UN suspends aid to Gaza

[gdnp]

The error was mine. Failed to correctly use the multi quote feature. My bad.

DR

I must protest. This is the Politics forum. Apologies are not allowed. All errors must be denied, ignored, or blamed on your opponents. It is also allowable to point out an error that your adversary made in the past, because in the politics forum two wrongs make a right.

I trust this oversight will not be repeated.

 

[gumboot]

Not "independent sources": one unnamed Magen David Adom medic who claims to have heard so from IDF soldiers. The same medic claims to have transported the victims and wounded, whereas the UN version has a Pal. RC ambulance transporting them.

Well I have a few problems with this argument.

Firstly, if MDA is not an independent source, neither is the ICRC or any other Red Cross or Red Crescent organisation, given that the MDA is a member of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. Further, given that in Palestine the Red Crescent is used, not the Red Cross, if it is acceptable to claim that a Palestinian Red Crescent Ambulance is actually a Red Cross ambulance, it is also acceptable to describe an MDA ambulance as a Red Cross ambulance.

The contention would, therefore, seem to be only whether the ambulance came from Israel or Palestine. Given that the patients are without refute being treated in an Israeli hospital, it stands to reason they were recovered by Israeli medics, as claimed by MDA and the staff treating the survivors.

You're right that the medic does not claim to have witnessed the attack himself, but I am not sure that's relevant. The UN claim the damage was done by a tank shell, the MDA claims it was done by small arms fire. Were it the first, blame must lie with Israel. Were it the second, blame could lie with either group.

The medic in question would have seen the wounds while transporting the patients, irrespective of whether he was at the scene or not. A struggle to believe a trained medic could confuse wounds from a tank shell with gunshot wounds.

Likewise, staff at the hospital where the survivors are being treated make it clear the men are being treated for gun shot wounds, not shrapnel or other wounds associated with a tank shell.

So it appears to be pretty clear that the UN is false in their initial claim that the convoy was hit by tank rounds. This does not help the UN's credibility, given their track record in this conflict. The comments of the Director of Operations do not help:

(From the Jerusalem Post)

Ging acknowledged, however, that he could not be absolutely certain that the attacks came from IDF forces, telling a reporter who asked whether other combatants may have been responsible, "There is a conflict going on."

That sound's like a fairly weak way of deflecting the question if you ask me. The UN seems rather quick to point blame at Israel, but when questioned on whether they could be mistaken, they refuse to give an answer.

Why is that?

Frankly the group losing credibility rapidly in this conflict is the UN, and credibility is really something they cannot afford to lose at this point. They're down to their undergarments.

 

[ddt]

Firstly, if MDA is not an independent source, neither is the ICRC or any other Red Cross or Red Crescent organisation, given that the MDA is a member of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. Further, given that in Palestine the Red Crescent is used, not the Red Cross, if it is acceptable to claim that a Palestinian Red Crescent Ambulance is actually a Red Cross ambulance, it is also acceptable to describe an MDA ambulance as a Red Cross ambulance.

I don't have a problem with the MDA as independent source. But the Jerusalem Post quoted an unnamed MDA medic. That's something different than "the MDA said...", or "an MDA spokesperson said...". That's the problem I have with it.

Later in the article, it says "According to the MDA", about the gunshot wounds. I'm pretty sure I didn't encounter that piece in first reading the article.

The contention would, therefore, seem to be only whether the ambulance came from Israel or Palestine. Given that the patients are without refute being treated in an Israeli hospital, it stands to reason they were recovered by Israeli medics, as claimed by MDA and the staff treating the survivors.

I haven't read where the MDA claims this. From the JPost article:

Adding to the confusion, the Palestinian Red Crescent Society said it had evacuated the victims, but the MDA medic said soldiers told him they had gone in, at great personal risk, to evacuate the wounded Palestinians.

Likewise, staff at the hospital where the survivors are being treated make it clear the men are being treated for gun shot wounds, not shrapnel or other wounds associated with a tank shell.

Okay. This was apparently added later to the article.

So it appears to be pretty clear that the UN is false in their initial claim that the convoy was hit by tank rounds. This does not help the UN's credibility, given their track record in this conflict. The comments of the Director of Operations do not help:

Agreed. Still, it's also remarkable that the Jerusalem Post is the only one carrying this story.

Meanwhile, Haaretz has an article that the UN will resume the aid:

UN spokeswoman Michele Montas said the Israeli military told senior UN officials at a high-level meeting at Defense Ministry headquarters in Tel Aviv that they deeply regretted the incidents that led the UN to suspend aid deliveries in the Gaza Strip on Thursday.
The UN halted movement of staff and deliveries to the Gaza Strip on Thursday after gunfire from an Israeli tank killed one aid truck driver and injured two others, Montas said.

 

[Texas]

We are talking about an area where you can't fire an 155mm shell without wipeing out a couple of families (okey not quite but close). 50% civilian deaths is actualy rather low for modern warfare. Warfare in what is effectively a city? If you think a 50% civilian kill rate is ridiculous then I suggest you probably need to move on from the napoleonic era.

It's a simple fact of what war involves that a lot of civilians are going to get hurt whenever isreal attacks gaza. If this is a problem or not is a secondary issue.

Not if civilian deaths make up 50% of the total, the only way for that to hold true is to be either deliberately targeting them or carpet bombing the entire area. If you will remember Serbia claimed that NATO bombing killed 2200 Serbian civilians which later turned out to be 500. The Clinton State department claimed 500,000 missing and feared dead Ethnic Albanians, the Lancet study put the Albanian death toll at 12,000 and the final number turned out to be approximately 4000 and that was with the Serbian army purposely targeting Albanians. Civilian body count has become the preferred propaganda tool in any modern conflict.

 

[geni]

Not if civilian deaths make up 50% of the total, the only way for that to hold true is to be either deliberately targeting them or carpet bombing the entire area.

Unless you are fighting a war in a desert that is completely untrue. Even in world war one the civilian deaths made up about 40% of the total.

If you will remember Serbia claimed that NATO bombing killed 2200 Serbian civilians which later turned out to be 500. The Clinton State department claimed 500,000 missing and feared dead Ethnic Albanians, the Lancet study put the Albanian death toll at 12,000 and the final number turned out to be approximately 4000 and that was with the Serbian army purposely targeting Albanians. Civilian body count has become the preferred propaganda tool in any modern conflict.

Bits of the serbian army. Gaza has a population density of 18 times Kosavo.

Lets assume isreal is telling the truth about what it is up to. Specificaly that is is targeting hamas fighters and not useing DIME weapons (the whole DIME issue is great for black humor BTW).

Now where are the hamas fighters. Sitting out in the more rural bits? Unless you are well dug in and are as good as hezbollah (and hamas is neither) that is a terminaly stupid course of action. No for the most part they are sitting tight in the built up areas waiting for the IDF to move in so the odds are a bit less uneven. Isreal is targeting them with convetional artilry shells and missle stikes. Both were designed around makeing sure anything you hit was going to be destroyed. That shrapnel could result in some deaths a considerable distance away was not considered much of a downside. Problem is when you use these weapons in urban areas you are going to kill people you didn't target. Throw in the problem that a lot of hamas fighters are probably at home with their families and isreal is doing rather well if they've managed to keep the civilian kill count as low as 50%.

 

[Texas]

Unless you are fighting a war in a desert that is completely untrue. Even in world war one the civilian deaths made up about 40% of the total.



Bits of the serbian army. Gaza has a population density of 18 times Kosavo.

Lets assume isreal is telling the truth about what it is up to. Specificaly that is is targeting hamas fighters and not useing DIME weapons (the whole DIME issue is great for black humor BTW).

Now where are the hamas fighters. Sitting out in the more rural bits? Unless you are well dug in and are as good as hezbollah (and hamas is neither) that is a terminaly stupid course of action. No for the most part they are sitting tight in the built up areas waiting for the IDF to move in so the odds are a bit less uneven. Isreal is targeting them with convetional artilry shells and missle stikes. Both were designed around makeing sure anything you hit was going to be destroyed. That shrapnel could result in some deaths a considerable distance away was not considered much of a downside. Problem is when you use these weapons in urban areas you are going to kill people you didn't target. Throw in the problem that a lot of hamas fighters are probably at home with their families and isreal is doing rather well if they've managed to keep the civilian kill count as low as 50%.

You make a compelling argument so I will cede the point.

 

[Norseman]

IDF has now issued an official denial of responsibility for the incident and suspects Hamas according to Haaretz:
IDF denies shooting of UN truck in Gaza that killed relief worker

 

[WildCat]

IDF has now issued an official denial of responsibility for the incident and suspects Hamas according to Haaretz:
IDF denies shooting of UN truck in Gaza that killed relief worker

Won't make a damned bit of difference. The useful idiots at the UN and here will continue to toe the Hamas party line. After all, the Israeli's don't actually shoot you if you don't toe their line. But you can pretend they did!

 

[gdnp]

Won't make a damned bit of difference. The useful idiots at the UN and here will continue to toe the Hamas party line. After all, the Israeli's don't actually shoot you if you don't toe their line. But you can pretend they did!

Maybe you missed this quote from the link:

The UN received credible assurances that the security of UN personnel, installations, and humanitarian operations would be fully respected including undertakings of improved liaison and more effective internal coordination within the IDF, Montas said, using the initials of the Israeli Defense Force.

"On this basis, UN staff movements suspended yesterday will resume as soon as possible," she said.

UN humanitarian chief John Holmes called the announcement very good news and said the Israeli assurances were "exactly the assurances that we're seeking."

 

[WildCat]

Maybe you missed this quote from the link:

What about that do you think is important?

 

[Norseman]

Here is also The Jerusalem Post article on the response from IDF:
IDF: Army didn't fire on UN truck driver

 

[gdnp]

What about that do you think is important?

Well, you said "The useful idiots at the UN and here will continue to toe the Hamas party line. " What part of this quote do you see as the UN toeing the Hamas party line? They seem to have accepted the Israeli explanation without question.

 

[Norseman]

Won't make a damned bit of difference. The useful idiots at the UN and here will continue to toe the Hamas party line. After all, the Israeli's don't actually shoot you if you don't toe their line. But you can pretend they did!

I have to remind you that it is not only the UN that jumps to the conclusions without all the facts available, or who are not considering the available facts in a critical manner before throwing out accusations.

For instance back in 2004 IDF went out and claimed that UNWRA ambulances in Gaza were used to transport Qassam rockets. As a proof they used a UAV video they claimed showed a Qassam rocket being put into an ambulance. Even in in the grainy video it should be quiet obvious that it is a foldable stretcher of a type widely used both in rescue services and armed forces all over the world, so to in IDF. The stretchers legs are clearly visible in the shadow profile on the ground. It ended out in an embarrassment on the part of IDF:
BBC: Israel softens UN ambulance claim

The video can be found after the first to paragraphs on this page:
Israel withdraws charge that driver loaded rocket into UN ambulance

A picture of the stretcher type used by UNWRA can be found down on this page:
The Camera Never Lies. Maybe.

The response from UNWRA here:
Response by Commissioner-General Peter Hansen to allegations regarding misuse of a UN vehicle

More on Israeli accusations against UNWRA, including the dubious claim that Hamas fighters were allowed to be transported by UNWRA ambulances:
http://www.honestreporting.org/UNRWA_Hamas.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unwra

 

[gtc]

What about this video?

I think this is the video I am thinking of where Palestinian fighters use ambulances as troop carriers but I can't watch it from here.

 

[Norseman]

What about this video?

I think this is the video I am thinking of where Palestinian fighters use ambulances as troop carriers but I can't watch it from here.

Yes it is the correct video, it was addressed in the second last link in my post above. At first look this might look quiet damaging to UNWRA. But is this really so:

UNRWA, the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, has issued a call to all the parties to the conflict in the occupied Palestinian territory to respect the integrity of its ambulance services and the neutrality and impartiality of its staff.

The call follows an incident in Gaza City on 11 May in which armed Palestinian militants threatened the lives of an UNRWA ambulance team (a driver and a paramedic) and forced them to transport an injured gunman and two of his armed colleagues to a hospital in Gaza City.

UNRWA condemns this action in the strongest possible terms. While its ambulances do not make any distinction between the injured, whether they are injured fighters or noncombatants, at no time and under no circumstances should armed men enter any UNRWA vehicle.

Source: http://www.un.org/unrwa/news/releases/pr-2004/hqg-0904.pdf

 

[gtc]

I see. We can't infer complicity from the video.

 

[gumboot]

Well, you said "The useful idiots at the UN and here will continue to toe the Hamas party line. " What part of this quote do you see as the UN toeing the Hamas party line? They seem to have accepted the Israeli explanation without question.

They have?

Reacting to the IDF's assertion that it did not fire on the UN convoy last Thursday, UNRWA spokesman Chris Gunness said the UN "was careful to source its information from eyewitnesses on the ground."

Gunness added that the UN was keen to "clear the fog of war" and get to the bottom of the incident.

"We've already experienced in the past few days the IDF wobbling on versions of events, especially surrounding the incident at the UNRWA school [in Jabalya, in which at least 30 people were killed]."

(From the JP article already linked)

It sounds to me like a veiled implication that the IDF are liars. It appears their decision to resume aid has nothing to do with the IDFs explanation of this incident, but rather a promise that "it won't happen again".

"In a high-level meeting at the Israeli Ministry of Defense Headquarters in Tel Aviv, the UN was informed that the incidents which led to a temporary suspension of UN staff movements are deeply regretted and do not reflect official government policy. The UN received credible assurances that the security of UN personnel, installations and humanitarian operations would be fully respected, including undertakings of improved liaison and more effective internal coordination within the IDF.

"On this basis, UN staff movements suspended yesterday will resume as soon as possible. The UN will keep the safety and security of its staff under constant review,"

(Again, from the JP article)

Sounds very much to me like thus far the UN has rejected the IDF explanation.

 

[a_unique_person]

Here is also The Jerusalem Post article on the response from IDF:
IDF: Army didn't fire on UN truck driver

If the IDF was intereseted in getting the facts out, they may want to let foreign reporters into Gaza.

 

[a_unique_person]

I see. We can't infer complicity from the video.

You also can't infer it is being used as a troop carrier, if they were using it to take a wounded man to the hospital for treatment, they were using it as an ambulance.

 

[gumboot]

If the IDF was intereseted in getting the facts out, they may want to let foreign reporters into Gaza.

I think their interest in OPSEC probably outweighs their interest in having the war accurately covered.