Hamas Wants Civilian Casualties

[Puppycow]

30 killed in blast at UN school in Gaza

The school grounds were being used by terrorists to fire mortar shells at troops stationed nearby, and the soldiers responded by firing mortars back, the army said. According to the IDF, the dead included members of the Hamas rocket cell, including senior operatives Imad Abu Askhar and Hassan Abu Askhar.

Defense officials told The Associated Press that booby-trapped bombs in the school had triggered secondary explosions that killed additional Palestinians there.

A case of Hamas deliberately putting civilians in harm's way.

 

[lionking]

I agree.

 

[gumboot]

If anything this shows how spineless the UN is. They set up "safe zone" schools for people to shelter in, and then sit there and watch while terrorists operate inside their safe zones?

If the UN had half the will of a dead starfish anyone attempting to conduct military operations inside their positions would receive two bullets in the head.

Pathetic.

 

[Texas]

If anything this shows how spineless the UN is. They set up "safe zone" schools for people to shelter in, and then sit there and watch while terrorists operate inside their safe zones?

If the UN had half the will of a dead starfish anyone attempting to conduct military operations inside their positions would receive two bullets in the head.

Pathetic.

THe UN is not capable of armed action. Even if it was, it doesn't surprise me that they allow Hamas to hide in their facilities given the UN's general stance on Israel.

 

[gumboot]

THe UN is not capable of armed action.

That's complete nonsense. The UN is amply capable of military action - they have at their disposal the armed forces of the entire planet. That they are incapable of posting armed guards at places like this school and giving them directives to engage any combatants who approach is a reflection of their lack of will, not their lack of ability.

This isn't new, of course. In 1993, while militiamen seized food being distributed to starving civilians in Somalia, the 28,000 UN troops of UNSOM II, fully equipped with armoured vehicles, did nothing.

In 1994 2,500 UN troops were stationed in Rwanda when the Genocide started and they, likewise, failed to act (most of them were withdrawn in a stirring act of courage and commitment to peace, by Belgium, of all countries).

In 2005, 10,000 UN troops were deployed to Darfur to stop the violence there, yet 3 years later it is still ongoing.

This latest action is, however, a staggering failure on their part because they are demonstrating an inability to even secure their own positions - even the few hundred UN troops left behind in Rwanda managed that much.

The ramifications of this failure actually go deeper than this, however. Their failure to prevent militants using their position actually constitutes a war crime under the Hague Conventions for the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers, makes them a party to the conflict, and a legitimate target for Israel to attack. By allowing these attacks from their positions, the UN had de facto joined the side of Hamas.

 

[Texas]

That's complete nonsense. The UN is amply capable of military action - they have at their disposal the armed forces of the entire planet. That they are incapable of posting armed guards at places like this school and giving them directives to engage any combatants who approach is a reflection of their lack of will, not their lack of ability.

This isn't new, of course. In 1993, while militiamen seized food being distributed to starving civilians in Somalia, the 28,000 UN troops of UNSOM II, fully equipped with armoured vehicles, did nothing.

In 1994 2,500 UN troops were stationed in Rwanda when the Genocide started and they, likewise, failed to act (most of them were withdrawn in a stirring act of courage and commitment to peace, by Belgium, of all countries).

In 2005, 10,000 UN troops were deployed to Darfur to stop the violence there, yet 3 years later it is still ongoing.

This latest action is, however, a staggering failure on their part because they are demonstrating an inability to even secure their own positions - even the few hundred UN troops left behind in Rwanda managed that much.

The ramifications of this failure actually go deeper than this, however. Their failure to prevent militants using their position actually constitutes a war crime under the Hague Conventions for the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers, makes them a party to the conflict, and a legitimate target for Israel to attack. By allowing these attacks from their positions, the UN had de facto joined the side of Hamas.

Very well stated.

 

[Meadmaker]

At one point last week, I got to thinking about this whole business. I started with a question. Why would Hamas operatives, apparently working at least somewhat in concert as part of a plan, if not specifically at the orders of Hamas leadership, fire rockets into Israel?

It obviously isn't part of a military plan, in the ordinary sense of the term, anyway. Those rockets aren't capable of achieving or even assisting in any sort of military objective. Furthermore, they know what the response will be. Since the effects are predictable, it stands to reason that Hamas wanted the results. In other words, they fired the rockets in order to provoke the response. Here it gets a bit speculative, but it seems to me that their reason for doing so was to keep up the anger in the "Arab street". Of course, if there were no civilian casualties, that wouldn't work.

I don't know what Israel ought to do. The problem is that on the one hand, they have a right to self defense. On the other hand, this "self defense" is exactly what Hamas wants, because it will mean propoganda victories for Hamas.

In my somewhat naive opinion, the true solution to problems in that region would be to make everyone in the region citizens of a true, US style, constitutionally limited republic. Let everyone in the neighborhood vote for a government, but guarantee the rights of all minorities to live, worship, and speak as they please.

Unfortunately, no one who lives in the region seems to want that.

 

[Travis]

The UN has as much teeth as the member countries are willing to allow it to have. That the UN does nothing time and again shows that these peacekeeping actions are more show than substance and that nobody seems to be willing to allow a useful ROE to be employed by their troops when they are not under their own direct command.

 

[Fiona]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7814054.stm

 

[Thunder]

Yesterday Israel killed 70 civilians and 5 Hamas. Hamas might state they want civilian casualties...but Israel is the king at achieving them.

 

[WildCat]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7814054.stm

And of course, the useful idiots will blame Israel and Hamas gets a free pass for using the UN school as a fighting position.

The UN? They have no idea what's going on, they apparently even hire Hamas members to teach at the school by day while they make rockets at nght.

 

[Thunder]

And of course, the useful idiots will blame Israel and Hamas gets a free pass for using the UN school as a fighting position.

The UN? They have no idea what's going on, they apparently even hire Hamas members to teach at the school by day while they make rockets at nght.

Prove that the UN school was used as a fighting position.

 

[ddt]

For those who take the IDF stance hook, line and sinker, what about Qana 1996? Or Qana 2006?

In any case, the UN denies that Hamas militants fired from the school. From the Haaretz:

The United Nations on Wednesday denied Israel Defense Forces claims that there were Palestinian militants in the Gaza school bombed by Israel on Tuesday.

Various Israeli human rights organizations - B'Tselem, PHR, ACRI, a.o. - have set up a joint blog site for reports about Gaza.

 

[Fiona]

I have no idea who is right. There are no independent journalists there at all because they are not allowed and because it is not safe. I just thought it should be said that there are different accounts of this particular incident and there are more incidents than just this. We will probably not know the truth for a long time, if ever

 

[a_unique_person]

Quite.

All we are hearing is one side of the story.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/06/campbell.brown.gaza/index.html

We have been trying to report as accurately as possible on the fighting in Gaza.
But that is without question a challenge when we do not have reporters on the ground who can bring you first-hand information about what is taking place.
The reason we have no reporters on the ground in Gaza is because Israel will not allow foreign journalists into Gaza.
Tuesday night, we call for Israel to open the borders to allow journalists in, to allow them to do their jobs, to witness first-hand what is happening on the ground.

All armed forces lie, it's their job, because it's a part of winning the war.

 

[WildCat]

Prove that the UN school was used as a fighting position.

It fits the Hamas MO to a T. There will never be proof one way or another.

For those who take the IDF stance hook, line and sinker, what about Qana 1996? Or Qana 2006?

What about it? Your own link shows it was used to launch rockets. You should be angry at Hezbollah, instead you blame Israel. Go figure.

In any case, the UN denies that Hamas militants fired from the school. From the Haaretz:

The UN rep I saw on the news yesterday said no such thing, In fact, he said he knew nothing about what was going on there. He admitted that Hamas had used UN schools and buldings in the past from which to launch attacks.

Various Israeli human rights organizations - B'Tselem, PHR, ACRI, a.o. - have set up a joint blog site for reports about Gaza.

And of course, it's all Israel's fault for fighting the genocidal internationally recognized terrorist group voted in by the Gazans under the promise of war with Israel which has launched thousands of rockets into Israel since they gained power. And the UN sat by and did nothing but offer condolences.

 

[fuelair]

It fits the Hamas MO to a T. There will never be proof one way or another.


What about it? Your own link shows it was used to launch rockets. You should be angry at Hezbollah, instead you blame Israel. Go figure.


The UN rep I saw on the news yesterday said no such thing, In fact, he said he knew nothing about what was going on there. He admitted that Hamas had used UN schools and buldings in the past from which to launch attacks.


And of course, it's all Israel's fault for fighting the genocidal internationally recognized terrorist group voted in by the Gazans under the promise of war with Israel which has launched thousands of rockets into Israel since they gained power. And the UN sat by and did nothing but offer condolences.

I must have missed the UN condolences. I would have put a period after "nothing".

 

[ddt]

What about it? Your own link shows it was used to launch rockets. You should be angry at Hezbollah, instead you blame Israel. Go figure.

Which of the two Qana incidents? Care to quote where my link says so?

 

[WildCat]

Which of the two Qana incidents? Care to quote where my link says so?

Both. In 1996:

According to a U.N. report, on April 18, Hezbollah terrorists fired two or three Katyusha rockets and between five and eight mortars at Israeli soldiers near the Red Line (the northern limits of the "security zone") from positions about 220 meters southwest and 350 meters southeast of the United Nations compound. 15 minutes later an Israeli unit responded by shelling the area with M-109A2 155 mm guns.[5] According to the Israeli military, thirty-eight shells were fired, two-thirds of them equipped with proximity fuses, an anti-personnel mechanism that causes the weapon to explode above the ground.

And in 2006: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7f/Qana_idf_video_s.jpg

No reason at all these areas should not have been targeted.

 

[ddt]

Both. In 1996:

According to a U.N. report, on April 18, Hezbollah terrorists fired two or three Katyusha rockets and between five and eight mortars at Israeli soldiers near the Red Line (the northern limits of the "security zone") from positions about 220 meters southwest and 350 meters southeast of the United Nations compound. 15 minutes later an Israeli unit responded by shelling the area with M-109A2 155 mm guns.[5] According to the Israeli military, thirty-eight shells were fired, two-thirds of them equipped with proximity fuses, an anti-personnel mechanism that causes the weapon to explode above the ground.

(bolding mine). Then let's look further at the findings of the UN report:

The UN appointed military advisor Major-General Franklin van Kappen of the Netherlands to investigate the incident. His conclusions were:
(a) The distribution of impacts at Qana shows two distinct concentrations, whose mean points of impact are about 140 metres apart. If the guns were converged, as stated by the Israeli forces, there should have been only one main point of impact.

(b) The pattern of impacts is inconsistent with a normal overshooting of the declared target (the mortar site) by a few rounds, as suggested by the Israeli forces.

(c) During the shelling, there was a perceptible shift in the weight of fire from the mortar site to the United Nations compound.

(d) The distribution of point impact detonations and air bursts makes it improbable that impact fuses and proximity fuses were employed in random order, as stated by the Israeli forces.

(e) There were no impacts in the second target area which the Israeli forces claim to have shelled.

(f) Contrary to repeated denials, two Israeli helicopters and a remotely piloted vehicle were present in the Qana area at the time of the shelling.

While the possibility cannot be ruled out completely, it is unlikely that the shelling of the United Nations compound was the result of gross technical and/or procedural errors.

No reason at all these areas should not have been targeted.

The UN report gives ample indications that the IDF deliberately shelled the UN compound and not the nearby Hezbollah rocket launching sites.