Massacre In Beit Hanoun - It's Alright, It Wasn't Intentional
Published November 08, 2006
"We saw legs, we saw heads, we saw hands scattered in the street."
Those are the words of Attaf Hamad, resident of the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun which today has suffered the single deadliest Israeli attack on the Palestinians in four years. Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) artillery shells killed at least 18 Palestinians, wounding dozens more.
According to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, all of those killed and wounded were civilians. Eight children and seven women were among the dead and 18 of the victims were from the same family.
Of course, Israel didn't mean it. Israel never does. It's always some mistake, someone else's fault. Yes, we killed over a thousand Lebanese civilians, but only because Hizbullah fighters were hiding behind them. Yes, we bombed whole villages to rubble, but we warned people to leave in advance. The fact is, as B'tselem points out, the IDF's proclamation that it didn't mean to harm civilians is 'meaningless' and 'cannot justify an action that amounts to a war crime'.
Israel accepts that twelve shells were fired, targeting a location roughly half a kilometer from Beit Hanoun from which Qassam missiles had been fired at the city of Ashkelon yesterday. The IDF is citing human or technical error (such as mistakenly feeding the wrong coordinates into the machine) to explain why the shells went so tragically off course.
But, as B'Tselem points out, this does not excuse the IDF of responsibility. Firstly, by the IDF's own admission, the shells were not fired in self-defence. It was fired at a 'launching space' from which previous attacks had occurred and was not in response to a Palestinian rocket-attack that was in progress. Secondly, artillery fire is inherently inaccurate and firing shells over several kilometers in the direction of crowded population centres is always going to be risky. It should, therefore, only be used as a last resort (i.e. in response to an ongoing attack). These facts, when combined with the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law — those of distinction (between civilian and military targets) and proportionality — mean that, in B'Tselem's words, there is a 'grave concern' that the shelling of Beit Hanoun 'constitutes a war crime'.
- Massacre In Beit Hanoun - It's Alright, It Wasn't Intentional
- Published: November 08, 2006
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Politics
- Filed Under: Politics: International, Politics: Law and Rights, Politics: War and Terrorism
- Writer: The Heathlander
- The Heathlander's BC Writer page
- The Heathlander's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Obviously, that isn't "the difference" between the Israelis and the Arabs.
But the point was that even if we accept that Israeli didn't do it 'on purpose', they could have expected the risk of civilian casualties to be relatively high and so should only have done it in response to an ongoing attack that couldn't be dealt with another way. As it is, it was a war crime.
(I'll ignore the bit about me caring aobut Israeli deaths, which is obviously ridiculous)
There were two articles on this occurrence, both coming out roughly on the same side on the fence, condemning Israel.
The other fellow, a Moslem, at least had the decency and intelligence to admit that the Arabs in Gaza blew a fantastic opportunity to improve their own lives that came their way in the fall of 2005.
They destroyed the greenhouses they had helped build, which in more peaceful days were a big source of income for them, as well as the Israelis in Gush Qatif.
They have "fallen victim to evil propaganda" - his words, not mine.
They shielded murderers and terrorists in Beit Hanun. As a result, there were 67 corpses.
The Arabs have not sought peace at all - they have sought war. And now they are getting what one gets when one seeks out war. We have nothing to apologize for.
Payback is a bitch.
"The other fellow, a Moslem, at least had the decency and intelligence to admit that the Arabs in Gaza blew a fantastic opportunity to improve their own lives that came their way in the fall of 2005."
I don't see how that's relevent to Israel war crimes in Beit Hanun...
In any event, that's a matter for the Palestinians in Gaza. If you're trying to make out that Israel stopped occupying Gaza, or that Israel left Gaza in a way that would have allowed it to develop economically, or that resistance to occupation was no longer justified in Gaza, you are badly mistaken.
"They shielded murderers and terrorists in Beit Hanun. As a result, there were 67 corpses."
By that logic, it is perfectly alright for Palestinian suicide bombers to blow up Israeli civilians, women and children, because the Israeli people are "sheltering" murderers, terrorists and occupiers.
It's nonsense. There is a clear distinction, in both law and basic morality, between civilian and combatants. It is a distinction Israel regularly fails to make.
"The Arabs have not sought peace at all - they have sought war. And now they are getting what one gets when one seeks out war. We have nothing to apologize for."
The Palestinians have sought peace time and again. Israeli rejectionism, as well as a hijacking of the Palestinian cause by leaders like Arafat, have meant the occupation (and so the resistance to it) have continued.
Again, this does not justify the murder of innocent women and children.
Israel has nothing to apologise for? That's just pathetic. Even if by some warped twist of the imagination you wanted to pretend that Israel was fighting a defensive war, as opposed to fighting resistance to an occupation, the unecesssary massacre of civilians would not be justified.
Last year, the Israeli government destroyed the homes of 9,000 people who were prosperous farmers supplying a significant portion of Israel's and Europe's vegetables. They destroyed the synagogues and pulled out the Jewish graves so that the Arabs in Gaza couldn't bitch that we Jews were contaminating their land.
Then the Israeli army left.
An Arab mob came and destroyed the greenhouses that made Gush Qatif prosperous, and the Gazan terrorists continued to fire rockets at this country.
The Israeli campaign in Gaza is a pathetic response to that continuing effort to kill our people. If we have anything to apologize for, it is for not hanging every damned Hamasnik in our jails, and for not hanging every Arab teenager who thinks he can gain honor by being jailed.
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO STOP APOLGIZING FOR KILLERS? HITLER WOULD HAVE LOVED A GUY LIKE YOU ON HIS STAFF, EVEN IF YOU WERE JEWISH. HIS RUNNING DOG, THE MUFTI OF J-LEM,WOULD HAVE SENT YOU OFF TO A CONCENTRATION CAMP AFTER YOU WROTE THE LAST GLOWING PARAGRAPHS PRAISING THE NEW NAZI ORDER.
It is a war crime to target civilians, and the Arabs have been doing that since Arafat ordered the first bus bombing in 1994. When have you called for him to be tried for war crimes? When have you opened your mouth to condemn your enemies? When have you sought their trial? When have you blackened their name in print? When have you shown one ounce of sympathy for the people whom you came from?
It's Jews like you who give us a bad name and make us look like kikes throughout the world. Thanks for the good publicity. Just pray that people like me never come to power in this country. People like you will never enter the borders of this nation again, and people like you who live here - traitors for short - will be jailed and either executed or expelled.
We've had a good stiff dose of the bullshit, perversion of law, perversion of morals and perversion of Judaism that the secular élite in this country calls "democracy" - and we do not need it.
There is a better way.
"The Israeli campaign in Gaza is a pathetic response to that continuing effort to kill our people. If we have anything to apologize for, it is for not hanging every damned Hamasnik in our jails, and for not hanging every Arab teenager who thinks he can gain honor by being jailed."
I still don't understand your position. Are you denying the Palestinians the right to resist occupation? To defend oneself is a fundamental human right. Now, there are methods of resistance that are legitimate (like capturing soldiers) and methods that are not (like blowing up civilians). But if you accept that Gaza and the West Bank remain occupied, then you must also accept that the Palestinians have a right to resist that occupation.
The greenhouses - yes, it was a stupid thing to destroy them. But that's an internal Palestinian matter. They had a right to destroy them, even though it was a dumb thing to do (considering the poverty of the Strip, it was verging on the criminal). But forgetting the internal Palestinian matters, Israel did not stop occupying Gaza. It did not stop occupying the West Bank. International law does not demand that the Palestinian keep the greenhouses, but it does demand the end to the occupation. I can understand why you might find it easier to talk about the greenhouses, but its just far less important and is completely irrelevent to Israeli war crimes in Gaza.
"It is a war crime to target civilians, and the Arabs have been doing that since Arafat ordered the first bus bombing in 1994. When have you called for him to be tried for war crimes? When have you opened your mouth to condemn your enemies? When have you sought their trial? When have you blackened their name in print? When have you shown one ounce of sympathy for the people whom you came from?"
I have done so many times. Terrorism is not a legitimate resistance method. Palestinian terrorism is wrong, Israeli terrorism is wrong. How about, for once, you talk about the issue (Israeli crimes) and not your favourite subject, Palestinian crimes?
"It's Jews like you who give us a bad name and make us look like kikes throughout the world."
Israel is percieved to have a terrible record on human rights around the world precisely because it does.
"The greenhouses - yes, it was a stupid thing to destroy them. But that's an internal Palestinian matter. They had a right to destroy them, even though it was a dumb thing to do (considering the poverty of the Strip, it was verging on the criminal)."
Arabs have the right to ruin their own lives. They do not have the right to ruin mine. Sof! Nekudá!
If you cannot see that, this is your own vision problem, not mine.
My favorite subject is not the crimes of the Arabs - it is the development of a real Jewish nation to replace this pathetic secular construct I'm forced to deal with daily. Part of that development will be the expusion of hostile Arabs from our land.
"Arabs have the right to ruin their own lives."
So stop going on about the greenhouses.
"They do not have the right to ruin mine."
Are you even aware that Israel is not under Arab occupation? That Israel, in fact, is the occupier? It seems like you just ignore these uncomfortable facts because they don't fit in with your world view.
"Part of that development will be the expusion of hostile Arabs from our land."
Ah, the way of transfer. Of course, the 'transfer' option has always been popular with Zionists - how else to deal with that little problem of the native people?
Out of curiosity - what do you mean by 'our land'? Presumably you don't mean Gaza and the West Bank, which is "Occupied Palestinian Territory".
In any event, ethnic cleansing is both illegal and immoral, so I feel no need to comment further on the subject.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/55540)
Yep, thus the difference between the Israelis and the Arabs. The arabs MEAN to kill civilians and don't bother disguising the fact. Of course, I've noticed the murders of Israeli citizens don't bother you too much.