James Miller

I've been following the case of the British film-maker James Miller with interest. For those of you who haven't, he was in the process of making a film called "Death in Gaza" about the lives of children in the Gaza Strip when he was shot dead while walking towards an Israeli Army position. He and his crew were holding a white flag illuminated by a torch and had fluorescent markings on their clothes saying "TV". Despite this, the video of the incident shows shots being fired from the direction of the Israeli position.

An inquest held by a London coroner (at St. Pancras) recently recorded a verdict of "unlawful killing". For those of you unfamiliar with the British legal process, this verdict implies that a criminal investigation should take place in the country where the death occurred. During the case, the coroner described the shots as being (my paraphrase) "slow, deliberate, and aimed". Therefore, he concluded, the jury should return a verdict of unlawful killing. (It is common in British coroner's inquests for the coroner to instruct the jury in this way.)

There was an inquiry by the Israeli Defense Forces held some time after Mr. Miller's death, which focused on a Lieutenant Heim. The Lieutenant was cleared of "misuse of firearms" and the Israeli authorities did not proceed with a prosecution for manslaughter (they had said earlier that a charge of murder was out of the question) due to insufficient evidence.

Mr. Miller's family, speaking after the conclusion of the inquest, said that the Israeli authorities must prosecute Lieutenant Heim for manslaughter or murder now that a verdict of unlawful killing has been recorded. I find such demands ridiculous. Israel is a democratic country and has a very respected legal system. The investigation there has taken years and there is still insufficient evidence. I do feel for Mr. Miller's family but they are in no position to demand that a foreign country wastes money on a prosecution which is unlikely to succeed. No matter the truth of the events surrounding Mr. Miller's death, if there is insufficient evidence then nothing can be done: this is in the nature of a democratic judicial process.

However, I am concerned about this case and the implications if anyone were to be convicted of a criminal offence related to it. For example, Mr. Miller could not have expected to be entirely safe in the Gaza Strip, one of the most dangerous places in the world, so he was putting his life at risk by filming there. Soldiers who are all-too-used to seeing Palestinian terrorists hiding bombs in ambulances are within their rights to be suspicious of a group of people walking towards them waving a white flag in the middle of the night. By no means am I justifying the killing of James Miller, far from it, but to characterise his killer as someone who is just "trigger-happy" is unfair. Incompetent, possibly, but not trigger-happy.

I have often wondered if the same furore would have occurred if Mr. Miller had been shot by a Palestinian. It seems to me that those who wish to (politically) attack Israel jumped on this case as an example of Israeli brutality and disregard for human rights, despite the fact that less foreigners die in Israel - a country under constant threat of attack by terrorists - than each of its Arab neighbours individually - countries generally regarded as 'safe'.

James Miller probably was killed by an Israeli soldier, but demanding that further judicial proceedings take place with insufficient evidence does not help anyone.