Israel suspected in Sudan airstrikes

[cali]

Sudanese officials say hundreds were killed early this year when bombs hit smuggling convoys moving migrants headed for Israel and Europe as well as arms possibly meant for Gaza.
By Richard Boudreaux and Edmund Sanders
March 27, 2009

Reporting from Khartoum, Sudan, and Jerusalem -- A Sudanese official said Thursday that hundreds of people were killed early this year when foreign warplanes bombed three convoys smuggling African migrants through Sudan along with weapons that apparently were destined for the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert hinted at his air force's possible involvement in the attacks. They came after Israel ended a 22-day assault on Gaza without fully achieving one of its aims: to choke off Hamas' weapons supply.



Gaza: Full coverage of the conflict Babylon & Beyond: Observations on the...Oil's decline threatens Sudan government
Israeli army rabbis criticized for stance on Gaza assault
More on Sudan

Israeli officials have said that the militant Islamic group is seeking more powerful weapons than the crude Kassam rockets and Grad missiles it fires at Israeli towns.

An Israeli role in the bombings, if confirmed, would underscore the Jewish state's determination to strike far beyond its borders to protect its security. It also would be seen as a warning to Hamas' most powerful patron, Iran, which Israel alleges is developing a nuclear weapon.

The bombings brought a new layer of tragedy to Sudan, a country in the grip of an armed insurgency. The victims were migrants from Sudan, Ethiopia and other African countries seeking a better life in Israel or Europe, and young men and boys working as porters and drivers for the smugglers.

<snip>

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-israel-sudan-bombing27-2009mar27,0,4732426.story

[cali]

1. outrageous and horrifying.

If true this is absolutely a war crime.

[bemildred]

2. I remain skeptical.

This is another of these stories where everybody wants to play footsie and make claims anonymously and without any apparent evidence whatsoever.

[Lithos]

10. I am in the same column

Not enough detail and too many players with biased and vested interests.

L-

[bemildred]

31. I am tending to think the real content of the story is in this paragraph:

An Israeli role in the bombings, if confirmed, would underscore the Jewish state's determination to strike far beyond its borders to protect its security. It also would be seen as a warning to Hamas' most powerful patron, Iran, which Israel alleges is developing a nuclear weapon.

Which is echoed in Olmert's statement:

"We operate everywhere we can hit terror infrastructure -- in close places and in places farther away. Wherever we can hit terror infrastructure, we hit them and we hit them in a way that increases deterrence."

Plus they hang a grab bag of other recent propaganda memes on it. But it would be nice to know if anything at all actually occurred. It reminds me of the Syrian "Nuclear site" bombing, but there at least it is clear that something happened.

One can see, if one considers, that fake attacks and incidents would have certain advantages over real ones as propaganda vehicles and "warnings". Less chance of getting out of hand for example. But it needs to be un-checkable, out in the middle of nowhere.

[Jefferson23]

33. "Wherever we can hit terror infrastructure,

we hit them and we hit them in a way that increases deterrence." Yep, as in OCL, to increase deterrence by any means necessary, as in the use of WP, is one example.

[Lithos]

35. That kernel I would believe

The part which I have issue is a tie between refugees and an arms shipment. The majority of refugees in the Northern part of the country where this would have occurred are non-Muslims. Thus it seems extremely unlikely they would travel with an arms shipment to Gaza that would have been controlled by either Iranian/Hamas operatives, or the Sudanese government.

I would not be surprised if the real story is close to the following scenario. There was an arms shipment which was destroyed by Israel. The government of Sudan is trying to use this as an excuse to hide behind their own attacks on refugees during this time period. The Sudan government has in the past used its military, including its air force, to attack refugees.

L-

[bemildred]

37. Yes. Everybody sees it as an opportunity to catapult the propaganda.

I suppose one must assume something did happen. We seem to have disagreement about how many times something occurred too. Your scenario is good enough.

[Grimm]

3. Sudan has accused Israel and Jews of creating the Darfur crisis

So personally I'm remaining skeptical as to anything a Sudanese official says about what Israel has been doing in their country.

[Kurska]

4. The convoy was filled with weapons

Since when was the convoy "Filled with emigrants" it was filled with explosives, which is exactly the reason there were no survivors.

This article makes a crazed claim about the content of the cargo and then uses statements made about Israel saying they bombed a arms convoy to make it sound like they are admitting it.

[Idealism]

5. Osama bin Laden himself could have been in that caravan, it doesn't make it legal.

International law is very, very clear about sovereignty.

[Kurska]

6. International law has issued a arrest warrent for the Sudanese head of state

International law is a river that flows both ways and the very idea that Israel could get charged for "War crimes" for actions against the Sudanese government is hilarious.

So Osama Bin Laden, Hitler, Mao Zedong, Ivan the terrible and Attilia the hun are riding in a caravan through Sudan...

[Idealism]

7. A warrant for an arrest to stand trial, not to death by IAF bombing raids.

Everyone has a right to a fair trial- that is what equality is supposed to be about.

The Israeli military is not judge, jury, and executioner.

What's laughable is that you have no clue the basis of international law: sovereignty. The IAF violated Sudanese sovereignty and is thus a war crime. Sorry you don't like the verdict, but that doesn't change jack shit.

[Kurska]

8. I'm going to be honest, I'm just going to cry a million tears about sudan's sovereignty

Although I wish the murderer in charge of Sudan would find his sovereignty violated by the business end of a cruise missle, he wasn't actually the person killed in this action which seems to be what you are implying.

[Idealism]

9. No, you were the one who brought up the Sudanese president.

The government head of Sudan has nothing to do with Sudanese sovereignty. Sudan is a recognized country, part of the UN and other regional groups- you cannot just go violating their airspace and killing people whom you believe to be smuggling weapons. Yes, Al-Bashir has committed atrocities and I hope he finds justice at the Hague one day, but that does not change the fact that you cannot violation international law simply because you disdain a foreign leader. That isn't how the law works- justice is supposed to be blind, you may recall.

To mete out vigilante justice like Israel has done in the past and is continuing to do is unlawful and sets a dangerous precedent if ignored. We do not need a world police, handing down sentences by bloodshed. We have laws, and if you break the law for whatever reason you should pay the consequences.

[Kurska]

11. This is about protecting it's citizens from being harmed by rockets received from Iran.

If Sudan has with a wink or a nod agreed to let this sort of cargo pass through it's territory with intent of smuggling it into gaza (And from the articles I've read it seems if you want to bring this to a court Israel would have quite the slam dunk case) for use against Israelis, sudan opens itself up to these kinds of actions being taken against it. If you're acting as the middleman for something like illicit arms smuggling no one is going to take you seriously when a couple of jets violate your Sovereignty to protect it's citizens from the death you want to rain down on them.
For any large country to be secure it can't just think of threats within it's border, every western nation does this.

Lets not mince words, Al-Bashir is a bad bad man, who is directly responsible for the deaths of about half a million civilians. Men Like Al-bashir end up dead or in international court only after losing a war, given that I'd rather not have have that region embroiled in another pointless war, I'd be perfectly happy to see justice served via a blade to the back.

"We do not need a world police"
"We have laws, and if you break the law for whatever reason you should pay the consequences."

Who exactly do you suppose is going to do that if not world police? Do you think men like Al-Bashir show up at the Hague hands tied and in their best black and whites?

[Idealism]

12. A blade in Al-Bashir's back won't solve anything

His two deputies have also been indicted on crimes against humanity, and the rest of his government is just as guilty. You will fix nothing by killing one man- it is an institution you need to usurp.

There are a lot of hypothetical statements in your "slam dunk case." IF the cargo is illegal weapons, IF the cargo was headed towards Hamas... the case will be moot however when Sudan mentions that part of their sovereignty violated. That takes precedence over all in IL

If you go back to my first post, I was surprised at Israel for doing this in Sudan. They could have waited till the caravan was in Egypt (a much more friendlier nation to them than Sudan) without this even possibly getting mentioned (for a price, I am sure).

You offer a false choice between doing nothing and violating international law. Those are the two extremes of the spectrum. There have been dozens of dictators tried in court and democracy returned to societies, it is not an impossible feat.

[Kurska]

13. Oh, I'd like to see them all with knives in their backs

Everyone who had their hands directly in the murder of half a million people and the removal of two million people from their homes. Sudan's current government is nothing but a haven for murders or murder enablers ( of course I'm generalizing, not every mayor was slaughtering civilians but the current men at the very top are all so beyond the pale of evil). I'll take what I can get though.

Please, I beg of Sudan to try to take this case to international court, they would become the laughing stock of the international community if they did with their fugitive president (Tragically though what sudan does within it's borders is no laughing matter).

Name a time that a man like Al-Basher has simply turned himself into International justice, now try to name 2. International law is probably one of the least respected parts of international relations, so many big nations break it so often with impunity, which is exactly how it's going to remain when the vast majority of people as you do despise "world police".

Beyond that, I don't think Egypt likes things suddenly exploding while inside their borders, though I really doubt that they weren't atleast prewarned about israel's intentions to perform missions like this, if not on the specific missions themselves.

[Idealism]

14. Was Spain the laughingstock of the world when they took Pinochet to trial?

Was Serbia when they took Milosevic to task? I don't get what you are trying to say with that- throughout history there have been dozens of dictators put on trial and justice served. Most are arrested while traveling abroad, which is how it should be.

International law gets disrespected because the US and our allies break it with impunity. Look at the signatories to the ICC, then look at the signatories to the Cluster Bomb munitions ban... the ones missing are the US and our imperial allies in most cases (and these are just but two of them). The problem is international law is a relatively new system of law, based on customs, precedent, and scholarly opinions of neutral arbiters. It isn't respected because the US disregards it when it wants, which allows China, Russia, Israel, Sudan, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Columbia, etc. to do the same.

[Kurska]

15. Are you honestly comparing a violation of SUDAN'S international sovereignty to the bloody repression

and wars of Milosevic or the killing of political opponents of Pinochet? Yes, Sudan is going to host the next Nuremberg trial when it takes brutal Israel to court for violating the air space of the peaceful nation of Sudan. Pinochet was never convicted of anything and Milosevic was kicked out after losing a war, which was excatly what I said in my last post. No one ends up in a international court unless they lose a war.


I just don't get it, you put out a big list of countries that blatantly ignore international law whenever it suits them, then claim it's the United State's fault. None of those countries are the slave of US Foreign policy, they are all sovereign nations who make the logical choice to ignore international law whenever it suits them because of the lack of enforcement. That is why International law is a joke, not "Imperialist", but the lack of enforcement. I mean would you care about breaking the law if there were no police out there to enforce it? Law without police is like a mouth without teeth.

Frankly these US Centric views on world morality sickens men, no the world doesn't ignore international law because the US does, it ignores it because no one bothers to enforce it.

[Idealism]

16. There is no comparison- they are all violations of law

Some are more egregious than others, but that does not diminish the fact that these types of attacks are illegal. They did not consent with the Sudanese government for violating their airspace. End of story. Israel has a long history of this kind of crap and it is getting tiresome. Ever wonder why their neighbors continue to harbor resentment, even after decades and decades since the state was created? You don't have to look very far.

[Kurska]

17. Violation of Air space to genocide is like Stealing a candy bar to killing a neighbor.

And Unless the Sudanese or Israeli government is ousted from power, why would they care if they violate either, as a practical matter (obviously the moral implication of genocide.. though violating airspace, not so much). The reason for resentment is years of bloody wars, conflict and conflicting interests.

International law is a international joke, it's almost never enforced and when it is it's always by the big guys who could do it themselves unilaterally if they really wanted to.

[Idealism]

18. You are missing the point.

They are both illegal. Conflicting interests is a euphemism for bombing raids and extra-judicial assassinations.

Of course international law gets broken fairly often, but the perpetrators are usually the US or those who get blanket protection from the US in such matters. It is a travesty that we care so little for human rights. You are not helping the sorry state of affairs by dismissing international law when it suits you.

[Kurska]

19. Law without enforcement is always a joke

Thats why no one respects International law, America is only a part of the equation. If you want to talk about bombings and extra-Judaical killings every country in that area has more then their fair share, either supported directly, or funded indirectly. Israel's interests just tend to run directly counter to their neighbor's.

[Idealism]

20. There isn't any military enforcement, which is what you seem to require

but there is reciprocity and sanctions that could be done that would be much more effective than a "world police."

Again, International Law is the newest type of law, with the ICC being created literally this decade. Once the US gets on board and stops offering blanket amnesty for crimes committed by our allies, the world will be a safer and more humane place.

[Kurska]

21. Sanctions and diplomacy are both factors now and neither are even close to effective

The US Agreeing to following international law isn't going to inspire anyone, much less the nations directly in competition with the US, to follow international law; The only thing that would do that is enforcement.

You're not going to see that, no one wants to give up real power to the UN like that. In the practical world however, international law is going to be viewed as a not a non factor, but a barely factor.

[Idealism]

22. I bed to differ, we sanction Iran and Cuba, not our allies.

We have yet to even withhold aid to Israel for more than a few months (Bush 41) and it caused an AIPAC-inspired uproar. That is the closest we have come to putting diplomatic pressure on an ally to do something different.

[Kurska]

23. The US isn't the world's police, yet we should enforce international law by damaging our allies?

You don't want there be to world police, yet you seem to want the nations of the world to come together and police each other, what is that if not world police?

[Idealism]

24. Diplomacy is not "policing the world"

You want a military solution-- this is what Neoconservatives want.

I have seen how this so-called realism works and it is shit. With diplomacy towards North Korea by Clinton, they stopped their nuclear enrichment program. Under Bush with threats of violence and no dialogue, they tested two warheads and developed perhaps a dozen more. I have seen the military option fall flat on its face, and if you want to confront situations these days it will not work. Diplomacy will get us further in the long run.

[Kurska]

25. I don't want military solutions persay.

I don't really like international laws as is, it is too far reaching and mostly ignored. You can't have these things without having enforcement or else they become a joke. In the end unless you have a central authority dealing out punishments the only people who can enforce international law are the kinds of people who would have enforced it on their own anyways.

Right now international law is being relegated to the status of "Sprinkle it onto your argument to make it look better, ignore it when it makes your arguement look worse", which is a real tragedy.

[Idealism]

26. What about IL is too far reaching for your tastes?

The universal declaration of human rights, or do you have problems with CTBT, the NPT, etc?

[Kurska]

27. Anything they don't intend to enforce

Seems like nuclear weapons are still pretty proliferated and human rights are far from universal. Putting this stuff to paper is all well and good, but it is useless if you don't back it up.

[Idealism]

28. The NPT wasn't ratified by almost all the nuclear powers until they already had nukes.

Israel is not a signatory to the NPT, North Korea rescinded their signature... many didn't sign till very late (France for instance). Human rights is something that dictators don't strive for, and until these dictators are not propped up by multinational corporations and the IMF/World Bank, then there is no need for the dictators to change their ways. That is not an international law problem.

[Kurska]

29. If international law proposes to take up these things, it is their problem

Once you set out to regulate something it becomes your responsibility. I'd say most IMF/world bank

[shira]

32. If Sudan is supplying Gaza with weapons from Iran.....

then they are responsible for that action, and are in effect in a state of war, low level or whatever, against Israel. That they put civilians anywhere near those arms, if the allegations are true, is a warcrime against Sudan for using human shields.

[Idealism]

34. Not likely

That they put civilians anywhere near those arms, if the allegations are true, is a warcrime against Sudan for using human shields.

The typical crew needed to drive across the desert was used, probably just a hired firm of truckers or mercenaries/handymen. Nothing I have read about the incident indicated that the caravan was over-staffed. It seems to me the people killed were just the transporters of the cargo. They may have known what they were transporting (if it even was weaponry, if it even was intended for Hamas), but they certainly didn't expect to get bombs dropped on them in them middle of the desert. The human shield accusation would be fruitless, in my opinion. You can get them for weapons trafficking, though, if it proves to be true.

[shira]

36. if the caravan were transporting missiles or rockets

that is not a job fit for civilian drivers. Sudan is responsible for those civilian deaths.

[Idealism]

38. Sudan is not responsible for people the IAF probably killed.

It was a breach of sovereignty first and foremost, even if it was based upon future crimes it still preceded anything that (presumed) Hamas would do with such (alleged) weapons.

[hack89]

39. So facilitating the flow of illegal weapons to Gaza

is not a crime? Not a hostile act against Israel?

[Idealism]

40. How can you call it a crime when it has yet to occur?

You have conspiracy at best versus an easily identifiable crime.

[hack89]

42. I have no problem with this attack

Sudan is aiding a party actively engaged in hostilities against the state of Israel.

[Idealism]

43. Would you have a problem if the Iranian airforce bombed Providence?

The US is aiding a party actively engaged in hostilities against the Palestinian people, and all... :eyes:

[hack89]

44. They certainly could try nt

[Idealism]

46. Do you see the problem with that thinking?

The US and our allies get a pass for their clandestine illegal operations, but when we get attacked (see: 9/11), the public is told it is because they "hate us for our freedoms," and unfortunately there will be plenty of people of your ilk that will believe the meme that those who attack us and everyone of their ethnicity are angry, uneducated, and a threat- thereby justifying further repression and disproportional responses.

It is a dangerous precedent. Do you recall the Bush doctrine of preemptive warfare? Why do you approve of Israel doing these things, when most likely if you are truly a Democrat, you oppose Bush doing it?

[Shaktimaan]

47. come on!

Israel has a long history of this kind of crap and it is getting tiresome. Ever wonder why their neighbors continue to harbor resentment, even after decades and decades since the state was created?

You don't honestly believe that the reasons Israel's neighbors harbor continued malice lies primarily with Israeli defensive actions, do you? Looking at the history of those nations and their political motivations over the last few decades tells a far more complex and realistic story than the simplistic hypothesis you're offering here.

As far as the legality of the strike goes, I'm not sure that the law is so simple either. International Law holds national sovereignty up as one of its cornerstone concepts, it's true... BUT it also makes exceptional allowances for any state under threat of attack to take actions to defend itself. Israel doesn't necessarily have to abide by the cumbersome process of the international court system in order to prevent an imminent attack. States taking legitimate defensive actions have a very wide latitude in terms of what they are allowed to do in these sorts of situations... they aren't bound by the same rules that would apply otherwise.

Regardless, even if Israel's actions were a breach of international law, I fail to see what War Crimes they are committing. That's a mighty big accusation... what sort of War Crimes do you think Israel has committed by taking this action?

[oberliner]

30. Sudan says no proof for now Israel behind raids

Sudan is investigating the possibility that Israel was behind deadly air strikes this year against suspected Gaza-bound arms convoys, but so far it has found no proof, a government official said.

Foreign ministry spokesman Ali Sadiq said there were two separate bombing raids against smugglers in a remote desert area near the Red Sea town of Port Sudan in January and February, killing about 40 people.

"First we suspected it was the United States, but we received assurances it was not them, and we are investigating other possibilities, including Israel," Sadiq told AFP. "But there is no indication for now that it was Israel."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3693321,00.html

[bemildred]

41. ‘Drones hit Iran convoys’

I must say those drones have excellent range.

Israel used unmanned drones to attack clandestine Iranian convoys in Sudan that were attempting to smuggle rockets into Gaza, Britain’s Sunday Times newspaper reported.

The paper said that Western diplomats confirmed that Israel attacked the Iranian truck convoys in late January and the first week of February in the remote Sudan desert, just outside the Red Sea town of Port Sudan.

The convoys had been tracked by agents from Mossad, Israel’s overseas intelligence agency, the report added.

The Sudanese government said this week it was investigating the possibility that Israel was behind the deadly air strikes, but so far had found no proof.
Foreign ministry spokesman Ali Sadiq said there were two separate bombing raids against smugglers, killing about 40 people.
The Sunday Times said that had the rockets been delivered to Hamas, the militant Islamic group that controls Gaza, they would have raised the stakes in the conflict with Israel.

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=281527&version=1&template_id=37&parent_id=17

[KoKo]

45. Amazing that Americans allow "unmanned Drones" to kill folks...

I think about that some neighborhood in the United States could suddenly be targeted by the Military-Industrial Complex for some "infractions of rules"...maybe we elected a city manager who was to the Left of what the Shadow's wanted ...or maybe there was someone living in my neighborhood who was working to get UNION RIGHTS for WORKERS passed in my state legislature...and the backlash was such that the MILITARY felt they might end up with some legislation that went against the MIC and so they decided to "TAKE OUT" the part of my neighborhood (suburban in NC) as "unpatriotic" and "unproductive" to our US Military Efforts around the world.

Maybe many of us had donated high amounts of money to Progressive Causes and maybe some of us had attended "Meetings" where issues about "War & Peace" were discussed.

So...in some bizarro world we might be seen as "Terrorists" by those who "run the drones" and the humming of the drones would be over MY BED in the DEAD OF NIGHT...or maybe ON MY KIDS walking to School the next morning and we would be "TARGET TAKE OUT" by those who see us as "THREATS."

This is what's sad. How far this kind of activity can go in the hands of those who are just: "Carrying out orders" who are very good with "Video Games" where the Killed are just anonymous COLLATERAL DAMAGE...and if it's done with sanctions of US Govt. then "ALL IS GOOD AND WELL DONE!"

:-(

[hack89]

48. Here is one that can fly 2000 miles and/or 30 hours

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Israeli_Air_Force_Unveils_Long_Range_Drone_999.html

[bemildred]

49. 'Dozens of Israeli jets and drones attacked in Sudan'

Dozens now.

TIME Magazine on Tuesday cites high-ranking Israeli security officials as saying that dozens of Israeli jets and unmanned drones took part in the January strike on a Gaza-bound weapons convoy in Sudan.

According to sources cited in the TIME article, the attacks were carried out by F-16 fighters, which carried out two attack runs on the convoy. F-15 fighter planes were also positioned nearby, a precaution against the possibility of hostile fighters rushing to the area.

Once the first bombing run was completed, unmanned drones laden with cameras passed over convoy site to ensure its destruction. After the footage indicated that the party was only partially hit, a second pass was ordered.

Since, according to the source, Israel had but a few days to prepare for the strike, from the time the initial Mossad tip-off was received, naval and aerial rescue teams were speedily directed to the Red Sea, ahead of a potential rescue mission, the TIME report said.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1075197.html