Israel 'shelled civilian shelter'

[DogPoundPup]

Israeli forces shelled a house in the Gaza Strip which they had moved around 110 Palestinians into 24 hours earlier, the UN quotes witnesses as saying.

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) called it "one of the gravest incidents" since the beginning of the offensive.

The shelling at Zeitoun, a south-east suburb of Gaza City, on 5 January killed some 30 people, the report said.

The OCHA report said: "According to several testimonies, on 4 January Israeli foot soldiers evacuated approximately 110 Palestinians into a single-residence house in Zeitoun (half of whom were children) warning them to stay indoors.

"Twenty-four hours later, Israeli forces shelled the home repeatedly, killing approximately 30."

The UN said those who survived and were able walked 2km to the main north-south road to be transported to hospital in civilian vehicles.

"Three children, the youngest of whom was five months old, died upon arrival at the hospital," the report said
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7819492.stm

[Idealism]

1. What will be the usual IDF statement response here:

1. Militants were hiding bombs/rockets in the house
2. Militants were seen firing mortars from near the scene
3. Militants shelled the house ("It wasn't us" defense)
4. Our precise arsenal keeps making unintentional mistakes that result in accidents

[bemildred]

2. "The militants shot themselves to incriminate us".

"The militants pile up dead bodies and take pictures of them to make us look bad."

[Idealism]

6. Dammit I forgot those two

[Alamuti Lotus]

13. "We weren't even in Gaza at the time!"

Ok, that's a bit much.. but, the best excuses had been taken already. 'look what Hamas made us do' takes the taco, aside from the more likely outright denial and/or 'we have investigated ourselves and found nothing wrongful done'.

"There is no such thing as Palestinians, how can we kill something that doesn't exist"?

[GoesTo11]

3. What is your guess about what happened and why?

[delad]

4. personally i can't fathom how it could have happened

Could it have been a mistake? if it was then surely those involved should be up in court and Israel should offer an apology (notable by its absence). The lack of accountability speaks volumes really, "it doesn't matter what happens, the IOF are untouchable". This is not war, this is shooting fish in a barrel. The fact that the forces of occupation have a carte blanche to act as they see fit - blowing up schools, un buildings, mosques, firing on UN supply convoys - is going to have some serious blow back, and not just in Israel. AND WHEN IT DOES HAPPEN, WHO IS GOING TO CRY WOLF AGAIN? That's right, Israel.
Israel has no excuse now, this kind of indiscriminate violence (accidental or not is now by the bye) will ineluctably lead to retaliation beyond mere rockets. Is it that Israel is trying to deliberately provoke a return to suicide bombing?

[Recursion]

11. Check out the thread about how the IDF doesn't have NCO's

I think that point is well made and has a lot to do with how this kind of thing happens.

[bemildred]

15. This is very relevant too:

By Martin van Creveld
Last Updated: 8:55PM GMT 16 Mar 2002

---

In essence, the problem facing armed forces in dealing with this kind of war is always the same. He who fights against the weak - and the Palestinians with their home-made mortars and rockets are weak indeed - will become weak; he who behaves like a coward - and fighting the weak is cowardly by definition - will become one.

For decades on end, Palestinian and weak were considered synonymous. Now those same weak people, weary after 30 years of occupation, are daily displaying heroism even unto death. Every day Israeli soldiers weep over their dead comrades; every day the parents of Palestinian suicide bombers proudly display their children's pictures and funerals of dead fighters bring out thousands who scream for revenge.

Today, few people, inside or outside Israel, can even remember the day when Moshe Dayan, speaking on the first morning of the 1967 War, said that Israel was a small country, but brave. And how, responding to his call, the Israeli armed forces stormed forward and defeated their considerably more numerous opponents in a lightning campaign that lasted all of six days.

Worse still, unlike the British in 1947-8 and the Americans in 1973, Israel has nowhere to retreat to. Hence, the fighting threatens to cross the border and turn into a full-blown civil war. As Israel's own history clearly shows, fighting a stronger opponent will cause a society to unite; but combating a weaker one will cause it to split and disintegrate.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3574298/Only-a-wall-will-keep-them-from-each-other%27s-throats.html

[Recursion]

18. van Creveld (who I believe is Israeli) is very highly regarded in the US Military

Several of his books on on the "required reading list" for officers in the US military. Incidentally, I think it is "Creveld", or my copy of his book typo'd his name.

[bemildred]

20. That he is.

It's all cut and paste, so I take no responsibility for the spelling.

[Idealism]

5. One arm of the Israeli military doesn't talk to the other arm

This is my guess. Company "A" moved civilians into a temporarily secured area, Company "B" (mortar brigade for example) didn't get the memo.

[delad]

10. Company "A" moved the civilians

to a building and didn't tell anybody else? Or the building was designated as "temporarily" secured and the army forgot to move the civilians on?

[Idealism]

12. It is pure conjecture, sir

This is how I believe the situation arose. I don't think they willingly herded civilians into a building to blow it up 24 hours later. It either was designated only a civilian safety zone temporarily and they didn't think they were there, they thought it was a militant-filled haven, or they just really screwed up. It may be a mix of any or all of the above.

[delad]

16. I know, I understand what you're saying but

what i'm saying is that at this point, whether it was a really terrible mistake or not, doesn't matter anymore really. How many times can the army 'screw up' before people stop believing that they screw up? How many 'accidents' and incidents of 'collateral damage' occur before people stop listening to apologies and excuses and are capable of only witnessing the results?

the IDF won't let in any journalists so our compliant media rely on Israeli and Palestinian spokespeople and non-graphic images from Gaza to explain what's going on (MSM). So we in the west are privy to a "he said, she said" debate about what's going on. This tends to induce a lot of apathy because people think, "here they go again, killing each other and over what? It doesn't matter because we can't tell who's wrong or right because we don't know who to believe"

Meanwhile, Gaza burns and Muslims the world over are seeing the images that our media refuse to show. They are furious, angry and becoming filled with hate while we in the west sit around saying, 'yes it is terrible but there its more complicated than that'. That's the difference between listening to talking heads and seeing the effects of bombs, bullets, missiles and mortars.

If our media was willing to show these graphic images after the watershed, this conflict would be over, fin, The End, days ago. Why will our media not show these images after the watershed (obviously with the appropriate warnings)?? My guess is because we would become upset and EMOTIONAL and the last thing "they" want is an emotional response 'cause that would fukc everything up. Because then we would actually want to have a say in what's going on.

[Idealism]

19. That is a much bigger concern than is being voiced for sure

The MSM has failed us for years. I only watch Democracy Now for news, and Countdown for the mix of comedic relief and truth.

[Shaktimaan]

21. So you are saying that...

it would be better if western media outlets showed gory pictures from Gaza so that we would abandon any rational debate/understanding of the conflict in favor of a strictly emotional one, like the "furious, angry, hate-filled" Arab world? Dude, you totally lost me. How would it in any way be a positive thing to start acting more like the Arab world? And do you really think that the Arab world would show substantially more understanding towards Israel if they weren't seeing pictures from Gaza?

If we showed pictures of the carnage on the evening news it wouldn't have any substantial impact on most people's opinions or US policy. A few heart-rending photos will not make this country turn on a dime. Everyone knows what's happening over there already; they know that civilians are suffering. Anyone who wants to can see the images on the internet. Do you honestly think that showing them on TV would suddenly cause a huge outcry to go up from the masses in protest? When has that EVER happened? Hell, even when we all learned that we were tricked into starting a war that bankrupted the nation there was no huge outcry for an investigation, an impeachment or even an end to the freaking war itself. For Americans to actually start to give a shit we would have to start drafting them and sending them INTO Gaza. And even then it would take eight to ten years.

And the entire US media system is not simultaneously participating in any grand conspiracy dedicated to keeping the population complacent on the Gaza situation. Also the government doesn't put fluoride in our water so they can control our minds. Lastly the Bush family did not murder Kennedy as part of a long term scheme to get (the cybernetic) Ronald Reagan into the White House.

However that 9/11 conspiracy thing? That's totally real. ...you know what one I'm talking about. :yoiks:

[delad]

22. kind of ...

MSM is biased. That's not a conspiracy theory, no matter how much you want it to be. Maybe you should read Herman and Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent' to get started. Extrapolate that to today's wars and we can still see the specificities of media control that exist. Those people at marches condemning Israel are the ones who would traditionally look to sources other than MSM (eg non-MSM online news sources). Unfortunately, the 'vast' majority of people rely on MSM for news, when they actuallym do attempt to inform themselves. A lot of the people i know get their info from MSM and very little else.

I never said we should act like the Arab world. I'm looking for a rational debate where the MSM doesn't keep repeating certain memes (eg Hamas started it), where people see what's going on in the flesh, so to speak. Do you think the media is in the right to refuse to show graphic images from war zones?

i guess you are completely right when you say it wouldn't have any effect on US policy, which kind of destroys my argument. x(

Although I would suspect a lot more people would not be sitting on the fence now if they did see these pictures. I do believe that if news media showed graphic images from war zones, people would be quick(er) to act. Especially if the MSM informed people of how they (their governments) supported the slaughter (weapons, funding, training, intel., etc).

My point about the Arab world was, don't be surprised when there's blowback because you can be sure as fuck there will be

[Shaktimaan]

26. Funny you mentioned Manufacturing Consent...

It's probably the only Chomsky book I've actually read. It was a movie too, wasn't it? Anyway, I'm not sure that the "filters" he described as influencing the news we get are absent in alternative media either. Most of the protest marchers I've met did not tend to be particularly well informed about current events, even the ones they are marching for. I know because I used to be one of them. As I began actually learning about any given topic in depth I began having more moderate views on it. Alternative media might be free from things like advertising influences, but they tend to have their own biases also. They also lack the resources that large news agencies have for things like fact-checking, among other problems.

I get my news almost exclusively from the New York Times and the Economist, so I can't comment on MSM. But the Times has been doing an excellent job of providing balanced coverage on the conflict, running lots of op-eds from pro-Palestinians.

I don't know if we should show graphic images on the news. On one hand I think that we have an obligation to face the consequences of our own foreign policy, at least by not ignoring it. But I also have a problem with basically forcing people to look at something like that which would seriously disturb and upset many people. So it's a good question, I'm not sure what I think. Ultimately, no news program is going to show images of anything that will make viewers change the channel to a non-gore competitor. And no advertiser would ever go for space on a program that sickens people. And it probably violates FCC regulations anyway. So it's kind of an academic argument. I do think the images should be available and they are, easily on the web.

I really do think that there's news out there that shows the consequences of war without being totally obscene. Not on TV, but think about that famous photo of the girl in Vietnam who was napalmed, (or was maybe just super upset?) And there's always a debate going on about our own foreign policy, especially if we give money that influences the situation. I mean, it isn't as though no one out there is discussing the fact that we subsidize Israel's army. It's a pretty popular topic, people know about it.

I'm sure the Arab world is very upset. And there'll be blowback. There always is. But honestly, there's been blowback from the Arab world for a long time now and it won't stop just because we change our policies. The violence and oppression that's routine in the Arab world dwarfs anything that Israel has ever done. Many Arab states have treated the Palestinians far worse than any western state ever has. I think that the latent anger the Arab street has for the west is about a combination of deflected issues that makes it an especially inflamed thing. And I think a lot of it has more to do with the Arab world's internal problems than anything that we have actually done to them. Point being, US support for Israel probably has less to do with it than everyone always thinks. Look at France... that's most Arab's favorite Western state, right? They were Israel's main patron for decades before the US was.

The best thing we could have done for Arab-US relations was elect Obama IMO.

[delad]

27. I'd agree

with the general thrust of your post, although there are specifics i'd disagree with (aren't there always). Of course alternative media lack fact checking and they are susceptible to different currents of bias than MSM. What i find myself doing is actually trying to fact check some of the stories i read (to the extent that i can, eg reading original reports, who reported it, etc).

(yes, they did make a movie out of it by the way)

The problem, for me, lies in how specific media present aspects of the news. take the Economist for example. That magazine has printed egregious articles on Venezuela and Chavez, demonstrable bullshit that could be disproven by anybody with an internet connection. Once you know that the organs you read have editorial slants on specific topics, seemingly *regardless* of facts, it becomes increasingly difficult to trust what they have to say on other topics.

"... there's been blowback from the arab world for a long time..." Yes, but this has only recently been focused on the European and US mainland (and beyond). The blowback, until recently, has occured within the Arab world and *was* generally focused on US military. Considering US history in the ME since the 1950s, I can intellectually sympathise with it (different to actually sympathising, agreeing or condoning it). These days the blowback occurs in London, on the European mainland, the US mainland. There is a noticeable increase in the breadth, violence and indiscriminate nature of this blowback.

Of course Arab states have treated the Palestinians horribly for the most part. Arab states have treated the majority of their own citizens horribly for the most part too and considering their proximity to I/P... This is to be expected from violent tyrants. The problem here is in relation to power. The UN is losely based on the League of Nations, ie a western European/US concept. The UN is supposed to protect the weak. The UN gave the go ahead for the original US invasion of Iraq because of it's invasion of Kuwait. The Arab world (i'm talking about the arab street here) has watched Israel deny the Palestinians a state for decades and then they see this slaughter of Gazans while the UN does sweet fuck all. Just as the UN did sweet fuck all during Israel's bombing of Lebanon until it became obvious that Israel was never going to win without committing either genocide or ethnic cleansing.
Personally, i can see the difference between the US vetoing a ceasefire and a systemic failure on behalf of the world community to act, but i'm not sure others can

[Crunchy Frog]

7. "Look what Hamas is forcing us to do."

[DogPoundPup]

8. Israel, not the Palestinians, has opposed international UN monitors in the conflict since Oslo

[bemildred]

9. Yeah, it was interesting that they seem up for that now.

And Egypt and Hamas are resisting it. I don't pretend to know what's up with that, but it was a noticeable change in attitude on both sides.

[Shaktimaan]

17. what do you mean? there are UN monitors in the conflict.

There are UN monitors in Hebron, at Rafah (well, there were in Rafah before Hamas took over), not to mention UNIFIL up in Lebanon. Honestly though, considering the problems that UNIFIL has caused the IDF I wouldn't be surprised if Israel wasn't hot on the idea of having more of them. Hezbollah used to set up launchers right nearby the UN monitoring stations so Israel couldn't easily retaliate on their position. The UN monitors themselves were not able to stop Hezbollah from launching rockets or cross border raids in any way, but they were often in the way when Israel wanted to respond. Worse, UNIFIL was reporting detailed information about Israeli troops movements during the 2006 conflict... I'm not sure why, but I remember the IDF freaking out about it.

Monitors don't do much for Israel but they create a lot of problems. At Rafah and in Hebron it is probably a little different since they are in specific places and have very limited mandates. But if there were a whole mess of them running around Gaza right now it would just further complicate Israel's operation without offering much in return for them.

[DogPoundPup]

28. Oh I do remember the UN monitor outpost the Israelis wiped out during their Lebanon debacle

and killed several of the monitors. OOOps they said afterward...so sorry

[Shaktimaan]

29. Precisely.

In fact, one of the monitors that was killed wrote just a few days beforehand about how Hezbollah was using their position as cover and that the Israeli mortar and missile strikes which were landing dangerously close to them were a tactical necessity on Israel's part and that the outpost itself was not being intentionally targeted.

Or did you think that Israel intentionally shelled a UNIFIL outpost in order to kill the UN monitors for some reason?

[DogPoundPup]

30. Your story doesn't match up...FLASHBACK

>>>A United Nations military observer sent e-mails home to Canada reporting that Israel was bombing schools and waging "a campaign of terror against the Lebanese people" shortly before he was killed by an Israeli bomb in Lebanon, said his widow.

Maj. Paeta Hess-von Kruedener of Kingston, Ont., a member of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, was one of four UN military observers who died when the Israeli Defence Forces bombed a marked United Nations post on July 25, 2006.<<<
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/02/06/ot-von-kruedener-080206.html

[Shaktimaan]

14. Interesting IDF response

Israel says it has looked into the allegations and they are unfounded.

Israeli foreign ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said no Israeli soldiers had been in the area on the day the incident was supposed to have happened.

I have no idea if he means that the IDF never evacuated the people to that house, that the house in question wasn't shelled, or both. It will probably take some time before we learn the truth of the matter. Honestly, anything could be the case. It isn't like we have any evidence either way at this point.

If true, it is a horrible and bizarre tragedy. I've never heard of anything like this happening before. I mean, does the IDF usually evacuate large numbers of people to specific houses? I don't see why they would do that.

[okiru109]

23. just because a bomb is smart doesn't mean it's perfect!

sheesh, such unrealistic expectations!

maybe our kids will perfect the system down the road... well, as long as we are willing to continue making the noble sacrifice of our tax dollars year after year.

[Idealism]

24. this is like the 40th incident of their guided bombs being imperfect

Makes you wonder, does it not?

[Alamuti Lotus]

25. "shelled the home repeatedly"

That's not an imperfection, it is an agenda on display. Speaking of obvious agendas....