We are being harmed just because we decided to stay at our homes.
On a Friday near Hebron in the occupied West Bank, a seven-month-old boy named Sam Fahd Abu Haykal was killed when Israeli soldiers fired on the vehicle carrying him and his parents. The Israeli military acknowledged the victims were uninvolved civilians, framing the shooting as a response to a perceived threat, while promising a review. This death does not stand alone — it arrives three months after soldiers killed four members of another Palestinian family in nearly identical circumstances, tracing a pattern in which ordinary movement through occupied space carries the possibility of sudden, irreversible loss.
- A single bullet fired by an Israeli soldier near Hebron killed a seven-month-old infant and wounded both of his parents, who had done nothing more than travel in their car.
- The IDF's own statement conceded the family were uninvolved civilians, yet that acknowledgment could not undo the death it followed.
- The grandmother's words — that they were harmed simply for choosing to stay in their home — expose the deeper wound beneath the immediate incident: life under military authority, where movement itself is a gamble.
- This shooting echoes a March incident in which four Palestinian family members, including two young boys, were killed by soldiers during a nighttime drive, suggesting a recurring and deadly pattern of split-second judgments.
- A military review has been promised, but the institutional machinery of accountability moves through its own channels while a family buries a child who was seven months old.
Sam Fahd Abu Haykal was seven months old when a bullet fired by Israeli soldiers near Hebron passed through the car carrying him and his parents on a Friday in the occupied West Bank. The Palestinian Ministry of Health confirmed the infant died from his wound; his mother and father survived, injured.
The boy's grandmother, Firyal Abu Haykal, spoke to Reuters with a mixture of grief and disbelief. Her family had made the choice to remain in their home — a choice she now described as the thing that cost them everything. "The incident is unbelievable and unacceptable," she said. "We are being harmed just because we decided to stay at our homes."
The Israeli Defense Forces issued a statement framing the shooting as a response to a vehicle perceived to be accelerating toward soldiers. One shot was fired. The military acknowledged the victims were uninvolved civilians and said the incident would be reviewed — words that arrived after the fact, carrying no weight against the child's death.
The incident is not without precedent. Three months earlier, in March, Israeli soldiers opened fire on a Palestinian family returning home after breaking the Ramadan fast. Four people died — two boys aged five and seven, and two other family members. The details differed; the outcome was the same.
What emerges across these incidents is a pattern: families in vehicles, soldiers making split-second judgments, and lives destroyed in the space between perceived threat and confirmed reality. The grandmother's words point toward something larger than any single shooting — the condition of living under military authority, where the most ordinary act of moving through the world can become lethal. The review will proceed. The family will carry what cannot be reviewed.
A seven-month-old boy named Sam Fahd Abu Haykal was killed by Israeli soldiers on Friday in the occupied West Bank, shot while sitting in a car with his parents near Hebron. According to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, a single bullet pierced the vehicle, fatally wounding the infant and injuring both his mother and father.
The boy's grandmother, Firyal Abu Haykal, described the moment to Reuters with a tone of bewilderment and resignation. One round had found its mark. She spoke of the family's choice to remain in their home, and how that choice had cost them everything. "The incident is unbelievable and unacceptable," she said. "We are being harmed just because we decided to stay at our homes."
The Israeli Defense Forces released a statement acknowledging what had occurred but framing it through the lens of perceived threat. Soldiers, the IDF said, believed the vehicle was accelerating toward their position. A single shot was fired in response. The military also conceded in its account that those struck were uninvolved civilians—a recognition that carried no weight against the fact of the child's death. The incident, the IDF added, would be reviewed.
This shooting did not occur in isolation. Three months earlier, in March, Israeli soldiers had opened fire on another Palestinian family during a late-night drive in the West Bank. That family had been returning home after breaking the daily Ramadan fast. Four people died in that incident: two boys, ages five and seven, and two other family members. The circumstances were different in detail but identical in outcome—a family in a vehicle, soldiers perceiving threat, gunfire, death.
The pattern suggests a recurring dynamic in the occupied West Bank: moments of split-second judgment by armed soldiers, vehicles that accelerate or are perceived to accelerate, and families destroyed in the space between intention and impact. The grandmother's words—that they were harmed simply for choosing to stay—point to a deeper reality beneath the immediate incident: the condition of living under military authority, where ordinary movement through space carries lethal risk.
The story remains developing. The review promised by the IDF will proceed through its own channels. Sam Fahd Abu Haykal's parents will recover from their wounds, or they will not. His grandmother will continue to live in the home that cost her grandson his life. And in the West Bank, other families will make their own calculations about when and how to move through the world they inhabit.
Citas Notables
The incident is unbelievable and unacceptable. We are being harmed just because we decided to stay at our homes.— Firyal Abu Haykal, the baby's grandmother, to Reuters
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
What was the soldier's account of why he fired?
The IDF said soldiers perceived the vehicle accelerating toward them. A single shot was fired in response. They acknowledged afterward that the people in the car were uninvolved civilians.
So the soldier believed he was under threat?
That's what the statement says—perceived threat. But perception in a moment of fear and actual threat are not always the same thing. A car accelerating could mean many things.
Did the family say anything about what they were doing?
The grandmother said they were simply staying in their home, driving in their own territory. She called the incident unbelievable and unacceptable. There's no indication they were doing anything unusual.
Has this happened before?
Yes. In March, four members of another Palestinian family were killed—two young boys among them—during a nighttime drive after breaking the Ramadan fast. Same pattern: soldiers, a vehicle, gunfire, death.
What does that repetition suggest?
It suggests a systemic problem, not an isolated mistake. When the same scenario produces the same outcome multiple times, you're looking at something structural about how military authority operates in occupied territory.
Will there be accountability?
The IDF said the incident is under review. But reviews and acknowledgment of civilian death don't restore a seven-month-old child to his family.