Ha'aretz's Amira Hass pulls out the stiletto to take up the case of a poor, innocent Gaza resident, Ahmed Samur, who lost his son and business due to what Hass wants the reader to think is questionable targeting or error. Hass's information comes from 'B'tselem and the Mazan center for human rights'. There is a video of this strike which has been seen by many on YouTube (linked below and in the Ha'aretz article) which according to the IDF shows Gazans loading Grad rockets into a truck. Hass, citing the "human rights" organizations say Samur, his son and other workers were loading welding equipment into trucks to remove it from his shop which was next door to a building that had been bombed. {Why YouTube didn't pull this video unlike other IAF bombing videos remains a mystery).
The article details the account as recalled by Samur. What is the reader supposed to think? Poor fellow. Bad Jew. Evil Israeli. Incompetent military. Cowboy pilot. Lost his son for nothing. Gaza operation out of control. Is it worth the price?
It isn't until the very end of the article, the third to last and second to last paragraphs where someone wanting to accuse the IDF of foul play or turn others sour on the operation - a part of the article which might be missed we find this printed:
Haaretz asked the IDF spokesperson if the video depicts the truck in question, and was told "the truck's contents were taken from a building that was housing ammunition and rockets."
No one in Gaza has denied that the building is used for the construction and firing of Qassam rockets, but there are many targets hit by the IAF whose military importance is unclear at best. For instance, a small, empty building in the middle of a playground in the Shabura refugee camp in Rafah which was blown up by the IAF two days ago, in an attack that left two dead.
Uhm, what was that? You mean the building next to the workshop was a Qassam factory and launching base? You mean Hamas placed a Qassam factory and fired rockets next door to a non-combatant's workshop (provided he, Samur, is really non-combatant)? I would think that next door to a pipe welding shop would be a very convenient location for a Qassam factory.
Be that as it may, it seems, Ha'aretz missed the story (surprise). Here we have a first hand account of Israel's accusation that the Hamas barbarians are committing a crime against humanity and intentionally trying to cause "civilian" casualties. The use of civilians as human shields is an act of barbarism. The Hass story inadvertently is the best evidence as to why Israel must not only destroy Hamas from the air but root it out, in a massive door to door ground offensive. The Hass story should be heralded all over the world as a pro-war article. Hamas is abusing its own people and we have 'B'tselem and the Mazan center for human rights' to thank for the just cause argument. See Charles Krauthammer - The Necessity of Israel for more background.
Just before midnight, on December 29, the Israel Defense Forces Spokesman's Office posted an urgent headline on its Web site: Truck packed with weapons attacked near Jabalya.
The subheadline went on to read: "At around 6 P.M., the Israel Air Force attacked a Hamas truck carrying dozens of Grad rockets."
According to the article, the rockets in the truck caused a secondary explosion, shooting pieces of weaponry in all directions. The rockets were being transferred, said the article, due to militants' fear that their present storehouse would be attacked by the IAF, as well as to be put to use for launching at Israel.
The article was accompanied by a video just over 2 minutes showing the IAF's perspective from the sky, until just a moment before the explosion. The video shows 15 white figures casually milling between two vehicles. Three long black objects appear between their hands and the white figures lay these objects down on what seems to be a truck. The second vehicle takes off at a certain point and suddenly an explosion sounds and flames cover the screen. An eyewitness said the explosion was caused by an overhead drone.
Human rights groups' investigations, however, present a different testimony altogether.
According to B'tselem and the Mazan center for human rights, the truck belongs to Ahmed Samur, 55, and is still standing, burnt, beside his workshop in the Jabaliya refugee camp. Next to it hang scorched oxygen balloons, a blade and cables. Nobody dares move the truck or the accompanying accoutrements for fear that the UAVs filming every detail from above will bomb whoever approaches.
"Everything is still there on the ground," said Samur on Thursday. "We only moved the dead."
Just three hours before the attack, Samur's daughter told him that she had heard on the local radio that a house next to his workship had been bombed.
He immediately got into his Mercedes truck, along with his son and a few neighbors and relatives, and went to the workshop to see the damage.
They were shocked to discover that the neighboring house had collapsed onto his workshop and decided to pack up the expensive tools and take them home before they could be looted.
On the first round, they brought home a drill, a welding torch, a scale, other tools and a gas balloon for cooking. Then they went back to the workshop to pack up the rest: three of six oxygen balloons used for welding, two jerrycans filled with benzene and two filled with diesel.
As Samir's son Imad organized the tools in the truck, his brother-in-law packed his own smaller car with 50 packages of welding electrodes, 4 kilograms each, and drove off.
Samur himself stood on the other side of the street to keep the dust particles from the burning nearby house from flying into his lungs. He looked at the youths packing the truck and was reminded of working bees in a honeycomb - this was just before 5 P.M., he estimates.
"Suddenly I saw a flash of light next to my truck and then it caught fire and I heard the sound of an explosion. I started to run toward the blast, and when I got close and the smoke cleared, I saw bodies, one of them belonging to my son Imad. I fainted. When I woke up they told me that Imad and the seven other young people who were helping him had been killed," he recounted.
Speaking to Haaretz by phone, Samur said: "These were not Hamas, they were our children, and I will tell you their names. Imad Samur, 32; Ashraf al-Dabar, 30; Mahmoud Rabayan, 15; Rami Rabayan, 23; Ahmed Hila, 19; Mohammed Mahdi, 17; Wissam Eid, 14; Mohammed Haber, 20. Four others were hurt, two of them seriously: Bilal Rabayan, 19 and his brother Baha, 16.
"You have experts and smart people in Israel," he said. "They should come and check my truck and the oxygen balloons. They should see that they were not Grad missiles and they were not anything else. You people are saying they burnt a big truck filled with Grads. Well come and see for yourself."
Haaretz asked the IDF spokesperson if the video depicts the truck in question, and was told "the truck's contents were taken from a building that was housing ammunition and rockets."
No one in Gaza has denied that the building is used for the construction and firing of Qassam rockets, but there are many targets hit by the IAF whose military importance is unclear at best. For instance, a small, empty building in the middle of a playground in the Shabura refugee camp in Rafah which was blown up by the IAF two days ago, in an attack that left two dead.
Mazan said the unending IAF attacks have made it very difficult to determine how many of the targets hit were military and which were civilian.
Sources in Iraq's Defense Ministry say for past month Israel using American bases to conduct overflights as part of rehearsal for possible bombing or Iranian nuclear facilities
Roee Nahmias Published: 07.11.08, 11:54 / Israel News
Israeli fighter jets have been flying over Iraqi territory for over a month in preparation for potential strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, sources in the Iraqi Defense Ministry told a local news network Friday, adding that the aircraft have been landing in American bases following the overflights.
Word of Israel's alleged Air Force maneuvers in Iraq has reached Iran. The sources said the US has boosted security in and around the bases used by Israel during the exercises.
According to the Defense Ministry officials, retired Iraqi army officers in the Al Anbar district reported that fighter jets have been regularly entering Iraqi airspace from Jordan and landing at the airport near Haditha.
The sources estimated that should the Israeli jets take off from the American bases it would take them no more than five minutes to reach Iran's nuclear reactor in Bushehr.
American officials said recently that more than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters took part in maneuvers over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece in the first week of June, apparently a rehearsal for a potential bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities.
The IAF using American airbases in Iraq to prepare for an attack on Iran? For anyone who doubts that the relationship between Israel and the US is strong, this story should put an end to such doubt. Given the combination of a strategic relationship with a common threat, the report appears highly credible. Why would the US allow an IAF attack to originate from bases in Iraq, a country which still is not very fond of Israelis and will be placed in harm's way during an Iranian retaliation to occur unless the need is great and the relationship tight? The clear advantage for Israel in the closer range is sortie time and turn around time taking considerable pressure of the pilots.
The likely results of an Israeli attack on Iran would be a missile strike response on American positions in Iraq along with a medium range missile attack on Israel. How effective the missile defense systems will be in limiting the damage remains an uncertainty. While I am not an expert in missile systems, I would welcome feedback from readers to the question, would US anti-missile systems be capable of launching against Iranian missiles targeted against Israel (presumably over-flying Iraqi airspace? I might speculate yes. And, moving the launch point to Iraq possibly draws fire away from Israel, a calculation most likely responded to by the Iranians this week with their declaration that an Israeli attack will be met with missiles fired at Tel Aviv.
Most telling though, is the strategic calculation that the US and Israel have made. Israel is counting on Iran directing counter attacks against US positions in the region. But what if, Iran only counter-attacks specifically against Israel? Thus, we have the Condi Rice quotes from this week saying the US will defend her allies in the region. Israel is counting upon an Iranian strike on US targets in order to draw the US (with a US wink and nod approval) into the conflict, giving George W. Bush Jr. every opportunity to fire back without appearing to have started shooting first. This sort of attack needs sustained bombing possibly up to a couple of weeks worth, not only to inflict significant damage to the Iranian nuclear (nuklar) program but to knock out Iran's ability to defend her airspace, launch missiles, maintain effective communication, command and control, political targets, etc., and generally keep Iran from sustaining an organized and meaningful counter attack based upon full tactical capacity.
Such a sustained offensive cannot be managed by an IAF with other responsibilities (northern border for instance) and a limitation of aircraft and manpower. It requires the hundreds of combat aircraft and personnel available only to the USAF and USN. The IAF only holds approximately 127 of the most advanced variants of the F-16i and F-15i (pictured below) although there are reportedly approximately 230 older model F-16s available and maybe 65 older variants of F-15 available Global Security - IAF inventory. APRPEH has speculated for some time that the Israeli Navy's submarine launched cruise missile capability may make the difference in the expected attack, taking a lead role in fact. If Iran does counter attack with medium range missiles, don't be surprised if Israel launches Jericho missiles in response. The advantage of the cruise missile strike is that it keeps pilots fresh for when you need them and the missiles are of course highly accurate. They would, however, only be useful as penetration support, IE, knocking out radars, anti-aircraft systems, command and control, etc, where the targets are not hardened or buried.
However, it is the unexpected which, as in all military operations, is scary. Iranian blocking of the Strait of Hormuz, preventing access from the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea and disrupting the free flow of oil is now a well known expected response from Iran, one for which the US Navy has certainly (we hope) prepared a plan to prevent. At the very least half sinking a couple of oil filled supertankers and igniting them would most certainly cause a huge spike in world wide oil prices and delay enough of a percentage in the total supply of world oil to cause a panic and result in international pressure to condemn Israel and force the US to back off. What else may Iran have planned? Terrorist dooms day cell activated? Hezbollah attack? More northern kidnappings? Unexpected sympathy move by Hamas? Iranian F-14 loaded with bombs on a suicide flight against US targets? What, if any of the Iranian air force will fly against the US and Israeli aircraft is also an unknown.
All such calculations those that can be presumed have certainly been presumed. The question returns to the cost of not acting in the future to the short term cost of acting to stop Iran today. Bush will act. McCain probably would act. Obama, probably not. For this reason, Israel must plan her strike now and execute it before November 4th and at the very latest before the official hand off of the US Presidency at noon (EST), January 20, 2009.
Having just engaged in a very physical world discussion, I would like to end by bringing this around the other way, to the true strength of the Jewish people. It is our prayer and faith which obliges HaShem to remember us in the good times and the bad. It is our eyes and voices lifted up, unified, and directed in prayer and purpose which characterizes the Jewish way. It is HaShem in charge of all events, no less now than in the past and all events have a purpose. Should the events described above take place it is important to focus on the understanding for which we are required to strive, the achdus we are required to build, and the emuna in our Creator we must hold above us, no matter what the results.
It is my concern that in these times of such division amongst the Jewish people that HaShem could judge us for a significant dose of onesh intent on driving us back together and bringing us closer to our mission, not a mission demonstrating military capability but to make this world a dwelling place for Him. If removing the Iranian threat is a function of that mission, Israel will certainly prevail, if not, who knows.
Since I am no navi and I am not in the business of prophecy, such words are mere speculation. It is however, my prayer that the Jewish people rally around our calling, to open our hearts to his Torah and raise our voices in prayer and learning to make this world a dwelling place for HaShem. When we do so, the threats that currently face us will vanish.
Children's Poetry Booklet Recalled After Arabs Complain (Israeli censorship kowtows to Arabs. When Will We Tell The Truth Without Fear)
(IsraelNN.com 7 Sivan 5768/June 10, '08) Ynet's web site and Arab complaints against a ten-year-old boy's poem about terrorists has resulted in the recall of all of the Nes Ziona municipality's children's poetry booklets.
Ynet boasts that its coverage of the poem resulted in its being recalled.
The text of the poem (Ynet's translation):
Ahmed's bunker has surprises galore: Grenades, rifles are hung on the wall. Ahmed is planning another bombing!What a bunker Ahmed has, who causes daily harm.Ahmed knows how to make a bomb. Ahmed is Ahmed, that's who he is, so don't forget to be careful of him.We get blasted while they have a blast!Ahmed and his friends could be wealthy and sunny, if only they wouldn't buy rockets with all their money.
Poetry competition director Marika Berkowitz, who published the booklet, was surprised at the protests and told Ynet: "This is the boy's creation and this is what he wanted to express. Of course there should be a limit, but I think the there is no racism here. 'Ahmed' is a general term for the enemy. These are the murmurings of an innocent child."
The Education Ministry told Ynet: "The local authority that published the booklet should have guided the students in a more correct manner through the schools. The district will investigate the issue with the local authorities."
The Bare Basic Facts of the History of Palestine. Louis Rene Beres - Feb 21, 2009 The Jewish Press President Barack Obama has already placed the Middle East at the very top of his foreign policy agenda. There is nothing inherently wrong with this - quite the contrary. The problem, however, is that the new administration's ambitious negotiations remain structured upon altogether erroneous assumptions. In this connection, the gravest continuing misrepresentation of all is that there are Arab lands under an Israeli occupation.
Today, as always, words matter. Over the years, a notably durable Arab patience in building Palestine upon whole mountains of Jewish corpses has drawn directly upon a prior linguistic victory. Yet, the still generally unchallenged language referring provocatively to an Israeli occupation always overlooks the pertinent and logically incontestable history of the West Bank (Judea/Samaria) and Gaza.
Perhaps the most evident omission still concerns the precise and unwitting manner in which these Territories fell into Israel's hands in the first place. Here it is simply and widely disregarded that occupation followed the multi-state Arab state aggression of 1967. Egypt Syria or Jordan, of course, never disguised this aggression.
A sovereign state of Palestine did not exist before 1967 or 1948. Nor, did UN Security Council Resolution 242 ever promise a state of Palestine. Contrary to popular understanding, a state of Palestine has never existed. Never. Even as a non-state legal entity Palestine ceased to exist m 1948 when Great Britain relinquished its League of Nations mandate. During the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence (a war of survival fought because the entire Arab world had rejected the authoritative United Nations resolution creating a Jewish State), the West Bank and Gaza came under flagrantly illegal control of Jordan and Egypt, respectively. These Arab conquests did not put an end to an already-existing state or to an ongoing trust territory. What these aggressions did accomplish was the effective prevention, sui generis, (Being the only example of its kind; unique) of a state of Palestine.
Let us return to an earlier history. From the Biblical Period (ca 1350 BCE to 586 BCE) to the British Mandate (1918 - 1948), the land, named by the Romans after the ancient Philistines was controlled only by non-Palestinian elements. Significantly, however, a continuous chain of Jewish possession of the land was legally recognized after World War I at the San Remo Peace Conference of April 1920. There, a binding treaty was signed in which Great Britain was given mandatory authority over Palestine (the area had been ruled by the Ottoman Turks since 1516) to prepare it to become the national home for the Jewish People. Palestine, according to the Treaty comprised territories encompassing what are now the Jordan and Israel, including the West Bank and Gaza.
Present day Israel comprises only 22 percent of Palestine as defined and ratified at the San Remo Peace Conference. In 1922, Great Britain unilaterally and without any lawful authority split off 78 percent of the lands promised to the Jews - all of Palestine east of the Jordan - and gave it to Abdullah, the non-Palestinian son of the Sharif of Mecca. Eastern-Palestine now took the name Transjordan, which it retained until April 1949, when it was renamed as Jordan. From the moment of its creation, Transjordan was closed to all Jewish migration and settlement - a clear betrayal of the British promise in the Balfour Declaration of 1917, and a patent contravention of its Mandatory obligations under international law.
On July 20, 1951, a Palestinian Arab assassinated King Abdullah for the latter's hostility to Palestinian aspirations and concerns. Regarding these aspirations, Jordan's moderate King Hussein - 19 years later, during September 1970 - brutally murdered thousands of defenseless Palestinians under his jurisdiction. In 1947, several years prior to Abdullah's killing, the newly-formed United Nations, rather than designate the entire land west of the Jordan River as the long-promised Jewish national homeland, enacted a second partition. Curiously, because this second fission again gave complete advantage to Arab interests, Jewish leaders accepted the painful judgment.
As readers of The Jewish Press already know all too well, the Arab states did not. On May 15, 1948, exactly 24 hours after the State of Israel came into existence, Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, declared to a tiny new country founded upon the ashes of the Holocaust: This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre. This unambiguous declaration of genocide has been at the core of all subsequent Arab orientations toward Imoderate' Fatah. Even, by the strict legal standards of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Arab actions and attitudes toward the microscopic Jewish state in their midst, has remained patently devoted to the annhilation of Israel. For some reason, this persistence has repeatedly been made to appear benign. However, President Obama and Senator Mitchell now have a clear obligation to look behind these propagandistic appearances.
In 1967, almost 20 years alter Israel's entry into the community of states, the Jewish state, as a result of its unexpected military victory over Arab aggressor states, gained unintended control over West Bank and Gaza. Although the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war is properly codified in the UN Charter, there existed no authoritative sovereign to whom the Territories could be returned. Israel could hardly have been expected to transfer them back to Jordan and Egypt, which had exercised unauthorized and terribly cruel control since the Arab-initiated war of extermination in 1948-49. Moreover, the idea of Palestinian self-determination had only just begun to emerge after the Six-Day War, and, significantly, had not even been included in UN Security Council Resolution 242 which was adopted on November 22, 1967.
For their part, the Arab states convened a summit in Khartoum in August 1967, concluding "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it." The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was formed three years earlier, in 1964, before there were any Israeli Occupied Territories. Exactly what was it, therefore that the PLO sought to liberate between 1964 and 1967? This critical question should now be considered by Barack Obama's special envoy to the region, Senator George Mitchell.
This has been a very brief account of essential historic reasons why the so-called Palestinian Territories are not occupied by Israel. Several other equally valid reasons stem from Israel's intrinsic legal right to security and self-defense. As I have said so often in this column, international law is not a suicide pact. Because a Palestinian state would severely threaten the very existence of Israel- a fact that remains altogether unhidden even in the Arab media and governments - the Jewish State is under no binding obligation to-end a falsely alleged occupation. No state, not even a Jewish one, can ever be required to accept complicity in its own dismemberment.
No doubt, both President Obama and Senator Mitchell want to be fair and evenhanded in their developing plans for the Middle East. To meet this obligation, however, it is essential that they first build all pertinent negotiations upon a firm foundation of historical accuracy and ethical truth. This means, at a minimum, the aspiring US peacemakers must familiarize themselves with correct history, and not simply allow themselves to be swallowed up with their many predecessors in ritualistic dogma and empty platitudes.
LOUIS RENE BERES was educated at Princeton (Ph D, 1971) and is a long-time expert in international relations and international law.
Posts
