|
tweakabelle -> RE: Propaganda and Israel (12/4/2010 12:04:53 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
[
You seem to be accepting that Israel did hit some civilian targets, while disputing the extent.
Even if we grant the entirety of your post #101 as true ( most of it is irrelevant fluff, but let's just grant it's true) it still fails to answer the questions:
Why does Israel deliberately choose tactics like aerial bombing when it knows there are many many other options available?
Why does Israel deliberately choose tactics like aerial bombing of urban areas when it knows there will inevitably be civilian casualties?
anaxagoras I also refer you to post 74: "The point is that the IDF has conflicting needs like any army. It has a responsibility not to excessively endanger their own troops so it can't send them into a hornets nest without preparing the ground first by weakening Hamas' position, especially since Hamas also has heavy armaments." Aerial bombardment is a standard tactic of war and not inherently a war crime. Despite what you say there is not necessarily other simple option available.
Your defence of Israel's aerial bombing tactics doesn't include any consideration of civilian casualties . Indeed civilian casualties don't even get a mention. let a alone consideration. Which is, to large extent, confirmation of my point. And, I suspect, and an accurate reflection of Israeli military planning re the Palestinians - Palestinian civilian lives and/or casualties just don't matter to the Israelis.
So let's look at how this pans out in practice:
"Main article: 2009 Ibrahim al-Maqadna Mosque strike
The report stated that the strike on the al-Maqadmah mosque on the outskirts of Jabilyah occurred when between 200 and 300 men and women attended for their evening prayer, with 15 people being killed and 40 wounded as a result of the attack. The Mission has established that the Israeli armed forces fired a missile that struck near the doorway of the mosque. The Mission found that the mosque was damaged and lodged in its interior walls with "small metal cubes", several of which were retrieved by the Mission when it inspected the site. The Mission concluded that the mosque had been hit by an air-to-ground missile fitted with a shrapnel fragmentation sleeve, fired from an aircraft. The Mission based its findings on investigation of the site, photographs and interviewing witnesses. The Mission found no indications that the mosque was used to launch rockets, store munitions or shelter combatants. The Mission also found that no other damage was done in the area at the time, making the attack an isolated incident. The Mission concluded that the Israelis intentionally bombed the mosque.[4][79] Judge Goldstone said: "Assuming that weapons were stored in the mosque, it would not be a war crime to bomb it at night... It would be a war crime to bomb it during the day when 350 people are praying". He further added that there is no other possible interpretation for what could have occurred other than a deliberate targeting of civilians.[71] The report also reproduces a statement from the Israeli government concerning the attack, where the Israeli government both denies that the mosque was attacked and states that the casualties of the attack were Hamas operatives. The report says that the position of the Israeli government contains "apparent contradictions" and is "unsatisfactory" and "demonstrably false".[4]" *
Here we have a case of a fragmentation (anti-personnel)^ bomb fired from air (ie aerial bombing) targetting a mosque during Friday prayers ie. the mosque's peak usage time when it was full with 200-300 worshippers.
Here’s another “simple option” instead of aerial bombing:
Send in a column of tanks, surround the mosque, evacuate it, search it, video any munitions found and then destroy the mosque. Israel deployed these exact tactics in the West Bank during the offensive that ended up surrounding Yasser Arafat in Ramallah. So there’s no doubt it can be done, that it is a viable option and the Israelis can do it and have experience of doing it. This option would have achieved any legitimate military objectives while minimising risks and dangers to Gaza residents or civilians.
No doubt, any experienced military person could devise many other “simple options" that would have achieved the same results.
Instead, the Israelis chose to use aerial bombing, a strategy that maximised dangers to civilians. Instead of doing it at night, when the mosque would have been empty, they chose to bomb the mosque at the very time when it was guaranteed to be packed with worshippers. Indeed the timing, and the choice of an fragmentation bomb suggests that it was deliberately chosen in order to maximise civilian casualties.
One could speculate that if the mosque had in fact been used to store munitions, and the missile attack ignited those munitions, the carnage would have all too easily been much worse - which begs the question: Was that the outcome the Israelis were hoping for?
Even in the unlikely event of there being some truth in the Israeli claim
that ‘all the dead’ were 'Hamas operatives’ (how could they possibly know this?), is it appropriate to risk 200-300 civilian lives to kill 15 or so ‘Hamas operatives’ ? Of course not.
Result: 15 dead and 40 wounded civilians.
Military advantage obtained: none/minimal.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldstone_Report
^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragmentation_(weaponry)
|
|
|
|
