Bulletin from Planet Pogrom
Yesterday, Ha’aretz reported (as did the Telegraph today) official Palestinian casualty figures for Operation Cast Lead released by the Israel Defence Force, which I reported below.
Those figures -- 1,370 fatalities of whom 600 were terrorists and 309 innocent civilians, of whom 189 were children under the age of 15 -- were attributed to the IDF’s Coordination and Liaison Authority for the Gaza Strip. But today, the IDF put out a different set of figures which it said were produced by the Research Department of the Israel Defence Intelligence. This said there were 1166 fatalities, 709 of them terrorists and 295 uninvolved civilians, 89 of them under the age of 16, and 49 of them women.
Well, which set of figures is the final authoritative tally? What is the IDF doing putting out two different sets of figures on consecutive days – and when so much mischief is being made on this issue?
The Telegraph, meanwhile, chose to spin the Wednesday figures in this way:
Israel’s armed forces admitted on Wednesday that 189 Palestinian children under the age of 15 were killed during the assault on the Gaza Strip (my emphasis).
Whether it was 189 or 89 children, this was too many; every such casualty is to be regretted. But in war, the innocent do get killed. To say that only a figure of zero civilian fatalities is acceptable is to say that no country can ever go to war to defend its civilians against
aggressive attack. But of course no-one does say that. The media pay virtually no attention at all to civilian casualties in any other conflict. In Afghanistan, for example, untold numbers of civilians are being killed in air strikes which are truly indiscriminate.
Yet no newspapers or NGOs are leaping up and down about those. There is virtually no media interest whatever in the civilian casualties in Afghanistan. It is only Israel whose figures are so incendiary – and so inflated; it is only Israel which is not to be allowed to kill any civilians or children in war; thus it is only Israel which is not to be allowed to defend itself; and thus those who single it out in this way are effectively saying they are content for Israel to be wiped out.
And in this particular war in Gaza, only the bigoted can ignore (as they will) these points: that the number of child casualties was greatly inflated by the Hamas strategy of deliberately placing their children in harm’s way, in order that they should be killed as ‘martyrs’; and that 189 – let alone 89 -- children out of a total fatality figure of 1370 is extremely low, remarkably so when one considers that more than half the population of Gaza is said to be children. So if, as the bigots claim, Israel had been indiscriminately killing civilians, the child fatality figure would have been around 750. The fact that it was as low as it was relative to the population demonstrates the truth of the repeated IDF assertion that it was doing everything it could to avoid killing civilians.
The IDF has also now released the preliminary results of its investigation into the allegation by Human Rights Watch that it made indiscriminate use of white phosphorus in civilian areas contrary to international law. The IDF says:
This particular investigation is dealing with the use of ammunition containing elements of phosphorous, including, amongst others, the 155mm smoke shells which were referred to in the Human Rights Watch report. This type of ammunition disperses in the atmosphere and creates an effective smoke screen. It is used by many Western armies.
The investigation is close to conclusion, and based on the findings at this stage, it is already possible to conclude that the IDF’s use of smoke shells was in accordance with international law. These shells were used for specific operational needs only and in accord with international humanitarian law. The claim that smoke shells were used indiscriminately, or to threaten the civilian population, is baseless.
It should be noted that contrary to the claims in the report, smoke shells are not an incendiary weapon. The third protocol of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) - which defines particular limitations on incendiary weapons - makes it clear that weapons intended for screening are not classed as incendiary weapons. The State of Israel is not a signatory of the third protocol, however, in any, case, as noted this protocol does not ban the use of smoke shells for the purpose of screening.
This accords, by the way, with the Red Cross statement that there was no evidence that Israel had used white phosphorus unlawfully. It was, however, Hamas that fired at least one white phosphorus rocket specifically and deliberately at Israeli civilians and thus broke (again) the law of war – a fact that HRW unaccountably fails to mention.
NGO Monitor provides some context to explain that HRW hardly has a track record of objectivity or even rationality:
HRW’s record exhibits a strong anti-Israel bias. Its reporting in 2008 reflected the portrayal of Israel as the second worst abuser of human rights in the Middle East. Even before the renewal of the military conflict on December 27, 2008, HRW focused disproportionately on Gaza: 18 out of 27 HRW statements in 2008 dealing with Israel addressed Gaza, accusing Israel of ‘collective punishment,’ ‘continued occupation,’ and contributing to a ‘humanitarian crisis’ – charges that are inconsistent with international law and lack supporting evidence.
HRW also has a history of inaccurate reporting. During the Second Lebanon War (2006), HRW promoted the myth of a Qana massacre, inflating the death toll to 54, although officials knew at the time that the Red Cross was only reporting 28 casualties. HRW eventually retracted its false report. Similarly, HRWs major report on the conflict, ‘Fatal Strikes’ (August 2006), claimed the NGO ‘found no cases in which Hezbollah deliberately used civilians’ - i.e., operated from civilian areas - despite a wealth of documentary and video proof of the extensive Hezbollah activity in many of the specific villages where HRW claimed it was absent. Nine out of 21 cases described in ‘Fatal Strikes’ were contradicted by later HRW reports - a remarkable inaccuracy rate of 43% - even before independent analysis of the evidence.
The latest report on the use of white phosphorus continues HRW's pattern, including:
- Complete omission of the context of the broader conflict, including Hamas' deliberate exploitation of civilian areas to launch attacks. For example, HRW claims that there was no Hamas activity around the Al-Quds Hospital in Tel al-Hawa, yet, a Gazan ambulance driver reported that Hamas operatives ‘made several attempts to hijack the Al-Qud’s Hospital’s fleet of ambulances.’ In another instance, HRW alleges there was ‘no indication’ of ‘Palestinian armed groups’ operating in Beit Lahiya; photographic evidence shows Hamas fortifications in the town.
- Reliance on Palestinian eye witnesses whose credibility or links to Hamas cannot be verified: ‘Palestinian de-miners showed Human Rights Watch an additional 48 shells that they said they had removed from civilian areas, although the precise location where they found these shells is unclear. It is unlikely that the de-miners collected any of these shells from open areas near the Gaza-Israel armistice line.’
- The main claim of ‘evidence of war crimes’ stems from HRW's allegation that the IDF intended to ‘willfully-that is, deliberately or recklessly’ harm civilians (despite a complete absence of evidence regarding IDF motives).
- The authors include Marc Garlasco, who has a significant record of anti-Israel bias in reporting at HRW; Fares Akram, who publicly stated ‘I am finding it hard to distinguish between what the Israelis call terrorists and the Israeli pilots and tank crews who are invading Gaza;’ and Darryl Li, whose inflammatory pseudo-legal arguments published in the pro-Palestinian propaganda journal, MERIP, describes Gaza as a ‘bantustan, internment camp, animal pen.’
- HRW extensively relies on Palestinian NGO Al Mezan, thanking them in the report. Among other claims, Al Mezan lists a child as deceased, who was subsequently interviewed by Garlasco in Gaza.
- The report reflects HRW’s inconsistent definition of ‘human shield.’ When reporting on Sri Lanka, HRW condemns the LTTE for ‘deploy[ing] their forces close to civilians, thus using them as “human shields.”’ Yet in Gaza, HRW claims that it ‘found no evidence of Hamas using human shields in the vicinity at the time of the attacks’ despite the fact that ‘In some areas Palestinian fighters appear to have been present…’
Final news for today from Planet Pogrom is this loathesome cartoon by Oliphant in the New York Times, which appears to have had its Der Sturmer moment. Barry Rubin deconstructs the image here, making this core point:
The cartoonist doesn’t hate Jews; he probably doesn’t even hate Israelis. What is involved here is a lack of understanding so enormous that it will both incite hatred; cause violence and death; and block policies needed to help people—including Palestinians who, are supposedly the object of its sympathy but thus doomed to suffer under a repressive regime with a permanent war policy. Antisemitism? Ask not for whom the bell tolls because Israel, the canary in the mine—the one who first they came for—can tell you that you are all next.
Previous
Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Alex Massie | Coffee House | Faith Based
Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (36)
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Popular Blog Posts
1 The danger for the Lib Dems - James Forsyth
2 Ignore the European Court and deport Abu Qatada tonight - Douglas Murray
3 The strange survival of Labour England - Fraser Nelson
1 Ignore the European Court and deport Abu Qatada tonight - Douglas Murray (82)
2 Don’t let’s be beastly to the bankers - Fraser Nelson (71)
3 An Israeli strike on Iran? - Daniel Korski (66)
4 We must be honest about honour killings - William Maxwell (55)
5 The government will have to fight for Lords reform - James Forsyth (39)
Search this blog
Melanie Phillips is a Daily Mail columnist. She also writes for the Jewish Chronicle and is a panellist on BBC Radio Four's Moral Maze. Her most recent book is 'The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth and Power', published by Encounter.
For a complete set of Melanie's articles click here
Melanie Phillips blog archive
sponsored links
JEWELLERY: C.N.A RUFF LTD
Are you making the right impression?
THE PRESENT FINDER
1,700 Unusual Christmas Presents Request Catalogue 01935 815 195 Quote SPEC10 for 10% discount www.presentfinder.co.uk
OLIVE BRANCH FLORISTS
Pimilco based Florist with online ordering Web: www.olivebranch.net Tel: 020 7630 1868 Fax: 020 7233 8844
Apollo Magazine | Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2012 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
George Laird
March 26th, 2009 10:44pmDear Ms Phillips
Let us focus on the 189 dead children.
Let us start with how many do you think were accidental?
How many do you think were deliberate acts of murder?
Since you are putting yourself forward as some kind of unoffical witness and spokeswoman, it is time to take the stand and answer the questions.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
George
March 27th, 2009 4:28amGeorge Laird,
I will answer your question. From the Israeli point of view, every death of a child is a tragic accident. No Israeli soldier (and I speak as a retired IDF reservist and father of two officers in the IDF) would deliberately target children. It was Hamas who deliberately placed these children in harms way and it is Hamas - and ONLY Hamas - who is responsible for their deaths. If anybody should be charged with murder, it is Hamas.
Miranda Rose Smith
March 27th, 2009 7:05amDear Mr. Laird: How many of the 189 Arab children killed were deliberate acts of murder? A very easy question to answer: 0.
Miranda Rose Smith
March 27th, 2009 7:09amSomething Barry Rubin obviously doesn't realize: Israel hating liberals don't care if the "Palestinians" live in Hasasitan, and they don't care-I've said this before-if Europe, where a lot of them live, is next on the Islamofascist hit list.
israel
March 27th, 2009 8:11amAn "Impartial" report from the IDF? Why not just get Sam "not really Joe, not really a plumber" Wurzelbacher to write it instead? It would have the same validity.
Miranda Rose Smith
March 27th, 2009 8:23amDear George: BRAVO!!!
john
March 27th, 2009 8:38am"it is time to take the stand and answer the questions." Would Mr. Laird listen to the answers? Certainly not. What Mr. Laird wants is a show trial. In true communist style.
Carl
March 27th, 2009 9:23amGeorge, what you claim is patently untrue. The IDF have demonstrated time and time again that they have no concern for Palestinian lives. When they are caught out by the international media, they deny or if even for them, the lie is too big, they hold an enquiry that always comes to the conclusion that it was a tragic accident or some such lie.
Dvar Dea
March 27th, 2009 11:58amI’d like, again, to try and add my old link regarding the HRW review of the Gaza beach blast of 2006.
http://www.geocities.com/activezionism/Gazabeachblast.html
As for the discussion at hand I’d like to add another point for thought. Are all the civilian death caused by the IDF? Isn’t it possible that some by Palestinian gunman, accidentally at least?
stanley Jerusalem
March 27th, 2009 1:59pmAny comment on the extensive booby-trapping of private homes in Gaza by Hamas. Naturally the occupants were still in residence. Perhaps some socially-minded Hamas operative showed them where to walk to avoid the detonation. That includes some public buildings, schools and hospitals. So if the IDF wouldn't have blown them up guess who steps forward?
To the disbelievers, watch the video footage from Hamas as well as the IDF. There are wires everywhere. What sane civilised authority does that to their own, I ask you? And yet they still refuse to accept what's staring them in the face. Why do we bother? Why?
Wm. Hazlitt
March 27th, 2009 2:01pmI am intrigued as to which contributions appear and which simply disappear.
I earlier said that Melanie Phillips is right to object to the lack of protest about civilians killed by the US and UK in Afghanistan. It is shaming that they commit these crimes with impunity.
(I take it her point is not that, as with Afghanistan, so with Gaza, we should keep quiet.)
There is ultimately something disturbing - inhuman - about Melanie Phillips' determination to demonstrate that fewer children were killed than if it had been done pro rata (given that 50% of the population are children); that males over 15 years and under 18 years can be assumed to be combatants regardless, and therefore killed; that new police graduates at a passing out parade are combatants, unlike elsewhere in the world, and can be killed; that film of white phosphorus falling outside a school while civilians flee, and film of children being burnt unstoppably are evidence that the phosphorus was used in compliance with international standards; that fleschettes and DIME bombs are standard ordnance in populated areas (just as cluster bombs and depleted uranium are in Lebanon)...the list goes on and on.
Melanie Phillips' ethics, insofar as they are to be judged by her performance on this question of caualties, are so partial as to cease to be ethical.
Eadora
March 27th, 2009 2:09pmTrying to post a comment here
Reject twice - whats the problem?
George Laird
March 27th, 2009 3:05pmDear All
Thank you for the replies, particularly those who are deniers.
I wonder if they also deny the Holocaust?
John at 8.38 am states;
"Would Mr. Laird listen to the answers? Certainly not".
The ability to give an answer is not the issue, the issue is whether it is the truth.
As to George's point at 4.28 am;
"It was Hamas who deliberately placed these children in harms way and it is Hamas - and ONLY Hamas - who is responsible for their deaths".
Do Hamas have the ability to predict where Israeli artillery shells will land?
According to Melanie and her defence of Israeli tactics; they cannot.
If the Israeli can't do it and they are firing the things then pray tell how can Hamas?
Also can George explain the targeting of the UN buildings and the destroying of humanitarian aid?
I am interested George, why so many "accidents"?
I have read accounts of previous "accidents" were Israelis snipers have shot children through the head.
How can a sniper with telescopic sights accidential shoot a child with a head shot? Soldiers are taught to hit the largest mass which the torso.
Perhaps George can tell us all about the high accident rate of the Israeli Army from his days.
Finally; is it not amazing that claims are made but the witness will not take the stand?
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
ahad ha'amoratsim
March 27th, 2009 3:41pm"George, what you claim is patently untrue. The IDF have demonstrated time and time again that they have no concern for Palestinian lives. "
Carl, the IDF has demonstrated much more concern for Palestinian lives than Fatah or Hamas has, and much more concern for the truth than you ever have.
Adam B.
March 27th, 2009 8:36pmGeorge Laird, on which human rights issues in the Middle East do you campaign, other than Gaza?
Indigo121
March 27th, 2009 9:19pmDear George Laird
A simple question- if you care so much about human rights, how about sharing your thoughts on Hamas?
Waiting for your reply.
Wm. Hazlitt
March 28th, 2009 10:21amI think we can put a stop to this obscene discussion of how many children can be killed consistent with "purity" of arms.
Imagine what we witnessed was not in Gaza but in Tel Aviv. The assailants insist with injured innocence that they did not kill children pro rata, they were very restrained, and anyway the children were in apartment blocks beside IDF gun emplacements. And a rigourous investigation had confirmed that the munitions were used as is customary the world over on the battlefield, and the assailants had designated Tel Aviv as a battlefield because there were members of the IDF located there. And the phosphorus was used to create a smokescreen, not to burn the flesh of civilians, although it also does that rather well. And these Israelis have got to learn not to support governments that pursue aggressive policies against their neighbours...Imagine Melanie Phillips' reaction.
Let us stop this frenzy of justification for the slaughter of innocents. More important now is how to avoid further slaughter, and that requires a just settlement, which requires Israel to give up some (not all) of what it has taken.
Linda Smith
March 28th, 2009 11:55amWm Hazlitt: "Let us stop this frenzy of justification for the slaughter of innocents. More important now is how to avoid further slaughter, and that requires a just settlement, which requires Israel to give up some (not all) of what it has taken."
It also requires Hamas (Iran's proxy) to recognise Israel as a Sovereign State and renounce it's raison d'etre, its intention to murder all the Jews on the Planet and to create a worldwide Caliphate
Ditto Hizbollah.
You are, as a Westerner, irrationally one-sided in all your posts?
George Laird
March 28th, 2009 2:48pmDear Adam B.
I have point this out before but for you I will do so again because it is obvious you are the type of individual who needs to be told the same thing repeatedly.
You write what you want to write about and I will write what I want to write about.
Have I made my position clear?
If not then please feel free to ask the same question again so that the board can understand that you cannot understand written English.
Hope this helps.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
Wm. Hazlitt
March 28th, 2009 2:49pmLinda Smith,
It is good of you to agree to move on to the question of negotiation, and away from the justification of slaughter.
The way to deal with Hamas and Hizballah is, I'm afraid, to negotiate with them, not demonise them. Just as the state of Israel does not enact every commandment of the more extreme Jewish fundamentalists, so the Islamists, and certainly the majority of Palestinians, will not support the more bizarre outpourings of radical Islamism when a serious proposal is put to them seriously, and once they have been convinced that they can finally trust Israel (which will take time).
In reaching ceasefire agreements, Israel has already had enough recognition from Hamas for serious negotiations to begin - as the Israeli authorities well know.
Hamas and Hizballah are not Iran's proxies so much as Iran is their sponsor - they have their own agenda, not identical with Iran's. Iran is behaving as any other regional power. Its own strategic interests come first, and advancing its strategic interests requires realism.
I am addressing a supporter of Israel, so it seems otiose to impress upon you that Hamas should do this, that or the other, and anything but otiose to point out the flaws in your argument for putting off serious negotiation.
Indigo121
March 28th, 2009 5:06pmDear George Laird
Still kindly waiting for your opinion on Hamas. just curious.
Labhras
March 28th, 2009 9:59pmAn IDF member uses an 11 yr old palestinian boy as a human shield.He is shot by Hamas.Hamas are guilty.
Hamas uses a child as a human shield and the IDF shoots him.
Hamas is guilty.
The mental elasticity with which the Israeli apologists operate is mind boggling.It denies the existance of logic.
Labhras
March 28th, 2009 10:33pmAll this talk about Israel wanting peace is pure twaddle.
Israel was/is not and never will be interested in making peace.They are far too engrossed in the "peace process".It is the peace process that facilitates the Settlement expansion.
Israel is the worlds greatest supporter of the Middle East peace process.
It is just that they never want it to succeed.
Linda Smith
March 29th, 2009 12:32amWm Hazlitt posted "The way to deal with Hamas and Hizballah is, I'm afraid, to negotiate with them, not demonise them."
Hamas and Hizballah demonise themselves. They are Islamofascists. Hizballah is presently trying to take over Lebanon. They are not interested in creating a second Palestinian State (Jordan is a Palestinian State). They are intent on destroying Israel and creating a worldwide Caliphate.
If Israel wants to negotiate with Hamas and Hezbollah, that's up to them, not Wm Hazlitt and me who are not Israeli citizens.
George
March 29th, 2009 7:42amCarl,
You state: "George, what you claim is patently untrue. The IDF have demonstrated time and time again that they have no concern for Palestinian lives."
Sorry my friend, but you are wrong. If the IDF had no concern for the lives of the Palestinians, the death toll in operation Cast Lead would have been far, far higher.
George
March 29th, 2009 8:01amGeorge Laird,
You ask many questions, which I will attempt to answer in order.
Question 1: "Do Hamas have the ability to predict where Israeli artillery shells will land?
According to Melanie and her defence of Israeli tactics; they cannot.
If the Israeli can't do it and they are firing the things then pray tell how can Hamas?"
Hamas knows full well that the Israelis can detect from where a rocket was fired and that there will be answering fire directed at that location. Artillery fire from a good unit will be accurate to within 50 yards. Based on an average distance of 8 miles from the target, that is an error of 0.355%
Question 2: "Also can George explain the targeting of the UN buildings and the destroying of humanitarian aid?"
Firstly, see the answer to Question 1. Secondly, I am unaware of any instances of Israel specifically targeting humanitarian aid. The occurrences that were reported during operation Cast Lead were proved to be not by Israel.
Question 3: "I am interested George, why so many "accidents"?
I have read accounts of previous "accidents" were Israelis snipers have shot children through the head.
How can a sniper with telescopic sights accidential shoot a child with a head shot? Soldiers are taught to hit the largest mass which the torso.
Perhaps George can tell us all about the high accident rate of the Israeli Army from his days."
All armies have accidents. War is not an exact science. That is why there are also friendly fire incidents, where two units of the SAME army fire on each other.
Having not been a sniper, I don't know what they are taught to aim at. When I did my training, we were taught to aim for the torso, unless the purpose was simply to disable. In such cases, we were taught to aim for the legs BELOW the knee (thus avoiding a fatal hit of the femoral artery). I have never heard of a sniper deliberately targeting an innocent child. I would appreciate it if you could let me know your sources.
Wm. Hazlitt
March 29th, 2009 2:21pmLinda Smith,
I am suitably grateful to you for informing me that whether Israel negotiates with Hamas is up to Israel, not me.
George Laird
March 29th, 2009 5:18pmDear George
"we were taught to aim for the legs BELOW the knee (thus avoiding a fatal hit of the femoral artery)".
Do you have a link to an Israeli army service manual which can justify this statement of yours?
It seems to me that your excuse that the Israeli Army are Tibia and Fibula shooters sounds like nonsense.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
George
March 30th, 2009 3:28amMr. Laird,
No, I don't have a link. You will just have to believe me that I remember what I was taught and that I am telling you the truth.
George Laird
March 30th, 2009 6:06pmDear George
There are very few people that I trust and unfortunately you are not one of the them.
You have to earn trust in this world, it isn't given away like a toy in a box of cornflakes.
I prefer to deal in facts and evidence so that people can't weasel out of the truth.
All you have written in effect is a story about your personal experience.
It maybe true or it may not, however at least you had the decency to admit you don't have a link which is something in your favour.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
Otis Blue
April 2nd, 2009 10:39amAdam B. Waste of time.
fealayhottozy
May 18th, 2010 12:04pmBut youve got to talk to me, I said
Ill remember it when I believe it
SteveHolt
October 22nd, 2010 10:05amTerry Pratchett novels read by Tony Robinson (though they tend to be abridged versions).
Friblepriense
November 4th, 2010 9:44amDo you like to slip remote to the respect of moments when you were children? I usually when I do I think here the flavors of childhood. The flavour of passionate chocolate is the most comely memory.
ExpineeInenry
March 1st, 2011 12:39pmArtistically, I entitled you all again. After my extended presence in the forum is not, I could not find the password to your time-honoured sketch and started a up to date one. I'm pleased as punch that I am again with you.
zeroxtrpo
May 8th, 2011 4:14pmHey guys,
Im new here im sam.
I hope everyone is good!
I look forwards to being active here :)
see you all on the forum