Harry’s Place

“Now it’s entirely possible this is a self-serving version of events. But it’s certainly no secret that Hamas routinely launches mortars and rockets from heavily populated areas and that it relishes the propaganda value of mass casualties among Palestinian civilians.”

Read Gene, read, not only are they stating that Hamas used the structure but that they “booby-trapped” it, meaning the United FREAKING Nations is complicit with Hamas. This is a lie on par with the likes of the big lies.

““There are Palestinian civilians sheltering in that building. Let’s blast them”?”

They most likely said: “Palestinians think they are safe in these structures, shock and awe.”

Like most civilised people I despair of apologists for the Israeli war machine and can’t find words to express my disgust and abhorrence for their recent actions in Gaza.

No chance of peace for the foreseeable future when the Israeli government is more concerned with winning an election than for the lives of innocents. This is a very good article on how the Israelis are just making it worse http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090106/FOREIGN/135660612/1011

RAFAH, Gaza Strip, May 5 (Reuters) - By day, Awad al-Qiq was a respected science teacher and headmaster at a United Nations school in the Gaza Strip. By night, Palestinian militants say, he built rockets for Islamic Jihad.

The Israeli air strike that killed the 33-year-old last week also laid bare his apparent double life and embarrassed a U.N. agency which has long had to rebuff Israeli accusations that it has aided and abetted guerrillas fighting the Jewish state.

In interviews with Reuters, students and colleagues, as well as U.N. officials, denied any knowledge of Qiq’s work with explosives. And his family denied he had any militant links at all, despite a profusion of Islamic Jihad posters at his home.

But militant leaders allied to the enclave’s ruling Hamas group hailed him as a martyr who led Islamic Jihad’s “engineering unit” — its bomb makers. They fired a salvo of improvised rockets into Israel in response to his death.

Like most civilised people I despair [...]

Have you met Michael Lerner? He has a similar unshakeable belief that his position is not just the best, but that it is inconceivable that alternative views exist.

Or, even, that most people, civilized or not, are thinking about the same things. It’s almost 1920 hrs. Is it safe for me to turn on Channel Four News and get reports of other events?

Wrong, wrong, wrong, you are not proving past complicity just past rogue agents…

Hamas had to have access to the facilities in order to booby-trap them, meaning the UNRWA, not a disgruntled lone gunman, had to be a part of the conspiracy. A conspiracy to kill the people they themselves sheltered.

Yes well but

FOR FUCK’S SAKE THAT’S ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!

I know that Israel clearly believe that the world will always hate them and so it doesn’t matter what they do, that they’re desperate and think they’re alone but this is fucking awful for gods sakes.

“And even if you hold Israel responsible for the current conflict, try to look at things from an Israeli point of view. Do you really think Israeli commander said, “There are Palestinian civilians sheltering in that building. Let’s blast them”?”

I’m wondering if Serbia had done the same to a school in Sarajevo if Gene would be so understanding.

What I don’t understand about the comments by Flanker and John is the complete absence of consideration or mention about HAMAS firing rockets from the immediate vacinity of the school.

As for the “booby traped” munitions, is it any less believable than using the school itself as cover for firing motors and rockets. Perhaps they were not “booby traped” perhaps it was simply secondary explosives from the arsenal located near the mortor that was the original target.

Palestinians are being informed by the IDF that there is no safe haven anywhere under Israeli occupation, and UN agencies are being informed that we’ll continue to massacre Palestinians with impunity, and that UN refuge is no refuge. After all, Israel has a record of attacking the UN. I guess they’ll continue massacring until Washington decides enough is enough, and that any more destruction will further undermine their ‘moderate’ Arab allies-Mubarak, the Hashamites and the rest of the unelected minions who rule in the Levant, under the American umbrella.

Hey Flanker and John did you see Norwegian Dr Mads Gilbert on the BBC reporting from a hospital in Gaza? Do you think his interviews are a accurate portrayal of the situation? Is it Possible?, just Possible?? that he may not be a totally impartial, reliable source or do you people take his word without any reservations. I would Really like to know?

Oh dear…. the hoops you jump through to justify any such attacks. You’re becoming a parody. And you’re supposed to be for peace? Hey, at least Melanie Phillips is honest about intentions and bias. I have somewhat more respect for that level of wing-nuttery than I do for this rubbish.

That’s an interesting way to approach the question of determining what
happened, by speculating that an Israeli commander would not have said
such words to himself. Tell me, Gene, what words went through
the minds of those who dropped the cluster bombs in the last days of
the 2006 war?

http://www.hrw.org/en/node/62428/section/7
“Israel’s use of cluster munitions was the most extensive use of the weapon anywhere in the world since the 1991 Gulf War and was concentrated in a relatively small geographical area. The number and density of cluster munitions used in Lebanon vastly exceeded their use in prior wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq where Human Rights Watch also conducted investigations.”

What goes through the minds of those who make the decisions to
not turn over to the deminers the information needed to help
clear the cluster bombs, as noted by both HRW and AI:

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/english/docs/2008/02/17/isrlpa18071.htm
Human Rights Watch called on Israel to give deminers precise information to locate and clear the duds. Despite frequent requests, Israel has refused to do so, thereby further contributing to ongoing suffering in southern Lebanon. The UN has complained that Israel has only provided generic maps without the specific attack sites, and has not provided needed information on the specific types and quantities of cluster munitions used.

�Israel could quickly reduce the danger to civilians by telling the UN where it fired cluster munitions, and its refusal to help is shocking,� said Goose.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/israel-winograd-commission-disregards-israeli-war-crimes-20080131
The Israeli government’s persistent refusal to hand over the cluster bombs strike data and the exact coordinates of the areas into which its forces fired the cluster bombs has made this already painstaking mine-clearance task more deadly and time consuming. To date, 40 people (27 civilians and 13 de-mining personnel) have been killed and 234 have been injured (200 civilians and 34 de-mining personnel) by unexploded ordnance and the United Nation Mine Action Coordination Centre (UN-MACC) has identified more then 900 sites contaminated by unexploded but still lethal remnants of cluster bombs and other ordnance launched by Israeli forces into South Lebanon.

The IDF released a video taken by a UAV last week showing terrorists firing mortar shells from right outside the school.

I agree with all the commentators here who are complaining about war crimes, and lack of proportionate response. The appropriate response to people who cower behind children while exploiting them to kill others is far harsher than dickheads here (Flanker, John, King Creole) are calling for.

Understand, the use of civilian infrastructure as a shield while engaging in acts of war is a War Crime. Further legal and moral responsibility for the death caused by the actions of these cowards falls entirely on the mortar gunners, and their leaders that use this tactic.

Gene:

‘Now it’s entirely possible this is a self-serving version of events. But it’s certainly no secret that Hamas routinely launches mortars and rockets from heavily populated areas and that it relishes the propaganda value of mass casualties among Palestinian civilians’.

And it’s certainly no secret that the IDF and IAF have been known to indiscriminately fire at civilians and civilian dwellings and infrastructure during the course of a conflict, because there’s a mountain of evidence from human rights NGOs testifying to the fact that they have done.

The IDF are using shells in one of the most densely populated areas on the planet, and as the UNRWAs John Ging said of the tactic, specifically in reference to this attack:

‘Of course it was entirely inevitable if artillery shells landed in that area there would be a high number of casualties’.

Which is why they whole operation, with it’s 3000 dead or injured in just over a week, it’s trashing of Gaza’s infrastructure, and it’s terrorizing effect on the people who live there, large numbers of whom are being denied water, electricity, freedom of movement and access to food and medicines, leading to ‘a full-blown and major humanitarian crisis ‘ according to the Red Cross, should never have happened.

Ceasefire now.

It’s a UN run school, not a refuge. And definitely not a refuge if it is being used to store weapons and fire mortars at the IDF.

Jabalya is just outside Gaza City. I doubt school was in session since the ground war. Hamas apparently, took it over with or without the UN employees knowledge.

Sunny,

What hoops are they?

What I do not get is where is the angst over The IDF released a video taken by a UAV last week showing terrorists firing mortar shells from right outside the school.?

Do not you think that the mortar attack from “right outside the school” has some bearing on what happened at the school?

And it’s certainly no secret that the IDF and IAF have been known to indiscriminately fire at civilians and civilian dwellings and infrastructure

indiscriminately fire at civilians, certainly a secret to me. What evidence do you have to support this accustation?

While we do know that it is no secret that HAMAS does indiscriminately fire at civilians, Arab, jew, Palestinian or Israeli!

The Israeli air strike that killed the 33-year-old last week also laid bare his apparent double life and embarrassed a U.N. agency which has long had to rebuff Israeli accusations that it has aided and abetted guerrillas fighting the Jewish state.

If we are continually being asked to give Israel the benefit of the doubt over this or that atrocity, couldn’t it be conceivably possible that the UN did not know that this teacher was a terrorist in his free time?

Hamas has thus far avoided direct clashes with Israel Defense Forces troops, preferring instead to take refuge in densely populated civilian neighborhoods, Palestinians sources said yesterday.

Here:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1052981.html

Which is why they whole operation, with it’s 3000 dead or injured

Nice evasion here. Burried in this number is the fact that the number dead is fraction of the total, and that the fraction of non-combant deaths is a fraction of that number.

Yes every civilian death is a tragedy. But the moral and leagal responsibility for those death falls on HAMAS, who use civilian infrastucture as shields agains reprisal and thus bring civilians to the battle.

Until this I was prepared, increasingly grudgingly, to go along with HP’s views on this conflict. But enough. The OP sounds EXACTLY like the hysterical rantings of Islamist apologists.

I heard a summary of Israel and Hamas war aims today. Whereas Israel will define victory as a massive reduction in Hamas’ rocket -firing capability, Hamas will claim victory if they can continue to launch the rockets.
These are not rockets that are targeted on Israeli military sites but on Israeli civilians. So, please, if we are to have a debate about the death of women and children, let us at least agree that only one party in this conflict actually GLORIES in such deaths. Hamas shares this bloodlust with their Islamist colleagues in Hezbollah and various criminal gangs in Iraq, and none of them seem to mind if Muslims are the victims.
All I’m suggesting is a bit of proportionality.

If we are continually being asked to give Israel the benefit of the doubt over this or that atrocity, couldn’t it be conceivably possible that the UN did not know that this teacher was a terrorist in his free time?

But you concede that he was a terrorist. Thus angst over “a UN workers” death is naught but an evasion and distortion of the true facts behind his death.

Further, it does bring into question the honest and impartiality of UN workers, even if it doesn’t the UN itself.

Joe:

‘indiscriminately fire at civilians, certainly a secret to me. What evidence do you have to support this accustation?’

One example:

‘Israeli forces have systematically failed to distinguish between combatants and civilians in their military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. The pattern of attacks in more than 20 cases investigated by Human Rights Watch researchers in Lebanon indicates that the failures cannot be dismissed as mere accidents and cannot be blamed on wrongful Hezbollah practices. In some cases, these attacks constitute war crimes . . .

. . . Human Rights Watch researchers found numerous cases in which the IDF launched artillery and air attacks with limited or dubious military objectives but excessive civilian cost. In many cases, Israeli forces struck an area with no apparent military target. In some instances, Israeli forces appear to have deliberately targeted civilians’.

Human Rights Watch investigation into IAF/IDF conduct during the second Lebanon, August 2006.

Cue ‘Yeah, but they’re a totally discredited anti-Israel organsation’ outbursts.

UN agencies are being informed that we’ll continue to massacre Palestinians with impunity, and that UN refuge is no refuge

Do you have any quotes from Israel informing the UN of this? Thanks

“It’s a UN run school, not a refuge. And definitely not a refuge if it is being used to store weapons and fire mortars at the IDF.

Jabalya is just outside Gaza City. I doubt school was in session since the ground war. Hamas apparently, took it over with or without the UN employees knowledge.”

“Do not you think that the mortar attack from “right outside the school” has some bearing on what happened at the school?”

Because both things are clearly different, if someone went to somebody else’s lawn and fired a mortar then fled then maybe it was believable, after all Israel supposedly taped the shoot and run. HOWEVER they go in deeper, they claim the individual set up a bomb inside the house, and the only thing that could happen is if the owner was complicit.

The UN ran the facility, if Hamas did booby-trap them then they are complicit because there is no way they could have done so without their consent. That is why the Israeli excuse stinks to high heaven.

The UN ran the facility, if Hamas did booby-trap them then they are complicit because there is no way they could have done so without their consent

Why isn’t there?

“Why isn’t there?”

Because bombs of that magnitude are not exactly small things you can hide, a mildly sophisticated government perhaps, but not a government on the run with the sophistication of… Hamas.

Of course Flanker withdrew his support for the Iraqi resistance the day after the UN headquartes in Bagdhad was destroyed.

“Oh dear…. the hoops you jump through to justify any such attacks” (sunny)

Actually it is not a justification, it might be an excuse, sunny.

A justification argues that no wrong was done.
An excuse argues that a wrong was done, but for a specific reason, it was not meant to be caused, and we shouldn’t blame the actor.

I think that if we don’t know what happened, we cannot discard explanations that validly excuse the act.

Of course, if you are an Israel-hater, lynch-mob behavior is more akin to you than looking for evidence of reklesness, rule-breaking or even intent by the Israeli soldier (if it is true that the building collapsed by a shell fired by the Israelis).

…at least Melanie Phillips is honest about intentions and bias.

Be fair, Sunny. David T. himself quoted Melanie Phillips during the Lebanon War, back when he was insinuating that Reuters might have collaborated with Hezbollah to fake an attack on one of its cars. “A reputation for hyperbole,” was how he described Melanie at the time, while in the same post pimping the notion that the International Red Cross might have vandalised one of its own vehicles to help Hezbollah.

I’d mention the odd allegations against the world’s media in the same post, but you can see it round these parts recently - Reuters, the BBC, most of Britain’s newspapers, Channel Four news… All in the tank for the totalitarians. What other explanation could possibly make sense?

As for Gene, I asked him last weekend how many dead civilians he’d be willing to accept in pursuit of an unachievable goal, and wagered that the answer would be Just as many as are killed in pursuit of that unachievable goal, but not one more.

Reading Gene’s post, I’m starting to think that I underestimated.

BTW, launching rockets randomly to Jews because the Quran says that the Muslims need to exterminate them for the end of the days to come, is a justification, sunny.

Bart,

Thank you for the link to that disturbing report. And it is disturbing! However, as you read the report, you will note that it only privides testimonial evidence from people who have a stake in maximizing Israel “crimes” while at the same time it minimizes Israels justification. The report does not deny that Hizbollah uses civilians as shields, nor does it deny that the use of Human shields itself is a war crime, and did not render Hizbollah immune from retaliation by Israel for its acts of war. The question then becomes, how frequently did Israel target targets that it did not know with reasonable certainty was a legitamate target. After all your accusation was “indescrimante targeting of civilians”.

Further, the report itself makes no specific mention of the frequency of these unjustified attack, nor does it make any reasonable presentation of any Israeli justifications for the specific accusations.

So it begs the question, how often does an organization that seeks to find violations of the Crimes of War actually exonerate its targets of investigations?

Hey Flanker and John did you see Norwegian Dr Mads Gilbert on the BBC reporting from a hospital in Gaza? Do you think his interviews are a accurate portrayal of the situation? Is it Possible?, just Possible?? that he may not be a totally impartial, reliable source or do you people take his word without any reservations. I would Really like to know?

What do you mean?! He’s a superdoctor. He just happened to notice depleted uranium in his victims! Now, I’m studying to become a doctor and nowhere in the course is there a lecture entitled: How to find depleted uranium. He must be super-amazing! I’m very impressed with him!
******

Impartial?! Realiable?! I think not. Note how he always has a super accurate figure for the number of dead (543 i think when i last saw him on aljaz) and injured.

This is going way way too far. It isn’t that Israel deliberately kills civilians. It is that it doesn’t care about killing them. The only concern is the “propaganda war”. How much will the world tolerate. The life of a Palestinian counts for nothing to the Israeli Government. This is inhumane. And a war crime. If there was any justice in this world, the Israel regime would be in the Hague.

Hams deliberately kills civilians, ever goddam chance it gets. For some reason, this does not cause Irie to wring his hands.

Even Gordon Brown in condemning it, albeit mildly: “This is a humanitarian crisis. This is the darkest moment yet for the Middle East and it affects the whole of the world,”. Obama is “concerned”. Israel must know its pushed almost too far. I’m sure that they calculate that they can perhaps get away with a couple more days. No more.

Quoting Flanker:

“Read Gene, read, not only are they stating that Hamas used the structure but that they “booby-trapped” it, meaning the United FREAKING Nations is complicit with Hamas. This is a lie on par with the likes of the big lies.”

The United Freaking Nations has been caught in complicity with child prostitution in Cambodia. Complicity with Hamas is par for the course, and has itself occurred many a times.

The United Nations is no better than the Catholic Church when it comes to corruption.

This is going way way too far. It isn’t that Israel deliberately kills civilians. It is that it doesn’t care about killing them.

TheIrie 6 January 2009, 8:04 pm

And yet you display no ire about the fact that this school was used a launching site for HAMAS militant activity.

This is inhumane. And a war crime.

Agreed, the use of civilians by combatants in war is a war crime, and should be prosecuted. Yet you make no mention in you diatribe about HAMAS’s war crime. Why is that?

“It is that it doesn’t care about killing them”

You don’t know that at all. You are just attributing to the Israeli government, your views about what they feel.

You and many others on here, search with your powerful mental searchlights, for any negative interpretation of Israel’s actions you can create.

You disliked Israel before this current outbreak of violence, and now you search for ever more validation for you views.

You shoot the arrow of your dislike, and then you draw the circle of “evidence” around it.

We know from the UN that they sent the IDF High Command detailed coordinates for all the schools the UN run in Gaza. The IDF spokespersons have equivocated when asked “were the troops on the ground given these details.” The Israelis also claim that they can see where civilians are gathered in even “small numbers.” So how come that they did not know that large numbers of civilians - driven from their homes by Israeli bombs/shells. If the coordinates were not pased on - why were they not passed on. If they were = why were they ignored by those commanding the shell fire.
Yes, we need an inquiry. But Israel must submuit to an inquiry set up by the International War Crimes Tribunal.

TheIrie: This is going way way too far. …

Talk is cheap. You, too, should smuggle yourself into Gaza. Bring guns. Let the IDF know you mean business.

so … the iraqi’s who were killed by our bombs then, I take it it’s their own fault since Saddam was in charge then and he was a baddie wasn’t he?

Let’s just remember that Hamas could stop the attacks within the hour. All they have to do is stop firing rockets at Israel, hand over their weapon stockpiles, and close the tunnels.

Given that there is no possible way that Hamas could ever militarily defeat Israel, what do they have to lose by doing so?

“But Israel must submuit to an inquiry set up by the International War Crimes Tribunal.”

Why not the Inquisition? THEY knew how to deal with Jews.

John Palmer,

What is the relevence of “knowing” where civilians are, from Israels perspective, if where civilians are is also where the HAMAS gunners are?

I don’t mean to make this sound as cold as it does, but it seems that Israel is saying that HAMAS gunners were located near the school, hitting the HAMAS target trigered secondary explosions that then resulted in the civilian death.

i.e. the proximate cause of the civilian death was infact the fact that it appears that HAMAS were using hte school as an ammo dump. So I ask you, what value was there in Israel in knowing that it was a UN compound, if it was also a HAMAS base?

“Note how he always has a super accurate figure for the number of dead”
He is working in a hospital in Gaza and he can keep count.Therefore he must be lying?

“what do they have to lose by doing so?”

Their concept of themselves as fighters for the sake of Al-ah.

ever itv news can’t get the info about UN school in Gaza.

If it wasn’t so awful you could only laugh out loud at Gene’s post. I suppose bombing UN buildings is as much a part of a venerable IDF tradition as the obediant regaling of absurd and obviously made up on the hoof justifications for it. Well done HP. You’ve surpassed yourself.

How’s the viva going on, Mr. Game?

I suppose bombing UN buildings …

Except Israel did not bomb a UN buildings. The IDF alleges that the damage in the UN school were due to secondary explosives as part of a HAMAS ammo dump.

The United Freaking Nations has been caught in complicity with child prostitution in Cambodia.

Oil for food, anyone? Whatever happened to Kofi’s son, btw?

Irie, what makes you think the Israeli cabinet was involved in the decision to bomb this school?

And would you like to see Hamas’ leadership in the Hague? How about the Syrian government? What about Ahmadinnerjacket?

I think Irie’s Hague will need extra chairs.

Gene said:

“We may never know precisely what happened, and as is usual in such events, people will decide what they want to believe.”

As seen in this thread with Flanker, TheIriot, John Palmer (werent you found to be full of crap on another thread?) et al.

I find the deaths of the innocents killed today horrible.

I find the idea that Hamas operatives were in the school area and hiding amongst the frightened equally abhorrent (and totally believable). If they did indeed (and again its probably true) fire from within the compound then that is a war crime.

I stated a week or two back that the only people happy to see a school full of innocents killed will be Hamas.

They have got what they wanted.

MattG

After, or during all Islamic terror attacks, the Guardian, Independent and most left wing blogs instinctively lament about the inevitable onslaught of islamophobia and attacks against Muslims. They’ll call on the British public to refrain from prejudice and bigotry based on one’s ethnicity or religion….. So how many will be lamenting over the inevitable increase in attacks against Jews? Will there such op-eds by Bunting, Toynebee, and prominent Jewish commentators on the subject?

Marvin, more info on the attack in Denmark mentioned in that article.

Here’s an interesting thing: At about the same time that Israel hit the school in Jebalya, killing 30-odd people, Hamas hit a kindergarten in Ashdod. No-one was killed.

No toddlers were killed in Ashdod because Israel has provided bomb shelters for it’s people and done whatever else it can to keep them safe. The lack of fatalities had nothing to do with Hamas’s intent. Hamas made a deliberate choice to fire rockets at civilian targets; it made that choice knowing that Israel would eventually have to respond, and it continues to make that choice, knowing that Israel will continue responding. Flanker et al. — where is your fury against Hamas?

The other half of the equation: 30 dead at a school in Gaza. Why were they there? Because their government — Hamas — made no provision for their safety. Having them exposed is the whole point. Why is the IDF there? Because Hamas goaded them for 8 years, until they had exhausted every other option, and then chose for them a crowded urban environment to fight in. Why did Israeli shells fall on that school? Neither you nor I know for sure. But you reject the simplest, most probable option — that Israeli targeting was off, or its intelligence was faulty. That would waste the ammunition you yourselves have been saving up and salivating for a chance to use. Here it is: Lucky you! For you it has to be that Israel, in the midst of a frantic, street to street battle with trained and hardened enemies, and knowing that it would be a PR disaster and might end up forcing them to accept a cease-fire they’re not ready for, went to the trouble to loose off rounds at a target of no military value. Well sure, how could any intelligent person not agree with you?

I will mourn Gaza’s innocent dead after this war is won. Until then, I have my hands full worrying about the innocents of Israel.

Construct - from the above - the worst possible scenario - UN deliberately sheltering terrorists in day nursery etc. Then write appropriate rules of engagement for your citizens army.

The IDF released a video taken by a UAV last week showing terrorists firing mortar shells from right outside the school

The IDF also released a video last week showing terrorists loading mortar shells on a pick-up truck. So they blew it up along with 8 people and posted the snuff movie on youtube.

Thing is, it turned out that the mortar shells were oxygen canisters and the terrorists were shop workers.

Israel declined to remove the snuff movie from youtube. Lovely.

“Like most civilised people I despair of apologists for the Israeli war machine and can’t find words to express my disgust and abhorrence for their recent actions in Gaza.”

Agreed. Even if the IDF took the families of the commentators on here, and raped and tortured them to death, they would probably put some spin on it.

It isn’t that Israel deliberately kills civilians. It is that it doesn’t care about killing them.

Do you also believe Israel doesn’t care about killing its own soldiers? That’s happened too in recent days.

Dr Mads Gilbert, he he the same Dr Mads Gilbert who is a member of the Norwegian Maoist Red Party? is he the same Dr Mads Gilbert who is a activist for the Palestinian ‘solidarity’ movement, is he the same Dr Mads Gilbert who may have supported the 911 attacks? surely not?.

“Its probably true”. I love it. So principled.

‘no secret that Hamas routinely launches mortars and rockets from heavily populated areas’
well it is the most densely populated area, i suppose they then should use the country side

‘and that it relishes the propaganda value of mass casualties among Palestinian civilians.’
In my opinion, i think hamas is aware that no one values Palestinian people, [it is incredibly condescending to the pint of ... yes barbarism; when saying we are trying to free the people from hamas] therefore it would be unlikely that they would hold this view high, instead they would probably mourn just as the civilians.
Furthermore i have seen video evidence of a gunman [on al jazeera] transporting and helping injured children into a hospital. Now to claim that he was doing so so he could have the time he was transporting them and taking them to a hospital as a way of being ’shielded’ really

John, viva?

Speaking of propaganda etc, has no-one noticed that this is the absolute best time to conduct unpopular military action? Most of the world that counts for Israel (the US and, a distant second, Europe) has been on holiday, there is no-one really in charge in Washington and everyone is just waiting to gush over the inauguration and would prefer not to think too much about the ME.

I imagine that this has been planned for quite some time. It would be interesting to know if other Israeli adventures have occured around this time in the US electoral cycle.

Antish, do Hamas also choose to increase their rocket barrages at a time convenient for Israel?

Okay, so latest reprots have the shells landing outside the school in the Jabalya refugee camp. From CNN:

U.N. Relief and Works Agency Director John Ging said most of the casualties were outside the school in the Jabalya refugee camp.

“It’s a very built-up area, so of course it was entirely inevitable that if artillery shells landed in that area there would be a high number of casualties,” he said at a U.N. briefing from Gaza City.

It could well be that the concentration of civilians in that locale should have precluded any Israeli attack, even a response to outbound shell-fire. But already, “Israel strikes school” is starting to look a little frayed around the edges.

BBC:

The UN aid agency in Gaza, Unrwa, said three artillery shells had landed close to the al-Fakhura school on Tuesday afternoon, spraying shrapnel on people both inside and outside the building.

Once again for the hard of understanding, it may yet be demonstrated that this is a morally indefensible strike by Israel, but the emerging details make the initial reports look somewhat hysterical.

http://tinyurl.com/7vhzta

“Residents confirmed the account, saying militants were seen staging attacks from the area.”

Flanker, is your name some sort of rhyming slang?

SP - “..UN deliberately sheltering terrorists in day nursery etc…”

Not exactly, I think. More likely it didn’t really give a damn that terrorists were there. After all, it’s main brief seems to be to stop Israel at all costs.

Paul M you make some good points, which I too have made, about lack of provision for civilians of the essentials to keep them safe. Billions of dollars of aid has been pumped into Gaza over the years and whereas Hamas can buy Grad rockets and such, it cannot “afford” to construct shelters for its people when it brings down war upon them, and no aid agency bothers to highlight this.

Construct - from the above - the worst possible scenario - UN deliberately sheltering terrorists in day nursery etc. Then write appropriate rules of engagement for your citizens army.

Worst for whom? If you’re the OC in the field and your men have just come under shell-fire the origin of which you can pinpoint, you’ve probably got 10 seconds to decide what to do next: return fire or get your men the hell out.

Emerging facts may prove me wrong, but my guess is the officer who instructed a return of fire didn’t know he was going to hit a school* and kill 40 civilians (if this is indeed what happened).

War is fucked up, isn’t it?

*Or land near a school.

If this incident is the result of secondary explosions, it means the UNRWA tolerated and remained silent about the stashing of weaponry at its school, weeks before this battle started.

Which would be par for the course in the UNRWA.

Brownie, I agree. However if ‘mere’ shrapnel is going to kill so many people, then what the hell are they doing using those shells in a city?

Yossi, has the ‘barrage’ in fact increased lately?

Thing is, it turned out that the mortar shells were oxygen canisters and the terrorists were shop workers

Any excuse to shill for Hamas, Zin eh?

Antish,

Yes it has, the week before the start of the current military action, saw an increase in rocket attacks.

Morgoth, are you disagreeing with the content of the post?

Omri: “If this incident is the result of secondary explosions, it means the UNRWA tolerated and remained silent about the stashing of weaponry at its school, weeks before this battle started.”

It takes weeks to rig up booby-traps? Nonsense.

The partisans (both sides) on HP need to calm down, really.

“get your men the hell out” in such circumstances, rather than risk the alternative, would seem decent rules of engagement to me. I also don’t think that what is going on is “war” in any meaningful sense though suspect you meant “combat”.

JohnG’s level of hysteria always gets raised in situations like this.
During the South Ossetia conflict he was all over the place repeating unsubstantiated Russian Press Agency casualty figures.
For two or three days, until even he packed it in.

Omri: “If this incident is the result of secondary explosions, it means the UNRWA tolerated and remained silent about the stashing of weaponry at its school, weeks before this battle started.”

It takes weeks to rig up booby-traps? Nonsense.

Secondary explosions could have been caused by booby traps or by stashed weaponry. It’s not clear precisely what happened, and may never be.

From what I’ve seen, this was less a decision to shell a target which was known to be a school than an ad hoc response to an attack from within that target which was known to be a school. As Brownie said, war is a seriously fucked-up thing.

Antish, I don’t doubt it was considered by Israeli planners, but any major action by Israel can, if you look at it with animist eyes, be seen in the same way. The 2006 war in Lebanon (this strikes as having learned from the mistakes of Lebanon; talk about damning with faint praise) took place in summer recesses, even if more than two years to the American Presidential elections. Then the contemporaneous bombardment of Gaza took place as the “world’s attention” was focuses on Lebanon.

Sometimes a decision to go to war is just a decision to go to war.

I suppose letting the comment section fill with morons makes the point that the basis for the left’s opinion of Israel is bigotry. But isn’t there a limit? I just can’t stand to read these assholes like Flanker anymore.

Flanker asked in another thread “How many people have Hamas killed…?”

Starting 1986:
http://israelsmessiah.com/israel_today/victims_list_1.htm

And what Paul M said.

and in this case johng too.

I guess I need to figure out greasemonkey well enough to make a new kill file. Because the crowd here makes me puke. I’m sorry but they’re just too fucking much.

And it’s certainly no secret that the IDF and IAF have been known to indiscriminately fire at civilians and civilian dwellings and infrastructure

indiscriminately fire at civilians, certainly a secret to me. What evidence do you have to support this accustation?

No less a source than the British Medical Journal:

Two thirds of the 621 children (two thirds under 15 years) killed at checkpoints, in the street, on the way to school, in their homes, died from small arms fire, directed in over half of cases to the head, neck and chest—the sniper’s wound.

I.e., 407 children died not as an accident, but from shots directed against the parts of their bodies that made it sure that they would be killed.

no, he’s trolling

sorry, in reference to something much earlier.

Hamas made a deliberate choice to fire rockets at civilian targets

You mean Hamas had the chance to fire rockets at military facilities but chose instead the civilian targets? Can you provide some evidence?

John, don’t put me in the same group as Flanker, you cunt. I’m sure he thinks of me as a thoughtless Zionazi an’all. I’m a passionate defender of Israel but I think we have to realise that there’s a war being fought on many fronts.

As far as I can tell, Israel has behaved legally, it’s Hamas who’ve committed war-crime after war-crime. No other country would be expected to tolerate rocket attacks on its territory, and “proportionate” is a meaningless word in this context.

However.

Whatever the outcome in terms of reducing the amount of rocket attacks, Israel is losing ground in the wider PR war. Now you may well think that’s an insubstantial triviality compared to the very real risk of death coming from the rockets, but it seems really unlikely that when all the lead has been cast the problem of anti-Israeli violence will have vanished, no?

Brownie, I agree. However if ‘mere’ shrapnel is going to kill so many people, then what the hell are they doing using those shells in a city?

Well quite. Like I say it might be shown that Israel’s strike cannot be justified. But I think we need to stop pretending that Israel has a long list of viable alternatives that it just chooses to ignore. I’m not proposing we ditch the Geneva Conventions or anything like it, but they were written regulate conflicts between nation states that face each other on the battlefield, not govern the response of a country that is under attack from a terrorist guerilla organisation that uses the cover of civlians to launch its war.

Given the way Hamas operate, you could pretty much make a case that vritually any Israeli military response is a de facto war crime given the inevitability of civilian casualties. Of course, that leaves Israel in a rather tricky situation, does it not? What do you suppose Hamas would do with the knowledge that whatever they do, an attack on Israel’s citizens will not be met with a military response by Israel?

Of course, as bloggers rather than members of the Israeli government responsible for the security of 150,000 Israeli citizens within striking range of Hamas, this is not a dilemma we face, is it?

So the Jews are baby killers? Sure I’ve heard that somewhere before…

At this moment, the lead story at the Times Online carries the title:

Gaza school strike forces Obama to break silence

And here is the Obama quote, in full: “The loss of civilian life in Gaza and Israel is a source of deep concern for me.” Seventeen words. He hasn’t really said anything at all, has he? Does the Times really believe that blowing up a Hamas weapons facility, just because it was located on a school premises, is something the IDF shouldn’t have done? And does the Times really believe that Obama’s seventeen-word non-committal expression of regret about the deaths in Gaza and Israel tells us something we didn’t know before? If so, what?

Perhaps the point that needs to be made is that Hamas WOULD murder a lot more people if they could, than Israel will ever kill.

The school was used to contruct weapons, store ammunition and was used as a combat position - any neutrality was removed when Hamas used it as for belligerent purposes.
And it is probable that the building was also booby-trapped - I have seen more IDF footage of bombs setting off wide-ranging and powerful booby traps meant to kill IDF soldiers.

If you want the killing to stop, support and encourage Israel to finish the job and conquer the Gaza strip.

I’m not proposing we ditch the Geneva Conventions or anything like it

Me neither. But the Geneva Convention makes clear that if one side fires from the midst of civilians, and the other side responds and kills some of those civilians, the first side bears the responsibility for the civilian deaths.

The BBC’s initial headline, some six hours ago, was

“Strike on Gaza school kills 40″.

It is now

“Strike at Gaza school kills 30″.

Construct - from the above - the worst possible scenario - UN deliberately sheltering terrorists in day nursery etc.

Would it make a difference is the UN was only accidnetally sheltering terrorist? Alas the assumption that HAMAS terrorist shelter in (or near) UN facilities appears to be all to true!

“Hamas has in the past fired at Israel and at troops from inside schools, cynically using civilians, as is proven by UAV footage,” the army said.

More about who’s responsible for the death of those innocent civilians:

http://idfspokesperson.com/2009/01/06/hamas-operatives-killed-in-unrwa-school-6-jan-2009/

Like most civilised people I despair of apologists for the Israeli war machine and can’t find words to express my disgust and abhorrence for their recent actions in Gaza.

Blah, blah, blah. Like most civilized people I take a moment gather the facts and then make a determination about how I feel. It is a tragedy. It is wrong for innocent people to die.

But the inconsistencies supported by terrorist sympathizers are just shameful. How do you live with it.

I deplore the loss of innocent life on both sides. But I cannot support giving terrorists a free pass or the ability to act with impunity any time they choose to do so.

Who’s afraid of Chavez?
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3651806,00.html

Within the last hour, a Palestinian spokesman (whose name escapes me - perhaps someone else who was watching can enlighten me) was asked by BBC News 24 why Hamas was firing from within a school compound. Did they not have some responsibilty to not do so?

The frankly absurd response - that Gaza is the most densely populated place on Earth* and that sometimes there is nowhere else to fire rockets from - went, bafflingly, unchallenged.

*Greater London has a higher population density.

Mark T, so the spokesperson does not deny using the school as a base of belligerant activity?

Any chance of a recording of this?

Gaza is the most densely populated place on Earth and that sometimes there is nowhere else to fire rockets from

If this wasn’t such a terrible situation, that’d be funny

It is not unknown for the teaching staff of a UN school to be involved in the manufacture and stockpiling of munitions for Hamas. One who was killed, during the past year I think, was a chemistry teacher at a UN school. (Al Qaiq or something he was called). UNRWA denied his involvement but Hamas rather inconveniently announced that he had been a weapons expert and martyr for their cause.

Oops…

@ Jack
“I deplore the loss of innocent life on both sides.But…”
Which is another way of saying “I don’t give a fuck about innocent life,bring it on.” Are you sure you are a civilized person?

IDF are reporting that the Abu Askhar brothers were killed at the school.

The UN biased? Couldn’t be. And especially not UNWRA:

In October 2004 Peter Hansen, UNWRA’s Commissioner General, said in public, for the first time, that there are also Hamas members on the UNWRA payroll adding that “I don’t see that as a crime. Hamas as a political organization does not mean that every member is a militant and we do not do political vetting and exclude people from one persuasion as against another.” The Canadian government reacted to Hansen statement, which was given to Canadian TV, by saying that Hamas is defined as terrorist organization. Several North American charities linked to Hamas were outlawed by the federal government11. Hamas is officially sworn to Israel’s destruction, and several governments designated it as a terrorist organization. Article 28 of the Ha-mas Charter says: “Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims.” The Charter includes anti-Semitic blood libels and references to the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” and it quotes the Quran on the duty to kill Jews.12

Hansen was trying to minimize a problem that is critical to the peace efforts, and he did not reveal in his interview that the Hamas control the UNWRA workers union, following the union elections in 2003. Since the UNWRA budget is based on contributions from governments, and mainly from Western states, it means that the US and EU taxpayers are footing most of the bill for salaries paid to terrorists and their collaborators on the UNWRA payroll. The canard of the distinction between military and political wings of terrorist organization was widely used in the campaign of terrorism against Israel. Only after the September 11th attacks and the following Islamic terrorist attacks around the world did several nations adopt measures to deny this distinction and began to curtail to transfer of funds to charities that provided assistance to terrorism. The United States, the European Union, Canada and Australia, have banned both the military and civilian “wings” of Hamas. As reported by Matthew Levitt from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Hamas and other terrorists organizations are exploiting UNWRA and other relief organizations for their military operations. In one instance UNWRA’s director of food supplies for Gaza refugees admitted to using his UN vehicle on multiple occasions during summer 2002 to transport arms, explosives, and members of terrorists groups to the Gaza strip.13

Source: http://www.jerusalemsummit.org/eng/fullft.php?topic=8&speaker=138

Time to shut down unwra. Correction its about 50 years overdue.

It’s always hilarious to see the likes of Zin and JohnG shed crocodile tears over the loss of innocent lives.

Remember, these are people whose heroes are genocidal maniacs like Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin. They wouldn’t stop with just eliminating all the Jews, like Hamas. They have plans to eliminate a lot more people than that.

Joe, I’m trying to find it again.

The interview was in the studio, conducted by Tim Willcox, before 9pm this evening.

Hamas made a deliberate choice to fire rockets at civilian targets

You mean Hamas had the chance to fire rockets at military facilities but chose instead the civilian targets? Can you provide some evidence?

Buster, how can you make jokes at a time like this? That was self-parody, right? Or are you really saying that those were the only two choices available to Hamas — fire them at military facilities or fire them at civilians? Do you think that rockets are like your paperclip budget or something: You have to spend them or you won’t get as many next year?

You make a perfect bookend for the Hamas creep that Mark T mentions, above: He has to fire rockets from schools because he can’t find room in the parks, and you have to fire them at kindergarteners because you can’t get at the soldiers. You make such a lovely couple. I hope you’ll be together for a long, long time.

Of cause, Paul M, The Propeganda Machine neglects the third option:

DON’T FIRE THE DAMN MISSILES IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Did I shout that loud enough?

Anyone who’s lived in Africa or the Mid East or Asia knows there is nothing special about women and children. Women and children are often recruited to be soldiers and shahids. Hamas is proud of the videos they put on YouTube demonstrating how they train children as young as 10 to fire an AK and their mothers to strap bombs to themselves. The UN has been in bed with terrorists for years and years, in Gaza. Even when we present evidence that we know about it, to them they do nothing. Too bad this comes off ruthless but if you show no mercy you will be shown none.

Paul, I don’t think it was a Hamas representative. I remember the first part of the interview consisting of questions about the supposed united front the Palestinian authority was presenting, given that at the start of the Israeli offensive Abbas was deeply critical of Hamas.

All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts.

A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage - torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians - which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side…

The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them…

I knew there was something missing, Joe. What do they call that in Hamas — the fallacy of the excluded rocket, or something?

The left is in denial about how bad the UN is. When did convenient denial of reality, sweeping human rights under the rug become the mainstay of the left… I thought selfish convenience was the point of being an upper class right winger.

My mistake, Mark T: Comprehension malfunction. It doesn’t seem to change anything much, though.

‘Folk’ here such as TheIriot, HB, Hong Kong Benji etc are often quick to post links to articles on places like Haaretz.

Well, the impression Im getting from such Israeli press is that the headlines about Israeli jets dropping shells on UN schools is wrong.

In fact its a lie.

In fact the War Crime here seems to be from Hamas.

They will of course do their very best to cover it up. By all accounts they are already doing their best. But local residents who confirm the Israeli account. Dead hamas operatives bodies among all the innocents. Hamas representatives on BBC not really denying the Israeli account.

The Beeb and the usual supsects got their war crime. Unfortunately it seems like both the instigators and the victims came from the ‘wrong’ side.

MattG

When did convenient denial of reality, sweeping human rights under the rug become the mainstay of the left…

1793.

I am OUTRAGED! I am APPALLED! I am SICKENED by this!

There’s some git with an Irish accent (I say only to describe and identify him) who spouts off with a wavering emotional voice at some school that has just exploded. I think he’s some head of UN Humanitarian Aid or something.

Hey, “School”, don’t that mean kiddies? Well, normally but today it meant a Hamas emergency military post, a MILITARY target in which Hamas fighters were using Gaza residents as human shields.

I heard him on the radio. “Its a War Crime and we must have it investigated independently”. It certainly appears to be so but will Hamas be bothered at yet another War Crime breach.

This was NOT a school with 300 kids at lessons it was obviosuly manned by fighters. Look at the craters, look at the photos.

Now, the UN gets all upset “School! School! ….” they wail. Big bad Israel shoots up a school - NOT Big Bad Hamas hides in school and draws fire to force martrydom on those they held hostage to fortune inside.

Yet, this ceasefire is at least acknowledged that it can’t be one-sided. Israel do NOT Stop unless Hamas either surrender or capitulate in a face-losing ceasefire with International guarantees of no smuggling and no rockets/missiles. Make it plain that ANY breach is a break of the ceasefire.

The lying Norwegian Doctor and Hamas Broadcasting Company. Mel Fisks the BBC and tell us who he really is http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3210031/the-hamas-broadcasting-corporation-ctd.thtml

I notice my post has been included as an update.

I should stress that I am sure that it was not a Hamas spokesman - as noted above, the interview started with questions about Abbas’ position on Palestinian unity.

Annoyed that the name of the chap escapes me, and also that I can’t seem to find the interview (conducted by Tim Willcox in the studio) anywhere.

It was Manuel Hassassian.

My girlfriend remembered his first name.

I should stress that I am sure that it was not a Hamas spokesman - as noted above, the interview started with questions about Abbas’ position on Palestinian unity.

I’ve added an update.

Thanks Gene.

It seems he’s the Palestinian ambassador to the UK.

He was also burbling about Obama being under the control of AIPAC towards the end of the interview.

Something of a lunatic.

I’ve updated it again.

Also reported in Ha Aretz http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1053233.html

I knew it, its those blacks and Jews again

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i8ek0SHRKqx8MsQiI_I1E6oYTOQAD95HUB2G1

From Maven’s link:

Troops identified two of the casualties at the site as Imad and Hassan Abu Askhar, who served as heads of the Hamas mortar units in Gaza.

Well now.

Somebody want to explain what these two assholes were doing at a UN girl’s school? TheIrie? Hasbara Buster?

“Somebody want to explain what these two assholes were doing at a UN girl’s school? TheIrie? Hasbara Buster?”

Yes, that puzzled me too.

Al-Zawahiri also calls Egypt’s president, Hosni Mubarak, a “traitor” for keeping his borders closed to Palestinians.

Al- Zawahiri doesn’t seem to be very well-informed about who is keeping who out of where.

Somebody want to explain what these two assholes were doing at a UN girl’s school?

Waiting outside with water pistols full of battery acid?

Give it time, give it time. Hamas are getting there, for sure.

Who are you going to believe - a democratic country with civilised values or a terrorist totalitarian movement backed by useful idiots.

You decide.

I made my decision a long time ago.

When I first heard this news I thought it was 30 children killed at a school. I did wonder what schools would be operating in these conditions. Now, it is seems the school was being used as a “shelter” and the dead people are “civilians”.

Now it sounds like this UN school was being used as shelter for acts of war by Hamas.

This is going way way too far. It isn’t that Israel deliberately kills civilians. It is that it doesn’t care about killing them. The only concern is the “propaganda war”. How much will the world tolerate. The life of a Palestinian counts for nothing to the Israeli Government.

Your usual hyperbole. Today 4 or 5 Israeli soldiers (including 2 officers) were killed by friendly fire. Civilians always get killed in urban warfare - its called the fog of war.

Now it sounds like this UN school was being used as shelter for acts of war by Hamas.

Ah but its calle d SCHOOL so everyone is allowed to get upset.

If we had called it a Hamas shelter people will be saying “Big Deal”.

Note that newspapers still wite headlines with “School” and “40 dead”. Now I’ve seen bloggers state that Israel killed 40 children in a school. Now UN is getting serious over the word “School”.

I can just see the brilliant article by someone “The Word that changed the Gaza conflict”

Okay, trying to make sense of all this. I don’t think even Israel is claiming the school itself was being used to launch shells at the IDF. Indeed, it seems to be the case that the school building did not receive any direct hits.

Best guess as this stage? Hamas were using the camp - perhaps behind or very close to the school - to launch their attack, and the Israeli response found its target, with innocent civilians sheltering in the neary school copping the effects of the blasts and flying shrapnel.

Obviously, this puts a different slant on “Israel strikes school killing 40″, but equally, I’m not prepared to give Israel or any other civilised coutnry a pass on this *simply* because they took incoming. When/if the full facts emerge, it may be the case that Israel’s decision to launch shells into a refugee camp in close proximity to a civilian shelter is something I cannot accept as morally defensible. On the other hand, the full facts might tell me something entirely different, or indeed suggest that this was a simple case of troops on the ground taking shells who returned fire without the necessary intelligence that might have informed a decision to do otherwise. Fog of war, and all that.

Do you really think an Israeli commander said, “There are Palestinian civilians sheltering in that building. Let’s blast them”? If you believe Israelis are capable of such things, there’s not much point in engaging with you

Don’t know if anyone else has pointed this out, but the Israeli International Security Minister, Meir Shitrret, admitted on BBC Newsnight this evening that Israel will indeed target civilians if their soldiers come under attack from a place where civilians are sheltering. He was quite frank and open about it.

Should have quoted the first para.

So it’s pretty clear that Israel will target civilians knowingly. I have to say that I am quite shocked by this policy. You get what you deserve when you admit to such things.

But, of course, many people on the SWP antiwar left also supported the bombing of the UN in Iraq, so we won’t hear any of their double standards.

Hasbara ‘I’m a proven liar’ Buster, give it a rest.

“If we are continually being asked to give Israel the benefit of the doubt over this or that atrocity”…

For someone who has made a career of repeatedly giving the terrorists ‘the benefit of the doubt’, and who is a proven liar on top, your question is a bit rich.

The British Medical Journal stats have been comprehensively trashed - run along and do your homework before quoting them again.

“You mean Hamas had the chance to fire rockets at military facilities but chose instead the civilian targets? Can you provide some evidence?”

You come very close to excusing the attacks on one or the other, when the terrorists have no right to be firing at either civilians or the military. You really are a misanthrope, with a difference. Your misanthropy is directed solely at Jews.

Keep in mind, at all times, that your lying reputation precedes you. Even jihadis do not deny ahmedinejad’s statement about destroying Israel, but you do. And when you are linked to a NYTimes article which confirmed that he said it, you lie and state he did not! Strange how you are willing to trash your integrity, and all for the sake of defending the indefensible.

Imad and Hassan Abu Askhar who are members of the racist, genocidal terrorist organization, HAMAS are to blame according to the Laws of War.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

Part IV : Civilian population
#Section I — General protection against effects of hostilities
#Chapter II — Civilians and civilian population

Article 51:

7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

Now HAMAS declares it will wage a murderous terrorist campaign on Jewish children, worldwide.

Mahmoud Zahar a leader of HAMAS said in a televised broadcast recorded at a secret location.
“They have legitimised the murder of their own children by killing the children of Palestine,” “They have legitimised the killing of their people all over the world by killing our people.”
“Victory is coming, God willing.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5454204.ece

Shame that Newsnight’s replay is not up so I can post a link to this far right cunt Meir Shitreet.

Interesting board, as always.

The humanitarianism and concern of the Pal groupies moves me to tears. One wonders where they were while Hamas was deliberately targeting Israeli civilians and doing their level best to kill as many as possible. I expect they were silent,or maybe with a pro forma ‘condemnation of the cycle of violence.’

There a name for that kind of bigotry,I believe.

Next, if any of you want to see a vid of mortars being fired from this school in the past, it’s here.

Second, as one person pointed out, using non-combatants as human shields IS a war crime by any reading of international law, and under the Geneva Convention, Section 28 I believe, Israel is entitled to go after combatants sheltering behind civilians in this manner.

I would also note that UNRWA has been complicit many times in aiding and abetting the Palestinian war against Israel, including ignoring the UN’s own requirements that they screen aid recipiants and employees for complicity in terrorist acts. They simply don’t give a damn..like a great many Europeans. And the ICRC itself,after a great deal of prodding finally admitted that the Palestinians have in fact used Red Crescent ambulances to transport explosives, homicide bombers and fighters - after being shown examples caught red handed by the Israelis. I have a personal letter from Dr. Kellenberger’s assistant admitting it, including the statement the ICRC issued to the media on the matter.

Third, I would also point out that Hamas,just like the Nazis, was legitimately elected as the leaders of its population. Hamas is the chosen government of the Palestinians, by a 70% majority, and no one can tell me that Hamas’ agenda was any secret to these people.

Choices have consequences. That’s simply how the world works.

Rob, it’s a war crime to knowingly target civilians who are fleeing the terror, even if you take incoming from somewhere nearby.

You have choices. You don’t have to kill a bunch of civilians in this manner.

Mike, despite the comments on Newsnight, we don’t know whether the IDF knowingly targeted civilians in this particular instance.

They could simply have been returning fire.

Don’t know if anyone else has pointed this out, but the Israeli International Security Minister, Meir Shitrret, admitted on BBC Newsnight this evening that Israel will indeed target civilians if their soldiers come under attack from a place where civilians are sheltering. He was quite frank and open about it.

I saw that interview and this isn’t completely accurate. He certainly made no bones about the fact that we should expect Israel to return fire, even if the incoming emanates from a civilian area or building. In my view, such a policy risks - or at least could potentially risk if taken to its logical conclusion - indefensible civilian casualties. In Shitreet’s view, Israel is targeting the source of the attack upon it, and if this means civilians get hurt, the responsibility lies only with Hamas. This isn’t good enough for me, but it’s still not the same as “targeting civilians”. More like a reckless disregard for their safety (not in all cases, but some).

Rob, it’s a war crime to knowingly target civilians who are fleeing the terror, even if you take incoming from somewhere nearby.

Who did that?

Mike, despite the comments on Newsnight, we don’t know whether the IDF knowingly targeted civilians in this particular instance. They could simply have been returning fire.

No we don’t, but the fact that one of Israel’s security minister has stated that they will always fire back, even if it’s a UN compound packed with civilians, is very relevent. It suggests this is policy.

Brownie, that’s your interpretation but I thought he was very clear. Asked about the case where they blasted a load of people in 1996 sheltering in a UN compound, he robustly said ’so what’, then said they will always fire back.

Who did that?

The Israeli International Security Minister, Meir Shitreet, says it’s policy.

You may want to update the post.

He said Israel will always fire back, no matter what. Later he said he doesn’t care who is the president of the US, all he cares about is Israel.

Well fine, but then don’t expect me to care about you.

Later he said he doesn’t care who is the president of the US, all he cares about is Israel.

Well of course. He’s an Israeli minister. I don’t see why should a response should provoke such tetchiness from you.

*such a response*

Don’t know if anyone else has pointed this out, but the Israeli International Security Minister, Meir Shitrret, admitted on BBC Newsnight this evening that Israel will indeed target civilians if their soldiers come under attack from a place where civilians are sheltering. He was quite frank and open about it.

It could be psyops, Mike. Ruthlessness perceived is ruthlessness achieved and all that. In spite of all their blustering about loving death more than the Israelis love life, I’m sure even the most hardcore Hamas scumbag would pause briefly before endangering his family.

What? You mean innocent people die when there’s a war going on? I’m shocked, shocked. I think we should call our MPs and ban war. After all, what is it good for. Funny how we didn’t really notice or pay attention during previous wars that didn’t involve Israel.

Well of course. He’s an Israeli minister. I don’t see why should a response should provoke such tetchiness from you

You will see that he said it in a mocking sense: ‘i don’t give a fuck about you; we’ll fire back on civilian targets whoever the president is’, was the message.

When being fired upon, Israeli troops SHOULD fire back, and of course, the war crime is committed by the side shooting with civilians in its midst, ie effectively using them as human shields. It’s simply remarkable how this is getting turned around, kinda like the way the U.S. gets blamed for all those deaths in Iraq by al-Qaeda type suicide bombers.

Sorry Mike, but there is nothing in what I agree is the objectionable Shitreet’s words that supports your assertion that Israel has a policy of targeting civilians. His “so what” followed other comments where he’d made it clear that, in his view, a civilian building which was being used to launch shells or rockets at Israeli forces was, by definition, a legitimate military target. His dismissal of inevitable civlian casualties as the sole responsibility of Hamas and no-one else doesn’t wash with me, but targeting of civilians it is not.

Unless it’s a very high value target, you don’t go blasting kids, knowingly, because of one nut with a gun.

Fog of war and all that.

ah somebody remembered (a) that a war was actually going on, not a indiscriminate bomb and shoot fest and (b) that the fog of war actually affects Israelis too.

Brownie, that’s a spin one could put on it, but as I say, he was very frank and clear. I think this policy is wrong. You must take account of the target.

“It could be psyops, Mike. Ruthlessness perceived is ruthlessness achieved and all that. In spite of all their blustering about loving death more than the Israelis love life, I’m sure even the most hardcore Hamas scumbag would pause briefly before endangering his family.”

It is called policy, seriously why do you people even bother defending this? Why not be frank like this minister?

You will see that he said it in a mocking sense: ‘i don’t give a fuck about you; we’ll fire back on civilian targets whoever the president is’, was the message.

“Civilian targets”? This is bullshit, Mike. Shitreet’s lack of concern about the levels of collateral damage Israel will inflict by returning fire every time, no matter the origin of the attack on it or the proximity of large numbers of civilians, is already morally repugnant. There is no need to turn it into something else.

you don’t go blasting kids, knowingly, because of one nut with a gun.

Eh?

No civilians were blasted “knowingly” - the return fire was not directed at the school, but at a site near it.

And as far as I know “kids” were a distinct minority among the fatalities.

Let’s get the facts straight.

You’re getting into semantics, Brownie. If someone is saying they will fire on a UN compound packed with civilians if someone shoots from it, then that person is saying you will fire on civilian targets knowingly.

That’s what he said and I am condemning it.

Mark T, we don’t have all the fact of this incident so I don’t know how you can be so certain, but I am relaying what Israeli policy is according to one of their top security ministers.

“Civilian targets”? This is bullshit, Mike. Shitreet’s lack of concern about the levels of collateral damage Israel will inflict by returning fire every time, no matter the origin of the attack on it or the proximity of large numbers of civilians, is already morally repugnant. There is no need to turn it into something else.

Brownie, perhaps Sheetrit came across as overly unsympathetic to Palestinian civilians– if so, I’m sorry he did. But what if Hamas launched every attack or fired at every Israeli from behind a wall of civilians? They are already doing something pretty close to that. Surely it is Hamas that wins the “morally repugnant” competition.

Anybody who thinks Israel has a right to return fire inreturn fire all circumstances no matter what, should try a little thought experiment:

Suppose Israel’s return fire having taken an incoming shell had a 50% chance of killing 10,000 five year olds. Assuming all right-thinking people would deny Israel’s right to return fire in such circumstances, the pricniple has already been established that Israel cannot simply absolve herself of all responsibility for her actions simply becasue Hamas are a bunch of war criminals.

Next, work back from 10,000 to discover your individual tipping point.

Saying and doing are two different things, Mike.

Suppose Israel’s return fire having taken an incoming shell had a 50% chance of killing 10,000 five year olds. Assuming all right-thinking people would deny Israel’s right to return fire in such circumstances, the pricniple has already been established that Israel cannot simply absolve herself of all responsibility for her actions simply becasue Hamas are a bunch of war criminals.

Next, work back from 10,000 to discover your individual tipping point.

But the ultimate conclusion of this would be that Hamas could surround its launch sites and commanders with x number of civilians and, by your rule, Israel could never fire back. And Israelis would have to simply sit in place and be pounded endlessly until, presumably, they give up and leave the country.

But what if Hamas launched every attack or fired at every Israeli from behind a wall of civilians? They are already doing something pretty close to that. Surely it is Hamas that wins the “morally repugnant” competition.

Well I think Hamas started this war, just as they bombed a bus every time serious peace talks have happened. Their Islamist ideology means they believe the deaths on their own side are ‘martyres’ who go straight to paradise, which means they do not care about hiding behind civilians (though at the same time we all know it’s a bit unrealistic to expect a gureilla army to stand in the middle of a field waiting to be bombed from 10,000ft)

But that doesn’t excuse a policy where civilians are targeted in all cases if someone fires at you - even if you have the coordinates for this being a shelter. That is what the minister suggested, which pissed me off.

The interviewer, Mark Urban listed a number of other cases where this knowingly happened.

You’re getting into semantics, Brownie. If someone is saying they will fire on a UN compound packed with civilians if someone shoots from it, then that person is saying you will fire on civilian targets knowingly.

Sorry Mike, but given the nature of your allegation, the precise words spoken and their commonly-understood meaning are rather important.

Firing at targets when you know this will result in civlian casualties is not the same as targeting civilians. It might still be a war crime, but it doesn’t justify your description of Israeli policy as “targeting civilians”.

Brownie, perhaps Sheetrit came across as overly unsympathetic to Palestinian civilians– if so, I’m sorry he did. But what if Hamas launched every attack or fired at every Israeli from behind a wall of civilians? They are already doing something pretty close to that. Surely it is Hamas that wins the “morally repugnant” competition.

Undoubtedly Hamas win it, but I don’t want Israel to run them a close second. And to be clear, Israel very rarely does any such thing, and probably no more than any first-world army from any other country (and maybe less). Moreover, the rules of war do not proscribe every act that will inevitably lead to civilian casualties; they simply require that actors balance the risk to civlians against legitimate military objectives. Shitreet’s blanket defence of Israel’s right to return fire in all circumstances necessarily absolves Israel of all responsibility to make any such assessment. It is morally indefensible.

Is there any way in which we can sit here and work out how it’s OK that the civilians are what people are describing as ‘dead’? I think if we try hard enough, we can manage it. Then, if we tot up the number of it’s-ok-they’re-dead Palestinian civilians and match them up with the it’s-not-ok-that-they’re-dead Israelis I think we’ll be getting some way towards…er…the…er…the…er thing we’ll be getting towards. Yes.

Hey Michael. How come Palestinians get to be “civilians” but Israelis are just, well, Israelis?

Is there any way in which you can stop acting like such a bloody moron, Rosen?

Nobody is saying the deaths of civilians are “okay” in any sense. That is a vile strawman you’re using because you are utterly morally bankrupt. What people are saying is that 1. Under the laws of war, the inadvertent killing of civilians while in the heat of battle in pursuit of legitimate military goals is not a crime and 2. the purposeful targeting of civilians for political ends, however, is a crime.

And if you actually bothered to read things like the Geneva Conventions, you would see that this is indeed the case.

But the ultimate conclusion of this would be that Hamas could surround its launch sites and commanders with x number of civilians and, by your rule, Israel could never fire back. And Israelis would have to simply sit in place and be pounded endlessly until, presumably, they give up and leave the country.

I didn’t say it was fair. On a previous thread, I suggested that it would be possible - if inaccurate - to construct an argument that claimed virtually all military strikes by Israel against Hamas are, because of how Hamas chooses to fight, war crimes. What chance does Israel have of striking Hamas and NOT killing or injuring innocent civilians? For Israel to insulate itself against any possibile charges that it is committing war crimes, it has vritually no choice but to eschew the military option no matter the provocation from Hamas. I asked Irie what he thought Hamas policy might be once it became clear that whatever they did, Israel would never take up arms. Needless to say, there was no response.

The bottom line, however, is that Israel can still engage the Hamas that does exist whilst making reasonable efforts to minimize civilian casualties. People will always argue over where to draw the line in terms of how many civilian deaths is too many, but wherever it is drawn, what is most important is that it is drawn somewhere; for sake of Israel’s humanity as much as the civilians Israel takes steps to spare.

The bottom line, however, is that Israel can still engage the Hamas that does exist whilst making reasonable efforts to minimize civilian casualties. People will always argue over where to draw the line in terms of how many civilian deaths is too many, but wherever it is drawn, what is most important is that it is drawn somewhere; for sake of Israel’s humanity as much as the civilians Israel takes steps to spare.

Excellent.

Michael Rosen

Either you are a sincere, consistent and dedicated pacifist - in which case, all power to you - OR you are NOT.

Well war is hell we know. And the death of child makes any cause look like Satan’s pet project.

But if we are not pacifists we have to take a view on this.

Is it legitimate to strike the terrorists if they refuse to stop striking you?

What if your enemy is cynical enough to hide among women and children and invite carnage?

I think Omri has put the legal position rather succintly.

The fact is that there wouldn’t be a single civilian casualty in the whole of Gaza today had Hamas declared its opposition to rocket attacks on Israel and acted decisively to put a stop to them.

If you are not

“Brownie
7 January 2009, 1:33 am

Anybody who thinks Israel has a right to return fire inreturn fire all circumstances no matter what, should try a little thought experiment:

Suppose Israel’s return fire having taken an incoming shell had a 50% chance of killing 10,000 five year olds. Assuming all right-thinking people would deny Israel’s right to return fire in such circumstances, the pricniple has already been established that Israel cannot simply absolve herself of all responsibility for her actions simply becasue Hamas are a bunch of war criminals.”

Between 13 February and 15 February 1945 the RAF and USAAF dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices in four raids, destroying 13 square miles of Dresden. Something like 10,000 children died. Moreover, they deserved to die. The war lasted more than 12 fucking weeks after the bombing.
Do you know why they deserved to die?

Ann Frank 12 June 1929 – early March 1945

I would swap every German for all the victims of Nazi German aggression. Racist, genocidal terrorist murders are BAD. If you support them, you are an evil bastard, good only to work as a Guardian Editor.

The BBC interviewed one of this awful puke inducing Arabs, it has a penchant for wheeling out, who said, “I do not teach my child hate, but I took him to see the effects of the bombing!” This is so called war? Do not forget these people bombed and terrorised us in Europe not so long ago.

I would like to address Flanker’s earlier comment:

“Because bombs of that magnitude are not exactly small things you can hide, a mildly sophisticated government perhaps, but not a government on the run with the sophistication of… Hamas.”

-and would like to refer to the Beslan incident where the terrorists managed to secrete significant amounts of arms and explosives in a in a foreign territory, while operating without a government, and being even less sophisticated than Hamas.

It seems to me if Hamas is firing from a school, and Israel bombs the school, both sets of idiots are responsible for the dead children that result. Israel cannot be absolved of all responsibility for using its weaponry, and the consequences, even if provoked by Hamas.

When Israel targets a school with Hamas in it, it knows what the consequences will likely be. Israelis in the field have made the conscious decision that the dead civilians, including children, that are the likely result, are worth it. These are conscious assessments and decisions. So the Israelis must be responsible for making them, just as Hamas are responsible for their decisions.

Overall, this is the decision Israel has taken for the whole of its military operation in Gaza. It knows its fighting a guerrilla opponent, and it knows the likely civilian casualties. For whatever aim Israel has, it has decided those likely deaths are worth it. This guerrilla opponent is morally responsible for its actions too, but so are the Israelis.

Johng, sorry to be a party pooper, but you guys at LT supported the bombing of the UN in Iraq.

Can’t really do that then play the moral high ground with Israel, can we.

Nobody is saying the deaths of civilians are “okay” in any sense.

That is not true. Nobody expresses happiness about civilian death, and folk express regret if asked about it. However, Israel’s political leaders, as well commanders in the field, make calculations and assessments regarding civilian casualties. Israel’s political leaders have calculated the likely civilian death toll, and commanders in the field do it all the time situation per situation.

Although civilian deaths are “regrettable”, they are “okay” to a certain level, in the sense they are the price worth paying to achieve whatever aims the Israelis have in Gaza. These calculations are made all the time.

“Nobody expresses happiness about civilian death, and folk express regret if asked about it. ”

Actually, Palestinians regularly hold celebrations of the deaths of civilians, and their media regularly call for more.

However, Israel’s political leaders, as well commanders in the field, make calculations and assessments regarding civilian casualties…………………………………………………………………………………

Which is what our masters at Westminster are doing now with regard to us and the thousands of Resident Jihadists in the UK.

Israelis in the field have made the conscious decision that the dead civilians, including children, that are the likely result, are worth it.

Right on the money, Benjamin. In fact, they’re heeding the call of one of their leading clergymen:

“If they don’t stop after we kill 100, then we must kill a thousand,” said [Safed Chief Rabbi] Shmuel Eliyahu. “And if they do not stop after 1,000 then we must kill 10,000. If they still don’t stop we must kill 100,000, even a million. Whatever it takes to make them stop.”

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1180527966693&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

I’m reasonably sure the buildings don’t have big neon signs on them that say “Don’t fire here, this is a place of sanctuary” Civilian casualties is precisely what the Hamas wants.

I guess some of us are Zionists. So, we had better get our perceptions corrected by MPAC UK http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/5227/110/

Apparently, Israel broke the ceasefire by continually by firing rockets and stuff at Gaza.

Remember, Phosphorous is a Weapon of Mass Illumination!

“For Six Months we in Hamas held the ceasefire” CiF http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/06/gaza-israel-hamas?commentpage=8

Why do the Guardian host such blatant lies from a terrorist group that wants to destroy Jews?

By the way, you might all be interested in how Hamas forces civilians to be human shields an dstand on rooftops….

And since people like Brownie like hypotheticals,here’s one:

A deranged, violent lunatic is banging on your front door,saying he’d going to break in and kill you and is actually firing shots through the door. Now, tell me….would you rather the police send just one man ( a ‘proportionate response’ ,no?) or as many as it takes to do whatever is necessary to keep you from getting killed?

And again, I didn’t hear any of the ‘humanitarians’ on the board saying a word while Hamas was targeting Israeli civilians. I realize that some of you would like the Jews of Israel to simply roll over and commit national suicide but I’m sure you’ll understand that they have a very different view of the matter.

Who broke the ceasefire? I have spent the last few days looking at the official Israeli record of that, and even if you only use Israeli sources, its far from clear. According to the Israelis there was a tunnel built by Hamas, but its not made clear whether it reached Israeli territory. The Israelis suggest a plot to kidnap a soldier, but give no details and admit it could have been some other possible action against Israel. There was no abduction, or attempted abduction in Israel, but a firefight on the Gazan side at a building which housed the start of the tunnel, and in that fight 6 Hamas operatives were killed. That’s the official Israeli record. The official Israeli record also states that Hamas held a complete ceasefire (occasional rockets from other groups), and only started firing rockets after the incursion in Nov 4.

So who broke the ceasefire? Your guess is as good as mine.

The official Israeli record also states that Hamas held a complete ceasefire (occasional rockets from other groups), and only started firing rockets after the incursion in Nov 4.

Hence, the Palestinians broke the ceasefire by your own statement. In fact it was broken on 23rd June with a mortar and 24th June with three rockets.

You can’t be a bit pregnant.

Proportionality. If Israel used three tank shells to respond to the Hamas attack from the school then would it matter if they had used a 1,000 ton bomb because both were intended to stop Hamas firing on IDF and both would achieve their result. But, had Israel only wanted to respond to the people at the front of the building then a 1,000 ton bomb would be disproportional to the task. But suppose the bomb only hit the back of the school (sorry Hamas command post) then they would need two bombs.

See, proportionality don’t make much sense. The RIGHT proportion is that required to solve the problem.

Casualty claims in Gaza cannot be independently verified. Israel is refusing to let international journalists into Gaza, despite a supreme court ruling to allow a limited number of reporters to enter the territory.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7814772.stm

BBC seesm to think that allowing Jeremy Bowen to go to Gaza will result in accurate reporting of casualties. I believe 8 reporters are in Gaza having won the ballot.

If the claims cannot be independently verified then why still report 4o killed in UN School?

There comes a point - ethically - where if the enemy are deliberately hiding among civilians you have to risk more of your own soldiers to do battle with them. You can’t simply flatten the lot of them.

Allied bombing during the war was unethical (it was also unnecessary - WW2 bombing only became really effective when we moved against the oil and transport network, rather than trying to “dehouse” the workforce). We are not far away from having an ethical war making capacity with use of robots to flush out urban fighters in this sort of situation and Israel ought to be doing everything to develop that capability.

However, in the interim they have to risk their soldiers more in such situations in order to behave ethically.

Israel really ought to be thinking imaginatively about how to conduct this sort of war ethically in an urban setting. I am sure more could be done.

Although civilian deaths are “regrettable”, they are “okay” to a certain level, in the sense they are the price worth paying to achieve whatever aims the Israelis have in Gaza. These calculations are made all the time.

Once again, Benji demonstrates his lack of knowledge on just about every subject imaginable.

Deaths of civlians are never “okay” and no soldier worthy of the name would ever agree they were. That civilian casualties may be inevitable as a result of specific military activity is an entirely different proposition. A nation state that prosecutes a war in which it will guarantee to *never* kill a civilian is fighting a war that it will lose.

Even if you accept Benji’s “okay” rationale, there is nothing he writes that is not applicable to every war worthy of the name ever fought by any other nation state. yet he’s careful to refer to calculations made only by Israeli commanders and politicians, as if civilians are victims in wars prosecuted by the Jewish state and no other.

Benji, your slip is showing.

Field, as you managed to - finally - submit a comment into which you didn’t shoehorn a reference to the McCanns, I’m happy to express my agreement with your last comment.

A deranged, violent lunatic is banging on your front door,saying he’d going to break in and kill you and is actually firing shots through the door. Now, tell me….would you rather the police send just one man ( a ‘proportionate response’ ,no?) or as many as it takes to do whatever is necessary to keep you from getting killed?

The proportionality test is not so much about the number of actors involved, but the damage inflicted. If the police blew up the whole street to take out the lunatic, that would be disproportionate. The details as provided for you would allow for lethal force. There might be questions asked if it took 30 CO19 officers to take down the lunatic rather than, say, 2 or 3, but the net effect is still one dead lunatic, rather than a flattened residential area and dozens of innocent victims.

But the ultimate conclusion of this would be that Hamas could surround its launch sites and commanders with x number of civilians and, by your rule, Israel could never fire back. And Israelis would have to simply sit in place and be pounded endlessly until, presumably, they give up and leave the country.

That’s exactly the point of TheIrie and co - their right to feel good about themselves are more important than the mere lives of Jews. The ultimate imperialism, as it were.

What are the precise differences of opinions between say Gene & Brownie, and Flying Rodent and Sunny?

Start with assigning blame and morality. Does one side care less about the death of innocents than the other? Does one side think it’s okay for Israel to have shelled (near a?) school knowing that lots of civilians would be killed, while the other side thinks that’s a bad thing? Does one side think it’s okay for Hamas to operate out of a school while the other side thinks it’s a bad thing? Does one side think that Israelis, if they knew they were being fired on by Hamas operating out of a school, ought to have withdrawn rather than responded, while the other side thinks they ought to have responded anyway?

What are the disagreements about the empirical facts? Does one side think that Hamas was operating from the school, but the other side thinks it was not? Does one side think the Israelis knew they would kill dozens of civilians while the other side thinks they did no know that? Does one side buy the story about secondary explosions while the other does not? Does one side think those Hamas fighters identified as killed at the school were actually there, and the other doesn’t?

The point of asking all this, is that the two sides give every impression of disagreeing with each other vehemently, and Sunny and Flying Rodent see this post as more evidence of HP’s moral depravity, yet I’m not sure what the locus of disagreement is.

As far as I can see, both sides probably think the Israelis should have withdrawn rather than responded if they knew they were going to hit so many civilians, both sides think Hamas ought not be operating out of a school, and neither side ought to be silly enough to claim they care more about the death of innocents than the other. As for the empirical facts, there may be disagreement, but I do not see how either side can hold their beliefs about facts on the ground with much confidence.

Who knows, it might even turn out you don’t disagree about much, but are just responding to each other in the way you have become accustomed to.

Gene observes that “as is usual in such events, people will decide what they want to believe”. Gene do you feel that you want to believe the Israelis were not really at fault here, or do you think that you are prepared to believe this incident was an absolute outrage? (even if it was a mistake, it was the sort of mistake that we can be outraged about). I’d like to think you are not letting what you want to believe determine what you do believe. (I too would prefer to believe the Israelis did fire those shells knowing what was going to happen - but perhaps those particular soldiers did, and chose to anyway).

ahem, rather important missing “not” in last sentence there

Hasbara ‘I’m a proven liar’ Buster, what an infinite creep you are! You had to go all the way back to May 2007 to show one Rabbi who advocated fighting back until the terrorists stop! And you label him as ‘leading’? He is the exception that proves the rule, or you would not have had to go back to May 2007!

Is it so lost on you that calls for the death of Jews are second nature to Israel’s opponents on a daily, indeed hourly basis?

Do you really need reminding that in Israel there is a separation between the faith and the state? For Israel’s opponents (and that includes you), the faith and the state are one and the same, and their clergymen speak for their states’ policies.

You are so imbued with Israel and Jew-hatred that you have lost the ability to argue and reason. The state of derangement is eating you up, slowly but surely.

Just want to say that Brownie is making a lot of sense here, demonstrating that the word ‘decent’ doesn’t have to be used sarcastically.

“field
7 January 2009, 8:31 am

Allied bombing during the war was unethical (it was also unnecessary - WW2 bombing only became really effective when we moved against the oil and transport network, rather than trying to “dehouse” the workforce).”

You should read Speer, he had a very different assessment and as he was in charge of the Nazi war economy he was in a position to known.
You also forget the vast numbers of dual-role antiaircraft/antitank guns that were used to ring German cities. If deployed in the East or West, the advancing armies would have had a much harder time of things.
The introduction of the Mustang destroyed the German airforce, which had been damaged by earlier bombing. On D-Day only two fighters made it to the beach, all the others were in Germany or on the Eastern front.

Look at the last updates. The 30 dead were not children attending school. Nor were they all civilians. The dead included hamas fighters and a mortar crew.

Time for flanker to apologize.

Meir Shitreet justifies firing at schools if they receive fire from Hamas, about five minites in….and also later…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00gnjlm/Newsnight_06_01_2009/

From a Soldier’s mother

The Images they Show…
There are images that break your heart. The news is filled with them today and they can easily sway you to think that all of the situation in the Middle East comes down to a picture. How horrible, truly tragic, unacceptable and wrong it is to have a child die.

It is so horrible, sometimes you forget to look behind the picture. It’s so simple, really. A child should be able to go to school and be safe. I last spoke to my son days ago and in the background I could hear the sound of explosions. Through the phone, dozens of kilometers away from me, and quite a distance from Elie, I could hear another unit firing. Can you imagine how loud that would be up close?

Yesterday, mortars were fired FROM the school In Jebalya. This was a direct and intentional attack on Israel, on Israel’s soldiers and population. Mortars are explosions. They are loud. You can’t pretend you didn’t hear them. Many months ago, I went to a ceremony on a base where Elie had completed his basic training. Part of the ceremony included Elie’s group showing their parents what they had learned. After the awards and the talking, some of the soldiers ran to the armored personnel vehicles, while others, including Elie sat on the ground and watched. An officer came near me, as I stood watching with my youngest daughter. He told me to sit down with the girl “on your lap.” So, we sat down, as the soldiers were doing. As another officer was explaining to the crowd about the types of explosives that would be fired, where they would be targeting (the hill a few kilometers in the distance), etc. I saw the soldiers stick their fingers in their ears.

I thought to myself - they’ve been doing this - they know. So I told my daughter to do the same…quickly. She did, and so did I. Except - then I couldn’t hear the explanation and so I uncovered my ears. Now, I’ve lived in Israel more than 15 years, but there is still sometimes a delay factor in my Hebrew comprehension. Now they are going to fire…took me too long and so, I heard and felt the BOOM as the cannons fired.

Everyone in that building yesterday KNEW that the school was being used as a launching ground…and yet, apparently not one of those thought it would be a smart thing to leave. That seems strange to me, unnatural. I was once in Jerusalem, walking with by two daughters when something “exploded” ahead of me. Everyone around me stopped, as I did. It was a bus hitting something that went flying in the air and crashed loudly into something else. People began to move and yet I stood there, unsure what to do. It should be both human instinct and parental instinct to move away from danger.

And the people who now mourn the “innocents” who died in yesterday’s attack on the United Nations school don’t question why people remained in the building from which these weapons were fired. They don’t question that this defies human instinct and certainly what should have been every parent’s first reaction. The people in the school died for three simple reasons:

1. Palestinians decided to use the United Nations school as a launching base to attack innocent civilians. This wasn’t the first time they had used the school. Months ago, Israel filed a formal complaint to the United Nations. Clearly, nothing was done to stop this abuse and so we come to reason # 2.

2. The United Nations did not stop the Palestinians from using their area. One might argue that they could not stop them - and the answer, the simple answer was that they should then have made it clear, publicly, that they could not offer a place of refuge in a firing range. They should not have allowed families to take refuge in such a place. And that brings me to # 3.

3. The families and parents. I heard a father mourning the death of his son. He blames the Israeli government, and I blame him. “Are you insane?” I want to ask him. “How could you allow your son to be near mortars being fired? What did you think Israel was going to do?” Why didn’t you take your son? Why didn’t you behave responsibly? It was YOUR job to protect him; to love him enough to keep him safe and it doesn’t take a genious to figure out leaving your son in a building from which mortars are being fired in the middle of a war is negligent, stupid, insane, and so so wrong. How could Israel have known that there were people in the building? All they could know is that mortars were being fired from that location. My son is stationed far from the cities. Why? Because if he is a target, we don’t want civilians nearby. We do not hide in hospitals, in schools, in homes. Why, why do the Palestinians? And if they do, why, why does the world blame Israel?

People will ask how it is that I don’t blame Israel and the answer is simple. Fire came from that building. Call it what you want - a school, a refuge, a mosque, a home…if you shoot at an enemy…common sense would say the enemy will shoot back. Do it from inside a mosque, and the mosque becomes a target. Do it from inside a school, and the school becomes a target. Do it from behind your citizens and families, and you show the true nature of your society, your culture, your cause.

So, beyond the tragic pictures from yesterday, I offer a deeper image of what life is like in the Middle East. There are the tragic pictures - but please take a moment to look beyond…and below.

These are the images they show:
[INJURED GAZAN CHILDREN]

These are the images they DON’T show:
[GAZAN CHILDREN DRESSED AS SUICIDE BOMBERS AND TERRORISTS]

And what they forget to tell you - is the people who allowed these many pictures to happen, the ones who posed these children with guns, painted their hands with “blood” and strapped “explosive belts” to their bodies, the ones who raise them to believe death should be attained for the glory of God and the more Jews and heathens and infidels you take with you, the higher your place in Heaven - they are the ones responsible for the horror that happened yesterday because they are the ones who put hundreds of people into a place that should have been a sanctuary and then they turned it into a launching ground.

Lon-”unfortunately no one joins me in calling HB a liar”-doner:

You had to go all the way back to May 2007 to show one Rabbi who advocated fighting back until the terrorists stop!

May 2007 is a recent date — far more recent than the Hamas charter, for instance.

But, as you perfectly know, the problem here is that one of the sides is Political Correctness-aware and the other one is not. That’s why Jewish leaders spew hatred in public less frequently than Hamas leaders. But spew hatred they do.

In my view, a threat that can be carried out is more serious than one that can’t. And Israel’s threats can, and Hamas’ can’t.

Let’s also not forget that the man who promised a genocide of Gazans is a state-paid rabbi.

You come very close to excusing the attacks on one or the other, when the terrorists have no right to be firing at either civilians or the military.

No; I agree they have no right to fire at either. But if someone says they deliberately targeted civilians they’re implying that they had the choice of targetting the military but chose to shoot the rockets at the civilians instead. And that’s not true.

I don’t deny what they do is evil. But as Amoz Os said, someone who can’t distinguish between different levels of evilness is himself evil.

Do you really need reminding that in Israel there is a separation between the faith and the state? For Israel’s opponents (and that includes you), the faith and the state are one and the same, and their clergymen speak for their states’ policies.

In Israel there’s no separation of faith and State. The State is officially Jewish, and the only accepted definition of Jewishness is the Orthodox religious one.

As for myself, I’m an atheist.

You are so imbued with Israel and Jew-hatred that you have lost the ability to argue and reason. The state of derangement is eating you up, slowly but surely.

When I’m all eaten up, I promise I won’t post here any more.

Benjamin,

“According to the Israelis there was a tunnel built by Hamas, but its not made clear whether it reached Israeli territory.”

It wouldn’t have to reach into Israeli territory, if, say, it was being dug towards Israel. In any case, at the time, a Hamas spokesperson said they were still committed to the truce:

“In Gaza, Mahmoud Zahhar, a senior Hamas leader, said, “We are still very committed to the truce. If Israel decides not to be committed, let it declare clearly its position. We have only been responding to their actions. Now, with the renewal date approaching, we are going to evaluate it and the crossings and will decide if we are going on with the truce.”

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/14/africa/15gaza.php

Hasbara ‘I’m a proven liar’ Buster, try apologising for being caught in that outright lie. Content yourself with the miserable site you mentioned.

Well, it would seem that Hasbara Buster is due an apology in the light of the IDF’s sudden about turn: It wasn’t Hamas’ fault afterall but an “errant tank fire”.