A new report from the United Nations’ High Commissioner for Human Rights (3/6/13) tallies the extent of the death and destruction from Israel’s attacks on the Gaza Strip last November. The fighting, which lasted about a week, killed over 174 Palestinians in Gaza, including 22 children and 13 women. Six Israelis were killed.
But the headlines generated by the report focused on one child in Gaza, 11-month-old Omar al-Masharawi, and the claim that he was not killed by Israelis, as was originally reported.
The UN report recounts plenty of incidents. Among them:
-On 19 November, a father, his 12-year-old daughter, and his 19-year-old son were allegedly killed by a drone missile while collecting spearmint in a farm adjacent to their house in Ahmad Yassin Street, north of Gaza City.
-On 20 November, two 16-year-old boys were killed, allegedly by a drone missile, while hunting birds in an open area located approximately 700 meters away from the fence, east of Rafah, southern Gaza Strip. Relatives of the victims reported that the IDF did not grant access to the ambulances to retrieve the bodies for at least five hours.
-On 18 November, an Israeli air strike without prior warning hit a three-story house belonging to the Al-Dalou family in Al-Nasser neighborhood, central Gaza City. The airstrike killed 12 people, five of whom were children and four were women.
-The IDF targeted residential buildings and properties during the last few days of the crisis, with some reports estimating that a total of 382 residences were destroyed or sustained severe damages due to Israeli attacks.
-During the crisis the IDF attacked several media offices and journalists in Gaza City. Such attacks killed two cameramen traveling in a car marked as a press vehicle, and injured at least eight journalists.
But the stories we are seeing now are about a death that might not be attributed to Israeli violence. “UN Ties Gaza Baby’s Death to Palestinians” was the headline of a New York Times piece (3/12/13). An Associated Press report (3/11/13) is headlined “UN: Palestinian Militants Likely Killed Gaza Baby.” That piece referred to the photo of Omar’s body being held his father, BBC cameraman Jihad al-Masharawi, as ” an image that became a symbol of what Palestinians said was Israeli aggression.”
Of course what Palestinians “said was Israeli aggression” was actually Israeli aggression, as the death toll and the UN report would indicate. But the AP article is instructive; of the report’s 18 paragraphs, 12 are about the dispute over Omar; the piece winds down by noting, as if it hardly matters, the rest of the record the U.N. report:
In the same report, the authors also criticized Israel for appearing to disregard civilians while pursuing militants and military targets, and for targeting civilian sites, like hospitals, bridges and media offices.
Among many cases, they noted an 84-year-old man and his 14-year-old granddaughter were killed by an Israeli military strike on November 21 while they were in their olive orchard on Gaza’s eastern border. They also cited an Israeli airstrike on a crowded Gaza City neighborhood that killed 12 people, including five children and four women.
So what did the UN actually report about Omar al-Masharawi? It would appear to be all of this:
On 14 November, a woman, an 11-month-old infant, and an 18-year-old adult in Al-Zaitoun were killed by what appeared to be a Palestinian rocket that fell short of Israel.
It’s possible that the UN has solid information to back up this claim. But the New York Times report noted
The BBC has reported that privately, military officials told journalists at the time that Israel had aimed at a militant who was hiding in the building.
And the Associated Press noted that the UN “couldn’t ‘unequivocally conclude’ that the death was caused by an errantly fired Palestinian rocket.”
The BBC (3/11/13) casts doubt on the attribution of the infant’s death to a Palestinian rocket, noting “that the Israeli military had reported no rockets being fired out of Gaza so soon after the start of the conflict.” It also pointed out that UN team, arriving four weeks after the attack, “did not carry out a forensic investigation, but said their team did not think the damage was consistent with an Israeli air strike.” Al-Masharawi’s father, for his part, calls the UN finding “rubbish.”
So the incident is murky at best. It recalls the dispute over Israeli attacks on the West Bank city of Jenin in 2002. Early reports suggested that the death toll could have been between 100 and 200, according to Israeli sources; a subsequent investigation by Human Rights Watch counted 52 deaths. Nonetheless, Jenin is often recalled (FAIR Media Advisory, 5/10/02) primarily as a lesson that Palestinian claims of a “massacre” did not hold up to scrutiny.
The danger is that this could turn into the same kind of story, and the death of a child will be remembered not as a tragedy but as a case of erroneous attribution–or, as the AP put it, “a symbol of what Palestinians said was Israeli aggression.”
Snowshoe
Israel’s behaviour in Gaza has repeatedly been atrocious – focusing on one incident can only be in the interests of drawing attention away from the big picture. Objective press is dead and those responsible for such articles help the pillow over its face. I hope they grow to suffer shame.
Kevin Bradshaw
I really think everyone ought to read the AP story and compare it to the UN report, the latter is 48 paragraphs (17 pages) long and is about violations of international law committed by both sides. The bulk of the report is about the IDF’s violations and covers 3 different points on Palestinian violations. As Peter noted, the death of the infant, whose family was not mentioned, is covered in one paragraph. The report isn’t about the death of the infant, but the article gives you the impression that it is.
This article is paradigmatic of reporting in general on the Israeli-Palestine conflict.
TheBigPicture
We have Hamas TV saying that killing Jews is worship of Allah. Clearly this is Israel’s fault And if a Hamas rocket kills a Palestinian child, that’s Israel’s fault too, because of the big picture. And if someone puts ads on busses reporting what Hamas said, that shows that the person who put the ads on the busses is a hate-monger. Because using someone’s actual words against them is unfair.
Snowshoe
@TheBigPicture, the reason that was banned is because it was a quote by a terrorist, not by a Muslim. If an American said “God says to kill all non-Christians”, many Christians would find that to be deeply offensive and not representative of their views. Given the (unearned) suspicion of Muslims in the US, an ad like that is stupid. Because using someone else’s actual words against them is unfair.
Kevin Bradshaw
@The Big Picture. The actual big picture includes a rejectionist, and racist (he wrote an anti-arab screed) Netanyahu. Even Hamas has embraced the two state solution. Netanyahu may actually be more extreme than Hamas. The point though of media watch dog groups and their work is to expose when the corporate media is systematically misleading the public to obtain consent for US foreign policy initiatives.
Padremellyrn
Sounds like TheBigPicture is nothing more than one small part of the whole picture; and I suspect possible a Media Troll, from the Corpress offices. In other words, just another person who is trying to muddy the waters so that Israeli government can commit murder and walk away free of guilt.
One has to love how the big media is always so ready to point that even though the Israeli did it first and bigger, it is always someone else fault ‘because they made us do it’. Like the small children they are, the Israeli Government is made of people with little morals; no wonder our Government so loves em.
santaclause
“Of course what Palestinians “said was Israeli aggression” was actually Israeli aggression, as the death toll and the UN report would indicate.”
uhh, this is the problem with FAIR. if you really think war is about counting casualties than you need to find an easier job. perhaps one that requires less critical thought.
the UN report does not “prove” israeli “aggression.” the debate of whether or not israel’s use of force in gaza is “aggressive” is pointless because if it is so horrific then every other country involved in similar wars (USA, India, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, Russia, Somalia, Saudi intervention in Yemen) perform far, far worse.
the problem
i cant begin to imagine our response if al qaeda was firing rockets at our capital and 70 million americans had to go underground for an entire week. the affect on commerce alone would be devastating.
but, on topic, the problem is journalists so willing to accept critical information on israel without concern for the sources. this is just one of many incidents, most never get reported. the issue at hand is the mechanics involved – journalists in gaza answer to hamas. no journalist can operate in the area without explicit approval from the government there, this is why BBC isn’t writing stories on hamas extorting palestinian businesses, imposing a 25% tax on goods smuggled through the tunnels, murdering journalists for meeting israeli journalists, and all around being big fat douches.
what we do hear is noise about israel killing kids, women, farmers, olive, trees..blah blah blah. FAIR knows how the media hit jobs works in palestine and he knows it is one big scam. he palestinian authority is scarred to death if the truth were known, but it doesnt matter because western journalists will gladly lie to our faces as long as it means a juicy story. al-dura anyone? italian tv APOLOGIZED to the palestinians for daring to film them suffocating an israeli reservist. the “moderate” palestinians just revoked the press license for al jazeera again, hilarious i wouldnt take them to be very objective or honest.
hart accepting BBC’s attempt at saving face as some credible response is dubious. in any case, why is israel suddenly a reliable source? the israeli army also reported – with satellite footage, named testimony, photographs, etc of palestinians camping in mosques and under hospitals during the conflict…yet that never sees the light of day outside of jpost and maybe the wall street journal.
the issue isn’t “murky” at best. most israeli airstrikes, if not all, involve considerable structural damage. there is a huge difference between 1000 lb JDAM hitting a building and 100 lb qassam rocket.
@snowshoe
this “one” incident illustrates the yellow journalist that goes on, casting huge doubt if not totally poisoning the overall media performance in any war involving israel. too many scandals have go on to take the palestinians seriously, some guy even came up with the term “pallywood” to describe what is going on.
Snowshoe
@santaclause, have you read the UN report? The focus of the reporting was contrary to the focus of the UN report. Are you suggesting that the UN should have emphasised the possible (but improbable) innocence of the Israelis in his death? Either the UN presented that situation inaccurately or the journalist did – take your pick.
It was Professor Richard Landes who coined the term Pallywood and if you’re putting him forward as being objective, we’re probably done here.
As a bit of friendly advice, you may want to break your ideas into more digestible-sized chunks. I honestly wasn’t sure who you wuz fer and who you was a agin’.
santaclause
@santaclause
hart is drawing the wrong conclusions from the report. and the report itself is merely citations from palestinian movements and eye-witness accounts. refer to page 9 and 10 section 5 and 6.
a series of hospitals were hit by israeli shells designed to illuminate the area. do you want to know why israel uses phosphorous bombs in the open-air?
because palestinians camp in heavily populated areas, putting at great risk israeli soldiers who would otherwise be mowed down moving through tight spaces and corridors.
FAIR, as well as most readers here, seriously don’t appreciative the complexity of close-quarters combat and the behavior of insurgents conventional military have to deal with.
at the end of that one section the original author casually suggests the hits on the hospital would be violations of international humanitarian law, but common sense shows the only reason hospitals are being affected is because they are in a middle of a war zone.
if israel wanted to demolish a hospital it could do so with great precision and with no harm to themselves.
my original points remain unchallenged, if you require more concise and explicit reasoning feel free to ask.
the fact that the report acknowledges the doubt in regards to the death of jihad is critical. the reality that journalists are so willing to accept anonymous claims by palestinians without serious questioning, and pass it off as certified truth is quite disturbing.
and this isn’t an isolated incident. it makes perfect sense that palestinians fight the way they do, because they know it will earn the sympathy of the world and they know the west loves to hate israel.
it’s not like anyone here actually cares about the palestinians. the west said jack squat when 500 palestinians were killed in a day last year in syria when the military bombed refugee camps suspected of harboring rebels. they probably were, but still. 500. but cant blame israel for that.
santaclause
also in israel’s original response to the goldstone report, they described areas in gaza where wounded soldiers had to be extracted in “hot zones” and so white phosphorous (which wasn’t weapons grade) was dumped in the air to provide a smoke screen for the soldiers.
simple smoke bombs was used 10 years ago, but now the palestinians have rockets that can be fitted with semi-smart navigation systems and can go straight through smoke. the phosphorous has the same chemicals used in flairs and confuses the rockets. it also is very disorienting and deters palestinians from going near it.
the point is israel’s military policy is designed to A) protect soldiers and B) avoid civilians as much as possible.
palestinians goal is to A) harm as many israelis as possible and B) use civilians to deter israel attack or show the media israel’s “atrocious” actions victimizing hamas and putting an innocent, passive face on the aggressor.
it’s easy when you are 1,000 miles away in comfy USA, never in your entire life knowing what it is like to be under siege and held hostage because your neighbors want to kill you and your family.
if israeli schools were open during the conflict there would be hundreds of dead israeli kids, but because schools were closed the only casualties were the buildings.
the palestinians are totally insane, the leadership that is. remember when hamas went around executing palestinians suspected of feeding information to israel, and dragging them on the streets to put fear in the hearts of other palestinians?
or seeing palestinians being trained to blow themselves up in the islamic university of gaza. it’s just a bad world and bad neigborhood israel lives and for the most part it manages quite well. it could be a lot worse, israel could be a muslim state, or the USA. the palestinians would be toast if that were the case.
Snowshoe
@santaclause, I know precisely why the Israelis used white phosphorus in defiance of the 1980 ‘Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Protocol III’. It was so they could target combatants and civilians without discretion – at least, that’s what the UN report stated.
Smart navigation on Qassams? You’re kidding, right? They’re basically pipe bombs.
You wrote:
“at the end of that one section the original author casually suggests the hits on the hospital would be violations of international humanitarian law, but common sense shows the only reason hospitals are being affected is because they are in a middle of a war zone.
if israel wanted to demolish a hospital it could do so with great precision and with no harm to themselves.”
If the precision is as fine as you believe, then the damage had to be intentional. If the damage was unintentional, then the control is not as fine as you describe. You can’t have it both ways.
PS – what do you have against capital letters?
santaclause
@santaclause
you know israel did not use white phosphorous to kill palestinians indiscriminately. the goldstone report (later recanted by its original author, and largely debunked by third party experts, not to mention its original sponsors are the worst human rights abusers on the planet) came to the conclusion that israel’s whole operation in gaza was designed to punish the palestinians, or impose collective punishment.
white phosphorous is a legal munition if used to illuminate the battlefield. as israel army explained in its response to the UN report – which the UN requested, and so far has yet to response to, white phosphorous was used to shield wounded soldiers being evacuated in hot zones and active-combat zones. israel isn’t going to expose black hawk helicopters to palestinian rocket fire.
no palestinians died from white phosphorous, and those that were hit were burned by the falling debris. white phosphorus that explodes in the air is legal, it is not weapons-grade. white phosphorous is not just legal, but standard in these types of conflicts. it is the only way to protect soldiers from getting wiped out by insurgents camping in hidden areas or areas considered to be off-limits. so israel either uses white phosphorous which rarely ends in civilian casualties, or levels whole neighborhoods – as we did in fallujah – to ensure its forces aren’t exposed.
if israel wanted to kill civilians indiscriminately it could do so, the casualties in gaza – 90% male, combat-age, reflects discrimination. considering the average age in gaza is 15. this is consistent in all of israel’s wars. during the second intifada 89% of all palestinian deaths were male.
on the other hand, the palestinians did fire white phosphorous at israel to kill indiscriminately, as well as filling rockets with nails, screws, and sharp buttons to kill as many people as possible.
qassam, pipe bombs. i didn’t realize pipes in usa were 10 ft long and weighted 150 lbs. i didnt realize pipe bombs could destroy cars. qassam rockets are usually fired alongside the heavier more sophisticated rockets. two reasons – to confuse the iron dome system, and make it harder for israel to predict where the rockets will land. you know, because israel cares about the lives of the people it governs unlike the palestinian government which relishes death (see pallywood).
in any case, hamas and hezbollah have more sophisticated arms than hezbollah, the taliban, and al-shabaab…combined.
hamas does have laser-guided smart-guided bombs, which was used to destroy school bus in Shaar HaNegev.
the Fajr-5, grad rockets, have ranges between 20-150 miles, and carry warheads up to 500 lbs. most of israel’s airstrikes in gaza were not militants but weapons depots, thousands of airstrikes and a million pounds of bombs dropped on gaza yet the casualties dont reflect that. it is unfortunate hamas hides weapons under homes, hospitals, mosques, schools, etc…but it doesn’t make them immune from attack.
many palestinians were killed in secondary explosions, which is unfortunate but not avoidable. i imagine some areas were ignored for fear of causing excessive damage, in the 2009 gaza war israel didn’t bomb out a hospital even though it knew half of the hamas leadership was hiding in the basement.
you know why they do this, you know because hamas knows israel has no incentive to kill civilians and will go to greater effort than any other military to prevent their deaths. they even admit this. it is a genius tactic, and an open-secret. stop pretending to be stupid.
You wrote:
“at the end of that one section the original author casually suggests the hits on the hospital would be violations of international humanitarian law, but common sense shows the only reason hospitals are being affected is because they are in a middle of a war zone.
If the precision is as fine as you believe, then the damage had to be intentional. If the damage was unintentional, then the control is not as fine as you describe. You can’t have it both ways.”
are suggesting any airstrike in war must be 100% accurate? the hospitals were not destroyed, or subjected to significant damage minor structural damage suggests more likely than not the damage was not preferred. it doesn’t seem logical for any modern western army to go out of their way and spend millions of dollars destroying hospital windows and causing minor damage. the fact that israel treated thousands of wounded palestinians during and after the conflict, as well as shipping humanitarian aid – often sold back to the palestinians for profit by hamas – suggests israel has no desire to kill and endanger palestinians not involved in the conflict against her.
im sure some in the army would love to embrace the US/British/NATO rules of engagement, but it knows if it did it would be subject to even greater levels of international outrage.
anyways, in a war zone involving an enemy that deliberately hides behind protected zones, pretends to be protected targets – dressing up as women, using children to ferry weapons from house to house (Taliban has done this in afghanistan as well)…you really expect there to be 0% destruction in civilan areas?
can you point me to a military capable of such abilities? any war ever fought ever where such techniques were employed?
it isn’t humanly possible.
“PS – what do you have against capital letters?”
for emphasis, but you ignored most of my comment anyway so it didn’t matter.
Snowshoe
@santaclause, it doesn’t matter how many times you say it, white phosphorus has been used to kill Palestinians in Gaza, particularly in the first massacre… sorry, proactive defence.
You muddy the waters with the precision of a trained troll… one that I suspect is being paid by the word. Bye.
Andy
Santaclaus needs to hone his editing skills.
santaclause
@snowsho: it doesn’t matter how many times you say it, white phosphorus has been used to kill Palestinians in Gaza, particularly in the first massacre… sorry, proactive defence.
.
You muddy the waters with the precision of a trained troll… one that I suspect is being paid by the word. Bye.”
it’s pretty obvious israel did not use white phosphorous to kill civilians, because the white phosphorous israel uses explodes IN THE AIR, not on the ground. and no palestinians were killed by white phosphorous
im not particularly surprised at the lack of understanding of israel and the palestinians, and willingness to accept the hilarious and amusing claims made by palestinian terrorist supporters, but the facts remain unchallenged so far.
@andy
english is not my first language sorry. i didnt grow up in usa.
Snowshoe
@santaclause, I know it explodes in the air – here’s (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/25/israel-white-phosphorus-gaza) a picture of it exploding in the air… at a UN school in Gaza. Or are you suggesting this is more Pallywood? Civilians died and most of the world regarded the use of these shells to be a war crime committed by Israel. I’m sure that this was not the news you were fed and I don’t blame you for that, as a FAIR media is hard to come by these days – that’s why we’re here, right? Have a look around though – Occam’s Razor would lead you to conclude that I’m right… provided you’re here for objective reasons and not just to troll.
santaclause
“@santaclause, I know it explodes in the air – here’s (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/25/israel-white-phosphorus-gaza) a picture of it exploding in the air… at a UN school in Gaza. Or are you suggesting this is more Pallywood? Civilians died and most of the world regarded the use of these shells to be a war crime committed by Israel. I’m sure that this was not the news you were fed and I don’t blame you for that, as a FAIR media is hard to come by these days – that’s why we’re here, right? Have a look around though – Occam’s Razor would lead you to conclude that I’m right… provided you’re here for objective reasons and not just to troll”
no one is denying white phosphorous didn’t explode over a UN school. the palestinians were operating in the area – protected zones deliberately, hezbollah did the same in 2006 and when the UN peacekeepers got killed israel was blamed – therefore white phosphorous exploded over the school because israeli soldiers were near as well.
weapons-grade white phosphorous explodes on the surface and at much higher temperatures, the white phosphorous israel uses explodes in the air. it is terribly ineffective at killing or harming people, but it is an excellent illumination and smokescreen used by virtually every military (including usa) when fighting these sorts of wars.
international law does not prohibit the use of white phosphorous, and whether or not most of the world considers israel’s use as a war crime is completely irrelevant. there are 50 muslim states with 2/3 of the world’s oil, the collective mind is going to say whatever is necessary to appease them.
how else does saudi arabia, china, sudan, and at one point libya sit on the human rights council? that alone makes it hard to take any report coming from the council without laughing.
apparently people are filled with so much hatred towards israel they’ll believe any lie they are fed.
Snowshoe
@santaclause, you’re just wrong. Read http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/03/25/israel-white-phosphorus-use-evidence-war-crimes – you can either decry HRW as an organisation or accept that you’ve been mislead.
I keep providing links to credible sources whereas you keep denying any wrongdoing by Israel and blaming everything on everyone hating Israel so much as to act in a biased way. As for bias in international relations, one need only look at the ridiculous way that the US supports Israel in the UN. If anyone gets treated far better than they deserve, it’s Israel.
Andy
Santaclaus, I’m not talking about grammar, I’m talking about economy of language.
santaclause
i dont know what happened my comment just got lost. frick. anyways, ill direct you to an analysis of what white phosphorous and how ineffective it is in conflict.
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/bio/factsheets/whitephosphorusfactsheet.html
ive read the hrw report when it was first released, ill look through it again. what i do recall is a lot of anonymous testimony, and personal interviews from residents. and much discussion about photographic analysis yet i do not recall any meaningful photos of wp damage that disprove indiscriminate use.
*note* skimmed through their report, skipped the recommendations to israel/usa and the preface
this is how hrw and ai come to their conclusions. palestinians were wounded by fires caused by white phosphorous, therefore the white phosphorous israel was intended to cause those fires. or israel was being reckless in its use of white phosphorous, or israel should have substituted white phosphorous with alternative smoke bombs that don’t cause fires. therefore israel’s used of white phosphorous was a war crime.
this is all irrelevant. no one is debating palestinians werent injured by wp. if the WP was used as an illumination device to highlight camping palestinians or shield movements of soldiers (it seems most of the times it ws used soldiers were either nearby or planning to be deployed in the area), then the accusation that it had malicious intent is far less convincing.
when israel targeted and destroyed buildings/military targets, it did so with the appropriate munitions.
hrw repeatedly brings up the case of felt wedges causing burns and fires, felt wedges soaked in wp are used to limit the damage caused by the materials in white phosphorous shells.
fires caused by white phosphorous does not mean israel is responsible for those fires. ill direct you to the link above i wish hrw consulted with as it explains without bias the role of wp and its various uses.
the real important fact – which hrw includes but does not consider in their conclusion – is that the white phosphorous shells are attached with delayed fuses that explode several hundred feet above the ground rather than on contact. this is the same reasoning behind any projectile used as a smoke-screen.
santaclause
and regardless the wp is a lightening rod for the real story. i dont expect an original independently-thought response when someone compares a qassam rocket to a pipe bomb. i guess the goal is to understate the lethality of hamas which exaggerates israel’s response and portrays the palestinians as passive victims, as you say a “massacre.”
santaclause
“As for bias in international relations, one need only look at the ridiculous way that the US supports Israel in the UN. If anyone gets treated far better than they deserve, it’s Israel”
how is this ridiculous? the un is owned by the OIC. any muslim state can propose a resolution and it will pass with an overwhelming majority in the unga. the fact that the US and sometimes canada are the only countries that stand up to this should be praised.
have you bothered to read the resolutions? they are totally bogus, just noise. and the human rights council is run by some of the most oppressive nations on earth, yet this doesnt seem to bother you?
im glad the usa isnt totally corrupted by muslim oil. iknow if there were 50 jewish states and 1 muslim state we wouldnt be having this conversation.
Snowshoe
@santaclaus, So your argument is that even though they could have used less harmful smoke bombs and given that the Israelis always used the appropriate munitions, the buildings and people catching on fire as a consequence of using a munition where particles can burn for 15 minutes (according to your one and only reference so far) was unforeseen and unfortunate. No, scratch that – you didn’t say unfortunate.
Wow! You actually said: “fires caused by white phosphorous does not mean israel is responsible for those fires”. Are you suggesting that the Gazans inflicted that little piece of joy upon themselves? Or perhaps the Israelis just forgot that one of the most violently combustible materials known to humans might burn someone and something below where you explode it? This has gone well past ridiculous.
Ah, you chose the tactic of declaring HRW, AI, the UN and the vast majority of the rest of the world as being wrong. It’s statistically unlikely, but I suppose if it helps you sleep at night, you’ve got to grab it with both hands.
I don’t expect you to look at what a Qassam looks like or how rudimentary the manufacturing process is, let alone the fact that it doesn’t spin, so isn’t very precise, but for any who are interested, have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qassam_rocket. It’s a lot closer to a pipe bomb than it is to the nukes and other high-tech weapons at the IDF’s disposal.
The US isn’t totally corrupted by Muslim oil – it’s also heavily corrupted by Israeli influence, though the two often go hand in hand anyway. I don’t know why you keep enquiring whether I live in the US – maybe that’s the duty of an obedient troll?
Eric
Congratulations, FAIR and Peter Hart — you’re clearly so effective that Hasbara Corp. has sent a senior officer to do battle with you.
Mind you, his argument that Palestinians shouldn’t “camp in heavily populated areas, putting at great risk israeli soldiers who would otherwise be mowed down moving through tight spaces and corridors” make it hard to take this officer seriously.
As if Palestinians had a choice to camp outside “heavily populated” Gaza, or as if the invading Israelis had any right to be in Gaza’s “tight spaces and corridors.”
Another hasbara argument, laughable if the reality behind it wasn’t so tragic, is that Palestinians shouldn’t be “camping in mosques and under hospitals” during a full-scale one-way assault on their neighbourhoods.
Where, Mr. Hasbara, would you suggest that Palestinians take refuge from missiles, gunfire and white phosphorus? Israel’s 2008-2009 criminal aggression had taught them that Israel considers designated UN areas and schools to be military targets.
santaclause
@snow
No, i’m not saying anything. These are merely the facts and I am drawing conclusions from those facts, as human rights watch has done. We can look at the same facts and come to different conclusions.
These are the questions we ask. Why does Israel use white phosphorous? Because it illuminates the battlefield. Both AI and HRW agree WP is legal and Israel’s argument isn’t bad, they say because of the incidental damage allegedly attributed to WP, israel is being reckless and therefore a crime. for the layman, israel’s military objective does not satisfy the use of white phosphorous.
HOWEVER, this is a poor conclusion and no one has taken advantage of it beyond HRW and AI. If it could be proven beyond a doubt Israel was targeting INNOCENT people with highly unreliable non-weapons grade white phosphorous that explodes in the air rather than on contact, it would be hit hard by the EU, UN, and however many multi-national international bodies looking to stick it to Israel.
the facts don’t support the conclsions, have you read the HRW report? every instance they include is either circumstancial, or irrelevant. The fact that fires were caused by white phosphorous is not Israel’s problem. The military objectives outweigh the costs – costs so far that haven’t been enumerated clearly, the damage listed in the report is less than costs of not using white phosphorous and having soldiers exposed to the enemy.
and these laws, btw, were written by people who didn’t think in the future islamist organizations that would take advantage of western rules of war and use it against them. the entire purpose of white phosphorous was born due to the behavior of palestinian, afghani, somalia, iraqi, etc..militias. it’s the price the palestinians pay for electing a party that fights in protected areas.
the higher the phosphorous explodes in the air, the more time it has to disappate. if the goal was to kill people it would A) explode on contact and B) not be supported by felt wedges.
“Ah, you chose the tactic of declaring HRW, AI, the UN and the vast majority of the rest of the world as being wrong. It’s statistically unlikely, but I suppose if it helps you sleep at night, you’ve got to grab it with both hands.”
No, I’m not saying HRW, and AI, the UN and the “vast majority of the rest of the world as being wrong.” I’m saying the sources you list provide incomplete and unconvincing evidence to support their conclusions, and actual evidence says the exact opposite (see felt wedges which HRW complained about, even though it was PUT in the shells to LIMIT damage caused by phosphorous).
and that is a totally fallacy. it is not inconcievable to think that an organization dominated by non-democracies and dictatorships could obsess over one country more than all others combined.
“I don’t expect you to look at what a Qassam looks like or how rudimentary the manufacturing process is, let alone the fact that it doesn’t spin, so isn’t very precise, but for any who are interested, have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qassam_rocket. It’s a lot closer to a pipe bomb than it is to the nukes and other high-tech weapons at the IDF’s disposal.”
so your argument is israel has a better weapons, therefore the palestinians are more moral? 60% of all US casualties in afghanistan are from home-made “rudimentary” explosives. and as i said before hamas has incredibly sophisticated weapons, more so than anything the taliban or al qaeda has and look at our reaction to their attacks on us. far more ruthless and aggressive than anything israel has ever done ever. israel invests quite a lot on passive defense as well such as the iron dome system. do you think any other country would bother with such technology?
“The US isn’t totally corrupted by Muslim oil – it’s also heavily corrupted by Israeli influence, though the two often go hand in hand anyway. I don’t know why you keep enquiring whether I live in the US – maybe that’s the duty of an obedient troll?”
i dont care if you live in the US or not, someone was talking about my grammar or grasp of english language. i am no expert on american politics but i can say support for israel is quite high among the electorate at least from the polls ive seen. i can say america’s relationship with the muslim world is far more one-sided and unfair.
santaclause
“As if Palestinians had a choice to camp outside “heavily populated” Gaza, or as if the invading Israelis had any right to be in Gaza’s “tight spaces and corridors.”
Ah, you see but the palestinians DO have a choice to not shoot rockets at israel and provoke a response. fighting in protected areas deliberately, such as firing rockets from a mosque, hiding leadership under a hospital, etc…is illegal. it is not done due to necessity, it is done because the palestinians know israel has no desire to kill innocent people.
“Another hasbara argument, laughable if the reality behind it wasn’t so tragic, is that Palestinians shouldn’t be “camping in mosques and under hospitals” during a full-scale one-way assault on their neighbourhoods.”
well regardless it doesn’t make them immune from attack. so if you want to fight in a mosque, the mosque will likely get damaged. tough right? same thing happened in 2006 lebanon war. hezbollah would fire rockets behind a UN outpost, then run away. israel would fire back at the source of the rockets, and hit the UN outpost.
the UN officers were complaining that hezbollah was deliberately using their outpost as protection.
then the outpost blows up after several rounds between hezbollah and israel…and who gets blamed for that?
“Where, Mr. Hasbara, would you suggest that Palestinians take refuge from missiles, gunfire and white phosphorus? Israel’s 2008-2009 criminal aggression had taught them that Israel considers designated UN areas and schools to be military targets.”
white phosphorous is used to illuminate the battlefield, and is standard. it’s pretty simple really, don’t attack israel. it makes so much sense. look at all the arab nations left untouched throughout the years? wonder why?
israel shouldnt have to live under this kind of abuse. millions of israelis shouldnt have to live underground. im guessing you are british based on your language, how would your country deal with the taliban camped outside your house with 50,000 rockets capable of hitting every city, including the capital, and every few years or so 25 million british people would have to live in bomb shelters for weeks at a time.
the british killed 4,000 afghanis that poses virtually no threat to the british mainland. how do you think they would treat the palestinians? we know how they treated them during the revolts LOL
Snowshoe
@santaclaus wrote:
“i am no expert on american politics but i can say support for israel is quite high among the electorate at least from the polls ive seen. i can say america’s relationship with the muslim world is far more one-sided and unfair.”
You’ve finally said something so utterly ridiculous that I’m finished.
@Eric wrote:
“Congratulations, FAIR and Peter Hart — you’re clearly so effective that Hasbara Corp. has sent a senior officer to do battle with you.”
It certainly looks that way! Careful – he’s trying to figure out where you live too. Coincidence? I think not!
santaclause
i am not sure what you find ridiculous and where do i show any concern about where you live?
Gert Verbeek
STOP MEDIA ELITE