Official IDF Statement on Qana Incident

I love how everyone jumps on the Pro-Israel sources as propaganda, but no one complains when someone seeds from a site called "Electronic Intifada" or a page written by the seeder.

There are alternative titles everywhere...

The one about Israel ignores more than 10 calls to stop firing ... could read:

Civilians ignore tons of leaflets to flee the specifically targeted area...

Point is the world community knows that Israel is responding with restraint while Hezbollah is responding with all it has from everywhere it wants to regardless and with intent to draw fire at nearby innocents.

Civilians ignore tons of leaflets to flee the specifically targeted area...

Actually, it was this specific part of the story that caused me to log back in and comment.

If the US were in such a situation, and the DoD response was, "hey, we told them to get out of the way," we would hear with a surprising clarity around the world that we are still responsible for having committed an atrocity.

The fact that IDF's first reaction was "we warned them days ago" doesn't in any way excuse them from having killed a large number of civilians. I know that most of Israel believes that they are acting in a restrained manner to Hezbollah's aggression, but to respond in this manner is to add insult to injury. It was completely the wrong message to send, and Israel declaring a 48-hour stop to the air strikes I believe shows that they know that.

Israel declaring a 48-hour stop to the air strikes I believe shows that they know that.

Yes, Israel said as much in regards to the large number of civilians recently killed. The leaflet comment was the "alternative title" associated with the particular story about targeting the UN post when 10 calls were made to get Israel to stop firing. The UN Post and the civilians in that area had received significant warnings, even as a dead UN observer stated in his own emails to senior officers in Canada. Mixing the two stories portrays a cause-effect that I was not making, and I do not disagree with regard to your points only the misapplication of mine.

cj, i like your drastic measures, we need to talk

I'm working on a new article about a similar scenario where Israel is barricaded with no more humans, and turned into a wasteland for nuclear wastes from all over the world...

The Holy Land can no longer be holy...if it's radioactive.

Are you familiar with the fancy luxurious artificial Islands in Dubai?

Why don't we create artificial big Peninsulas...one for Palestinians, one for Israelis, as far way from each other as possible...

I agree that it is getting highly ridiculous...I mean Israel is such a tiny piece of land. It's minuscule when you compare it to some of the big states in America. I mean @!$%#, even Texas is bigger than all of France.

2. Next..although this may sound harsh but...Nuke the whole country. Destroy everything.

The radiation would spread throughout the upper atmosphere and cause untold suffering and death throughout the entire Middle East from cancer and all the other bad things radiation does to humans.

Not to mention all of the wildlife, flora, and insects that would be killed in the process.

I would think that if you cared that much about life, you would value all of it and not just the human aspect of it.

One thing everyone seems to assume is that only extremism can solve the problems of the Middle East. I do remember us being months away from a strong peace deal when Rabin was assasinated. It is really about courage and strong leadership which is willing to stoop to conquer and make peace inspite of anything.

One of the reasons I hate this particular war is that Israel is about to make extremists of relative moderates. By that I mean the people of Lebanon.

I'd be surprised if we can agree on this, Yaakov. That's not a reflection on you, I think if I was in your position I'd take your view about it too.

Sorry for the double post, but just one point about the Qana bombing (it's only just been processed in my head-cold affected head that there may be some agreement that it wasn't Hezbollah blowing up their own building here)...

Let's say the IDF bombed the building, and lots of people are sheltering in the cellar or nearest best equivalent. They think "lucky the building survived, we'd better stay here in case the bombers come back." I submit they probably don't think, given that lots of buildings in the area have been hit, "Let's escape across open ground and hope to find a different standing building which might be safer than this one."

And that's assuming the timing, for which we have basically go on the word of the IDF (an "interested party" as you might say), is accurate. I note that the IDF in the same ynet article, put forward the idea that Hezbollah blew it up themselves or else were storing explosive material in the building which gradually was compromised perhaps by a fire. Even granting the timing this sort of conjecture to me counts as FUD.

What I mean by saying we probably can't agree, Yaakov, is that the words IDF mean something different to you than they do to me, and that's just the starting point.

Are you sure about the HRW denial?

Mark Garlasco, working for the US-based Human Rights Watch group, said victims' injuries were not consistent with explosives blowing up in the sand beneath them.

"My assessment [is] that it's likely that this was incoming artillery fire that landed on the beach and was fired by the Israelis from the north of Gaza."

source... also

"If the Israeli allegations of tampered evidence are to be believed, many Palestinians would have to have engaged in a massive and immediate conspiracy to falsify the data," said Garlasco. "The conspirators – witnesses, victims, medical personnel and bomb disposal staff – would have had to falsify their testimony, amend digital and hand-written records, and dip shrapnel into a victim's blood. It beggars belief that such a huge conspiracy could be orchestrated so quickly."

source. Sorry to go off topic, and sorry for the repeated posts again. Put it down to my cold and I'll try to be more organised in the future.

The HRW site isn't very clearly organised but I can't see any reports which go in the other direction. Do post them if you've got other info. There was a question about an unexploded shell from earlier in the day, but no doubt that the IDF investigation was seriously flawed.

Actually, Yaakov, you're looking at the J Post's positive take on a negative report by HRW about the meeting with the IDF. They've taken the one thing which gives any possibility the IDF is right, out of a whole article which is very negative. My source above (June 20) is after the meeting.

"An investigation that refuses to look at contradictory evidence can hardly be considered credible," said Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch. "The IDF's partisan approach highlights the need for an independent, international investigation."

Kalifi told Human Rights Watch that Palestinians "have no problem lying," and that the IDF discounted information gathered from any Palestinian information sources in its investigation. The day after the incident, the IDF asked the official Palestinian security liaison office to provide evidence for testing, but later dismissed the evidence provided, which consisted of 155mm shrapnel, both new and old, and dirt from the beach and crater. When offered evidence collected first-hand by Human Rights Watch researchers in Gaza, the general either called it into question or declined to accept it.

The IDF also dismissed as "unimportant" evidence gathered by Human Rights Watch indicating that the IDF's suggested timeline surrounding the fatal incident is flawed. Yet, the IDF originally claimed that the timing of the incident was the most important factor absolving it of responsibility. According to the IDF, the eight civilians were killed after the IDF shelling ceased at 4:50 p.m. on June 9, 2006.

However, evidence collected by Human Rights Watch researchers and many independent journalists on the ground in Gaza indicates that the civilians were killed within the time period of the shelling. That evidence includes computerized hospital records that show children injured at the beach were treated by 5:12 p.m., and hand-written hospital records that show they were admitted at 5:05 p.m. In light of the 20-minute round trip drive between the hospital and the beach, this evidence suggests that the blast that caused the family's death occurred during the time of the IDF shelling.

and here's the bit JPost siezed on...

During the two-and-a-half hour meeting with Kalifi, the IDF agreed with Human Rights Watch that it is possible that unexploded ordnance from a 155mm artillery shell fired earlier in the day could have caused the fatal injuries.