it be possible to cover something like the
situation in Ramallah without witnessing these events
firsthand?
Although not impossible, I think it's extremely difficult
to cover a story without being there. Ramallah is
a good example. Covering it from Jerusalem would require
almost total dependence on, one, the Israeli government
account and, two, reports from residents reached by
phone or e-mail. I think both were lacking, and in
the end, the only way to determine that is to see
it firsthand.
back,
1, 2, 3,
4, next
On Wisconsin home
