`Operation Autumn Clouds' officially ended claiming dozens of lives a leaving a town in grief. The name is a reference to Israel's earlier `Operation Summer Rains' - one wonders if the IDF is planning a whole set, a twisted homage to Vivaldi. The semblance to `Operation Summer Rains' goes beyond the name, however - both campaigns have been marked by criminality and, in the words of Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa Programme Director, "nothing less than reckless disregard for the lives of Palestinian civilians".
`Operation Autumn Clouds' lasted from 2 November to 7 November. According to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, between 2-8 November the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) killed 86 Palestinians, 56 of whom were civilian, including 16 children and 10 women. That figure includes 12 extra-judicial executions and those killed in the massacre at Beit Hanun on Wednesday.
That massacre killed 18 civilians, including 17 from the same family and 7 minors. It was, regardless of the IDF's contention that it didn't intend the deaths, a war crime. Of course, all right-minded people condemned the crime, from the Palestinians in East Jerusalem to Israelis in Nazareth to, in fact, the vast majority of the international community. Israeli political leaders offered their `regrets' in a "repulsive" display of crocodile tears. In order to appease international pressure, Israel agreed to launch a military "investigation" into the incident and called off artillery strikes for a few days, as well as opening the Rafah border crossing until 5pm (in fact, Israel has no right to open or close the Rafah crossing at all).
A U.N. General Assembly meeting was held on Thursday, the day after the shelling, to discuss the atrocity. Riyad Mansour, the Permanent Observer for Palestine to the U.N., described Israel's "barbaric military aggression" and "flagrant violations...of international law" in Gaza, labelling Israel's actions in Beit Hanun "State terrorism". The U.S. representative, one John Bolton, repeated the same old tired bullshit about Israel's right to defend itself whilst urging all parties to act with restraint. He was more specific about Hamas - apparently, he found its call about a return to arms "alarming" and reminded everyone that it was Hamas' responsibility to stop terror attacks from Palestinian territories. "Alarming" was a far stronger term of condemnation than the U.S. used to condemn the murder of 18 Palestinian civilians, which it found merely "regrettable". Apparently, the U.S. has seen the Israeli government's "apology" and accepted it. The matter, for them, is now closed.
Article comments
1 - Dave Nalle
Your whole idea of proportionality makes me somewhat nauseous. What are we supposed to do, count the dead and then drag out an equivalent number of people on the other side and shoot them in the head? Perhaps the UN could perform this service.
The Arabs remind me of someone who pokes a stick at a poisonous snake and then complains when it bites him.
Israel is fighting for its survival. It will use whatever means it has to do that. If you don't like the excess of violence which it generates then don't attack it. Pretty damned simple.
Dave
2 - Jamie Stern-Weiner
Firstly, it's not "my idea" of proportionality. I think the Geneva Conventions beat me to it. Secondly, proportionality doesn't mean literally going out and killing exactly the same number of your people that have been killed. It means that the potential humanitarian suffering caused by an act should be weighed against the concrete military advantages that act would bring. If the humanitarian suffering is too great, the act should be called off.
Now, obviously ranking suffering against military advantage is not an exact science. But basically, it means attacks where civilians are likely to be killed should be avoided unless there is absolutely no other choice in self-defence.
Israel is not fighting for its survival. The idea that Israel, the fourth ranking military power in the world, is fighting for "survival" against small groups of Palestinian militants is ludicrous. Israel is fighting for the occupation, nothing more, nothing less.
"It will use whatever means it has to do that. If you don't like the excess of violence which it generates then don't attack it."
Israel is the occupier here. You seem to be forgetting that. Any Palestinian terrorism against Israel is committed in the course of resistance. That doesn't make it alright, but for you to imagine that it is Israel that is fighting in self-defence is turning the reality on its head. People have a fundamental right to resist foreign occupation.
By your reasoning, Palestinian terrorism is justified because "If you don't like the excess of violence which it generates then don't [occupy] it."
3 - Dave Nalle
Firstly, it's not "my idea" of proportionality. I think the Geneva Conventions beat me to it.
Yes, I think they condemn it, in fact.
Secondly, proportionality doesn't mean literally going out and killing exactly the same number of your people that have been killed. It means that the potential humanitarian suffering caused by an act should be weighed against the concrete military advantages that act would bring. If the humanitarian suffering is too great, the act should be called off.
That's no way to run a war. Sorry, it's just not realistic to expect a military to make that kind of judgment.
Now, obviously ranking suffering against military advantage is not an exact science. But basically, it means attacks where civilians are likely to be killed should be avoided unless there is absolutely no other choice in self-defence.
When terrorists use civilians as human shields how do you take that into account? You aren't targeting the civilians. The risk they are put at is basically on the heads of the terrorists who hide among them. If you want to discourage civilian casualties shouldn't you be decrying Hezbollah placing their missile batteries next to schools and in civilian neighborhoods?
Israel is not fighting for its survival.
This is your opinion. It is clearly and demonstrably NOT the opinion of Israel.
The Palestinians aren't fighting for survival either. They could cooperate with Israel and live under reasonable democratic rule if they wanted to.
The idea that Israel, the fourth ranking military power in the world, is fighting for "survival" against small groups of Palestinian militants is ludicrous. Israel is fighting for the occupation, nothing more, nothing less.
For the occupation of territory which it sees as vital for its survival based on multiple past invasions which have come through that territory.
Israel is the occupier here. You seem to be forgetting that. Any Palestinian terrorism against Israel is committed in the course of resistance. That doesn't make it alright, but for you to imagine that it is Israel that is fighting in self-defence is turning the reality on its head. People have a fundamental right to resist foreign occupation.
Do they? Who says? Even when the government occupying them would treat them fairly and equitably and provide democratic rule if given a chance? Does that right exist when you are not part of an established or recognized nation and have never had an independent government of your own? If that's the case then I have the right to resist the US government if I feel that as a sovereign individual it's occupying my domain with its oppressive taxation.
By your reasoning, Palestinian terrorism is justified because "If you don't like the excess of violence which it generates then don't [occupy] it."
Yes, but clearly the Israelis are willing to accept the risks associated with occupying the territory and deal with those risks appropraitely.
Dave
4 - Ash
The only country that Vetoes condemnation of Israel's terrorist activities is the one that is built upon contradictions, the nation that forces 'freedom' in other countries yet built its own by stealing the freedom of others.
I would have thought rogue states like Israel would have learned their lesson by now, killing civilians only creates more freedom fighters and revenge attacks.
5 - Jamie Stern-Weiner
"Yes, I think they condemn it, in fact."
They condemn your twisted version of it, certainly.
"That's no way to run a war. Sorry, it's just not realistic to expect a military to make that kind of judgment."
Perhaps, perhaps not. That doesn't effect legality. What it does mean is that it is very hard to fight a war legally when you are the aggressor. International law relies heavily on the concept of 'military necessity', the idea being that yes, in war civilians die, but try your hardest not to kill them and don't kill them for the hell of it. That's for those fighting in self-defence.
But for the aggressors, any violence they undertake is illegal, because it is done so in the course of an aggression. 'Military necessity' only applies when the goals being fought for (self-defence) are legitimate.
"When terrorists use civilians as human shields how do you take that into account? You aren't targeting the civilians."
But you're talking fantasy. Yes, we can talk about that as an academic question, but that isn't the reality. It wasn't the reality in Lebanon (read HRW's 50 page report into the subject) and it isn't the reality in the occupied territories.
And yes, of course when Hizbullah locate themselves and their equipment near civilians it is wrong. It is also wrong when Israel does it (Many of Israel's military bases/airstrips/etc. are located near civilian settlements, Israeli soldiers are often mobilised/camped in Israeli towns and Israeli soldiers have been found to have used Palestinian as human shields).
"This is your opinion. It is clearly and demonstrably NOT the opinion of Israel.
"
No, I disagree with that. That would only hold true if you believed without question the statements of Israel military and political leaders. The facts show a completely and utterly different story. Even in 1948, except for a period of around three months, Israel was in no existential danger. Since then many of its former enemies have become allies of the US and it has become the fourth ranking military power on the planet (not to mention a nuclear power). There is just no way to rationally propose that Israel faces an existential threat from the Palestinians, or from Hizbullah or from anyone else.
"The Palestinians aren't fighting for survival either. They could cooperate with Israel and live under reasonable democratic rule if they wanted to."
Yes, you're right: if the Palestinians gave up on their legal rights, such as the right of their refugees to return and their right to establish a state with East Jerusalem as its capital and comprising 100% of the West Bank and Gaza, if they gave up on these legal rights, there would be a way for them to make peace with Israel.
But there is a big difference between fighting for your legal rights (i.e. fighting a foreign military occupation) and fighting to oppress others' legal rights (i.e. fighting to perpetuate a military occupation). One is justified, the other isn't.
"For the occupation of territory which it sees as vital for its survival based on multiple past invasions which have come through that territory."
That's just absurd. Israel no longer faces a threat from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan or Egypt. In fact, all these countries are pushing very hard
for peace with Israel. In any case, Israel's "security needs" do not justify an occupation. The occupation of the Palestinians is illegal. That is no longer controversial. Therefore, Israel must stop the occupation. If it refuses, the Palestinians have a legal right to resist. That's just a fact.
"Even when the government occupying them would treat them fairly and equitably and provide democratic rule if given a chance?"
Yes. If a foreign military occupation is illegal, it has no right to exist. How nicely the occupiers would treat the occupied is completely and utterly irrelevent. It's a question of legal rights. Did the French not have a right to resist Nazi occupation? What about if the Nazis promised to treat them nicely? Would their right to resist vanish?
"Yes, but clearly the Israelis are willing to accept the risks associated with occupying the territory and deal with those risks appropraitely."
So suicide bombing is justified, then? It is justifiable for a Palestinian to walk onto a bus and blow himself up? Is that what you're saying?
6 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
If the Arabs succeed in committing a terror attack here again (G-d forbid), like they did during Passover (which you never condemned), we'll see what you have to say.
In the meantime, this is just some more anti-Israel trash from a hyperventilating intellectual waving papers in the air.
7 - John
I'm atheist. My old man is a Christian. I was discussing this with him the other day. America will do whatever it has to for the Israelis. My father who's a devout Christian says that America must support Israel or else it's all Armageddon.
Christians believe all this bullshit none-sense. They're no different from the radical Islamists or the Zionist terrorists that kill innocent everyday Palestinians.
I agree with what the guy above said. I actually remember hearing on Bill O'Reilly that Israel is the third most powerful military in the world, not fourth. It is actually ludicrous to call their terrorism an act in the name of Israel's existence.
8 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
I pulled this from the Knesset debate yesterday that had a pack of Arab Knesset members apoplectic because they could not stand hearing the truth. You can't either, Jamie. This is taken from Arutz Sheva
---------------------------------------------------
Yesterday's stormy Knesset session began when Arab MK Honeh Soueid (Hadash) delivered a speech, harshly condemning Israel for what he constantly called the "massacre and slaughter" of 18 Arabs in Beit Hanoun last week. The incident occurred when IDF artillery fire designed to thwart ongoing Kassam rocket fire in Gaza accidentally hit a residential building.
Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh then took the stand, beginning by thanking MK Soueid "for bringing up the issue so that I can straighten out the story accurately." Excerpts from the session:
Soueid: People were killed and you want to be accurate...?
Sneh: You think that if you interrupt me, I won't say what I want to say? ... I can promise you one thing: You won't like 90% of what I have to say... Why did we start the military offensive in Beit Hanoun? To protect the citizens of Israel, to attack those who fire Kassams and who store up war material to use it against us. This was the objective; there is nothing more legitimate than that.
Arab MK Barakeh: Little children [who were killed] are terrorists?! [screaming uncontrollably] It's a shame and a disgrace! [continues to scream out at Sneh]
MK Sharoni [Pensioners Party] [paraphrased]: You just want to get your picture in Al Jazeera.
Barakeh: Shut your mouth, stupid!
[more screaming, Barakeh is finally ordered to leave by Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik]
Barakeh to Sharoni: Shut your mouth!
Sharoni [in Arabic, apparently a bit taken aback by Barakeh's furious hostility]: Get out!
[This exchange is repeated several times, until finally Barakeh is taken out, while continuing to yell]
Speaker Itzik [with a sigh]: Then they talk about the 'image of the Knesset' and that we 'have to come towards...' You heard [that exchange], MK Gal'on [of the radical left-wing Meretz party]?
MK Gal'on: I didn't see you 'come towards' when Barakeh was talking...
Itzik: Oh, really? OK, OK... Deputy Minister Sneh, please continue.
[Arab MK Ahmed Tibi starts screaming...]
Deputy Minister Sneh resumes speaking: "On Nov. 7, from an orchard on the outskirts of Beit Hanoun, rockets were fired towards Ashkelon. On the next morning, we received warning that it would happen again, and therefore two artillery volleys were fired [by the IDF] to that spot. As a result of a technical fault in the second volley, tens of innocent people were hit [18 were killed]. We see this as a grave issue, a catastrophe, and a failure. I assume that those who fired the rocket on Ashkelon, if they would have hit dozens of innocent people, they would have seen it as a success.
MK Tibi screams: You're just clearing yourself! [unintelligible]
Sneh: No, no, Tibi - that's the difference of our cultures; that's the whole thing; that's the difference in our values.
[Tibi and other Arab MKs start yelling wildly]
Sneh: I promised you that you wouldn't like what I had to say. ... You cannot evade the point that when we hit civilians, we see it as a failure, but those who shoot at us see it as a success; that's the difference, you cannot evade that! [more screaming] I came to speak here in order to respond [to the charges of slaughter] and there is a limit to what we are willing to hear. [Tibi and others keep screaming]
Sneh: ...After the extent of the catastrophe became known, we enacted a series of urgent humanitarian measures. The worst of the injured were taken to hospitals in Israel, and even though it was a battle zone, we allowed in trucks of medical supplies, we opened the Rafah crossing, and we did whatever possible to alleviate the unjustified suffering of these people.
Tibi: And then these Palestinians didn't even say thank you, what nerve of them!
Sneh: We didn't expect a thank you, we did what we thought we had to do.
[more interruptions]
Sneh: We didn't expect a thank you, I don't think we even deserved it. I think that we were responsible militarily, and we did what we had to do.
[Tibi continues screaming, Speaker Itzik threatens to remove him]
Sneh: Now that I have said what I wanted to say regarding military responsibility, I will discuss the moral responsibility. [raising his voice] Those who turned Gaza into a launching ground of Kassam rockets against a civilian populace, are responsible for those who were killed. Last September, we left Gaza, and we didn't leave a single thing - not a house or even a guard booth. What justification is there for what you are doing?! [Quiet] Why are the Rafah and Karni crossings half-closed?! Because the people sent by the terror organizations always want to blow up these places, the arteries that provide life to Gaza! They build a 600-meter tunnel - what are they thinking when they dig them?! Who will benefit if they blow up the Karni Crossing and Israelis and Palestinians are killed? And then later they'll complain that there's no milk or flour... What are they thinking? [quiet] Who destroyed Erez [Industrial Zone], where 5,000 Palestinians worked and made a living? Who destroyed it? The terrorists!
Tibi: And that's why you fire at Beit Hanoun?
Sneh: We fire at Beit Hanoun, Tibi, because they turned it into a base of rockets and missiles against Ashkelon and Sderot. There is no country in the world that would tolerate such a thing! Take this account to Islamic Jihad and to Hamas, and tell them this - give your ethical speeches to them, not to us.
When the debate finally ended, though the Arab MKs favored a formal Knesset debate on the Beit Hanoun incident at a future date, the Knesset voted to accept Sneh's proposal to remove it from the agenda.
---------------------------------------------------
I rarely agree with what Labor Mk's say. But Sneh recently has openly threatened to nuke the Iranians, something that had them whining like the babies they are, and now he has openly stated what any self respecting Israeli knows all too well.
The Wahhabi based culture of hate that motivates the Arab delegates to the Knersset, as well as the Arab terrorists who seek our deaths celebrates the murder of Jewish civilians, while we apologize for murdering civilians.
And to paraphrase Sneh, it is not done to seek a thank you, but because it is the right thing to do. I yet await the Arabs who hate this nation doing something because it is the right thing to do.
9 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Jamie, let's draw the line and make it bright and clear. You apologize for murderers and we apologize for murdering wrongly. You are on the side of death and murder and we are on the side of life.
The murderers for whom you apologize so slavishly celebrate killing civilians as though it were a wedding - they have sought war, and are reaping its results.
Justice would be to end the Palestinian Authority, to arrest the many thieves who have made the lives of Arabs in our country miserable, and to make clear to the Arab population that the attitude of hate and celebration over murdering Jews will get them nothing but death. Justice has not been vetoed: it has not yet been even attempted here.
10 - Jamie Stern-Weiner
Ruvy, this is not a debate about me. It's a debate about an article I wrote. So if you want to criticise, criticise what I wrote, not what I didn't.
In any event, I've explained several times to you why it is more important for me to write about Israeli crimes than Palestinian crimes. Do I really need to go over it again?
I have never apologised for murder. If you can find where I have, please quote it.
As for apologising for murdering wrongly...
If Islamic Jihad sent suicide bombers to blow up a bus and then said they were sorry for the civilians killed they were only trying to blow up the bus, you would laugh.
Likewise, when Israel keeps on killing Palestinians either intentionally or by firing indiscriminately, no-one takes them seriously when they say 'sorry, we didn't mean to kill all those civilians'. That apology is completely meaningless, because as B'Tselem points out, when you have that many Palestinians killed in such a small area and over such a long period of time, it no longer matters whether or not it was intentional or not. It's state terrorism just the same.
I am on the side of law. It's the only humanitarian side there is.
This isn't a war in the conventional sense; it is an occupation. As such, the Fourth Geneva Convention applies and Israel has regularly and gravely violated it.
It has been attempted many times. What about all those dozens of General Assembly resolutions calling for an end to the Israeli occupation? That would be justice. Typically, the vote would be 161-4 in favour, the '4' being Israel, U.S., Marshall Islands and Micronesia. But, like this one, they were (effectively) vetoed by the U.S.
11 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Jamie, you wrote,
"I've explained several times to you why it is more important for me to write about Israeli crimes than Palestinian crimes. Do I really need to go over it again?"
No, of course not. You need to absorb what MK Sneh said yesterday in the Knesset. It is an explanation of moral responsibility, something never seen practiced by Hamas, the PLO, HizbAllah, Islamic Jihad and other terror and crime groups who label themselves as "Palestinian freedom fighters." For your benefit, we'll repeat what MK Sneh said. It's refreshing to see a Labor MK display some clarity and honesty.
"Sneh: Now that I have said what I wanted to say regarding military responsibility, I will discuss the moral responsibility. [raising his voice] Those who turned Gaza into a launching ground of Kassam rockets against a civilian populace, are responsible for those who were killed. Last September, we left Gaza, and we didn't leave a single thing - not a house or even a guard booth. What justification is there for what you are doing?! [Quiet] Why are the Rafah and Karni crossings half-closed?! Because the people sent by the terror organizations always want to blow up these places, the arteries that provide life to Gaza! They build a 600-meter tunnel - what are they thinking when they dig them?! Who will benefit if they blow up the Karni Crossing and Israelis and Palestinians are killed? And then later they'll complain that there's no milk or flour... What are they thinking? [quiet] Who destroyed Erez [Industrial Zone], where 5,000 Palestinians worked and made a living? Who destroyed it? The terrorists!
Tibi: And that's why you fire at Beit Hanoun?
Sneh: We fire at Beit Hanoun, Tibi, because they turned it into a base of rockets and missiles against Ashkelon and Sderot. There is no country in the world that would tolerate such a thing!"
Now let's get the point clear for you, Jamie, since these things seem difficult for you to grasp. Thirty six years ago, Yassir Arafat attempted to overthrow the monarch of what had been the eastern portion of the Palestine mandate, which had become known as Jordan. Hussein's Army, uhder the command of Zia ul Haq, killed 5,000 rebels and civilians in order to put down an insurrection agaist Hussein's minority Bedouin government.
Nobody said boo. Nobody waved the Geneva Convention in the air or ran to the UN. Nobody talked about war crimes, even though, no matter how you slice the shwarma, it is a war crime to massacre civilians. Hussein and Zia ul Haq both ought to have been hauled before that tired institution of "international law" across the Channel in The Hague to stand trial for crimes against humanity.
Never happened.
And you are making a fuss over twenty civilians attacked in a war zone by accident? I'm sorry. The unfairness of it all, not to mention the ridiculous one-sidedness of your point of view as an apologist for those who would kill you and dance for joy after having done so, makes your whole article ridiculous except as a piece of Arab propaganda. It is also why I have only contempt for what passes for "international law," and for the bigoted, bloated and corrupt bodies who blather on in its name, like the UN and its various branches.
Were there any justice in the "International High Court of Justice," or the Security Council, most of the Arab leaders who have taken office whould have had their necks stretched on the gallows for gross abuse of human rights.
12 - Jamie Stern-Weiner
Firstly, whether or not you agree with their methods (most sensible people do not), you can hardly deny they are resistance fighters.
Secondly, and this is the point I was trying to make clear: it is not 'moral' or 'responsible' in this context to apologise after committing an atrocity. Or rather, whilst there should of course be an apology, it makes no difference to the crime. Because this wasn't an isolated incident - Israel has been killing Palestinian civilians for decades, whether intentionally or otherwise. Israel has been torturing Palestinian civilians for decades. So when the Israeli military leadership decides to fire shells over several kilometers in the direction of a Palestinian town, knowing full well the significant chance of error, killing 19 civilians, then its proclamations of innocent intent and subsequent apologies, accompanied by vows to continue firing artillery as before, mean absolutely nothing.
Just like if Islamic Jihad were to apologise after every suicide bombing, or the Qassam brigades after every rocket firing, it doesn't mean anything.
As to Sneh: of course he'll say that. Firstly, he's repeating that popular misinformation about the Gaza "withdrawal". Secondly, he's using that age old lie that Israel is perpetuating the occupation because of security needs. It's just not true. An independent Palestinian state would not be a threat to Israel. Israel has its reasons for keeping up the occupation, but they have nothing to do with security.
As to your point about Arabs committing war crimes in the past (as they do in the present) - so what? I doubt there's a nation on Earth that hasn't. We can't change the past. What we can do is decide that international law reigns supreme. We can apply it to everyone as impartially as possible. By the standard of international law, Israel's 'Operation Autumn Clouds' and 'Operation Summer Rains' have involved gross war crimes. Likewise, its 40 year occupation is illegal. Likewise the annexation wall, the settlements, the annexation of East Jerusalem, the systematic use of torture, the policies of ethnic cleansing, the targeted assasinations...they're all illegal.
You can point to instances of Arab crimes all day, but it won't change those facts.
And yes, there are problems with the UN, the ICJ and the system of international law. As it is, the law is applied selectively, politically and often ineffectively. Israel has been a major beneficiary of this weakness of international law, because as a result it has been allowed to oppress the Palestinian with impunity for decades.
But that doesn't mean we should give up on the idea of common law. To do so would be to accept that the world should be run according to the law of the jungle, where the strong prey on the weak and force rules. Those who want to live in a world where things like 'equality', 'justice' and 'freedom' mean something will try their best to improve the system of international law to make it universal and effective.
Thus, when Israel breaks the law, it should be condemned and, if necessary, punished. The same should go for everyone.
But I must stress this because it's something you seem to overlook: there is no symmetry between Israel and the Palestinians. Firstly there's the fundamental paradigm of the occupier and the occupied, the oppressor and the oppressed. But also take any metric you want - ammunition fired, civilians killed, children killed, houses destroyed, damage caused, people assassinated, people tortured, anything. You'll find that for all those metrics, there is a clear dissymmetry: Israel and the Palestinians both commit crimes, but Israel commits them on a far larger scale.
So, unless we value Israeli lives over Palestinian lives, we should devote far more space to Israeli atrocities than Palestinian ones.
13 - mike
Either side you sit on; whether it is Pro-Israeli or Pro-Palestinian...the bottom line is that the vast country of America is nothing but a puppet for the Jews.
14 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
"...the bottom line is that the vast country of America is nothing but a puppet for the Jews."
I can handle that idea, Mike. But how about some puppet performance? Like a couple of infantry divisions to drive the Arabs out of Judea, Samaria and Gaza for us.
Nu, pupppet? Jump, when commanded!!
Afraid your idea is as much nonsense as Jamie's.