Faults
in the Beit Hanoun account
According
to HRW, on the 24th of July at around 3 pm, four apparent Israeli
mortar shells struck a coeducational elementary school in Beit – Hanoun. There
is no dispute that this was a horrific tragedy, 13 people, among them 6
children, were killed, and dozens of others were wounded. What is under dispute
is who is responsible. The Palestinian authorities and HRW blame Israel and the
IDF. The IDF suggests there was a Palestinian culpability. Both allegations
require strong evidences, none of them has any. When it comes to the
allegations made by HRW's investigators, they are the first to acknowledge the
weaknesses of their findings. As they had said so in the account, they could
not determine whether these were 81mm shells or 120mm shells. This means that
they have made their accusation with no evidences. If they could not identify
the type weapon, how could they identify its source? Instead, they tried to
compensate that with a series of arguments that dismissed the possibility of a
Palestinian responsibility, making Israel the only possible culprit. All these
arguments are flowed, each and every one of them.
Their
main argument is that of precision. From the HRW in-depth look. "The
Israeli military denied responsibility for any civilian deaths in the school,
saying that one "errant mortar" had hit the courtyard while it was
empty. It also suggested that the school might have been hit by Palestinian
rockets, saying that several rockets fired that day had fallen short and landed
in Beit Hanoun.
It
is highly unlikely that at least four of the inaccurate, unguided rockets used
by Palestinian armed groups hit in and around the school within a few minutes."
First,
how does this 'poor technology' argument rebukes the Israeli version?
The
Israeli version describes rockets of poorer technology, rockets that fell short
of their intended targets. So, in that regard HRW's argument is in accordance
with the Israeli version. They too claim that Palestinians' rockets are of poor
technology.
Second,
how do they distinguish accurate high technology mortars, from inaccurate poor
technology ones? What criteria are they using? From the above quotation, their
criteria are the time lapses and distances between each of the mortar shells
that hit the school's compound and its environs. And that is baffling. Time
lapses between rockets launches are not a criterion that can serves that
purpose. As these two youtube videos show, within 16 seconds 4 mortars can be
fired by both an amateur, probably clumsy, Syrian rebel, and a professional
team of US marines operation a heavy 120mm mortar (count from 0:52 to 1:08). Remember, according to HRW
the 4 mortar shells fell within a time span of a few minutes. And one of their
witnesses, Mohammed Hamad, saying that the second shell stroke half a minute
after the first one.
As
for distances, here HRW is not giving us any technical information on that
subject. What is the distance between the places hit by mortar shells that can
identify a high technology mortar over a poor technology one? We do not know,
and we do not know if they know. They are also not telling us the distances
between each of the mortar shells that have hit that school and its enviros.
So, there is nothing to compare with even if the technical information was
available. Without these details this argument is useless.
Third,
what professional information is telling us about guided mortar munitions is
that both guided and unguided mortar rounds fall at random. As the picture
below show, the only difference between guided and unguided mortar shells is in
the clustering of the strike sites. With a guidance system, more shells will
fall closer to the intended target, increasing the likelihood of hitting
it. This means that precision is
determined not by the relations between the strike sites, but by their relation
to the intended target. If the strike sites of these four rockets show
precision, it means that HRW investigators were able to identify their intended
target and measure the distances from there. No such target is explained.
Forth,
as the same picture shows, even with unguided mortar rounds, more than four
shells will fall closer to the target. So how could HRW investigators make
their determination based on only four mortar shells? That is another thing
that requires explanation.
Fifth,
these people are regarded as investigators. Taking measurements, and consulting
professional experts, are elementary components in any investigation. Where is
that information? The lack of such
information suggests that this was not a professional investigation. This cannot be just a slip, since they know
the importance of such information. As a response to similar accusations
regarding this UN run school, the IDF had released a video supporting its
version of events. This video shows a single errant mortar shell, hitting the
center of the school's courtyard when it was empty. However that video has one
important shortcoming, it had no time stamp telling when it was taken. And HRW
were correct in criticizing the IDF and the video for not including that
information. Without that information we'll just have to take the IDF at their
word that it was taken that day. But there is no way of independently knowing
when this video was taken. The same goes for HRW precision argument. Without
the professional information, technical and physical one, that tells us why
these mortar shells are supposed to show precision firing, all we have is their
word. And since they clearly know that words and accusation are not enough, and
supporting information should be provided. Why haven't they provided any? The
absence of this information does not only empty the precision argument from any
meaning, it also undermines their credibility.
It is just an empty statement, and they know it; since they presented
the same standard on information provided by the IDF. And since it is not clear
if they actually know how to identify precision firing, their word is also
dubious. With no supporting information,
and no evidence of having any expertise in this field of inquiry, the precision
argument has nothing to stand on. And the source of these mortars remains
unidentified.
HRW
second argument, excludes motivation: "It is also unlikely that
Palestinian armed groups would have targeted the area near the school with mortars
when Israeli ground forces do not appear to have been in the immediate area at
the time. On the contrary, Israel claimed that Palestinian forces were near the
school at the time. It is similarly implausible that Palestinian mortar fire hit
in and around at least four times by accident." Excluding motivation
and capabilities is a legitimate form of inquiry, as long as it is done
properly. This one is simply incomplete. Accidents involving mortar fire can
happen for a variety of reasons; some of them can impact all mortar shells and
causes them to hit the wrong target, and stray away from the intended one. If
maintenance is poor and safety standards are lacking all the rockets fired can
do that, certainly more than one. Why do you think armed forces give
maintenance and safety so much importance? Just look at the attention NATO is
giving to this subject. With modern armed forces maintenance includes
specialist officers, maintenance training, maintenance manuals, and maintenance
supervision and inspection. Excluding that requires reviewing and examining the
maintenance standards and practices of the armed Palestinian groups. And HRW haven't even approached that part. So
that possibility remains open. Another plausible cause of accidents is the
mortar itself, its level of maintenance, especially the aiming mechanism that
could be malfunctioning. These two causes were not approached and therefor are
not excluded.
The
human factor is another possible cause that HRW did not exclud. They argue that
armed Palestinian groups had no reason to fire at that area since there were no
Israeli forces there. That is probably correct, but that is hindsight, their
hindsight. Field commanders and their units do not have that luxury during an
ongoing fire exchange. Many times they have to make snap decisions based on the
information available to them at that moment; without having the ability, or
time, to verify it. The main outcome of these objective constrains is that they
increase the likelihood of mistaken identity. This is a part of the basic
nature of every war; one that makes mistaken identity one of the biggest
contributors to unwanted deaths. The most famous example of such unwanted
deaths is what is known as friendly-fire incidents. It occurs when armed units
from one side are firing at other armed units from the same side. Civilians can
also be mistaken that way, buy both sides. How likely that is in this situation
is undetermined since HRW did not approach this possibility, and therefor did
not exclude it. Issues of bad maintenance and mistaken identity are common to
every war and conflict. Ignoring them further undermine the professionality and
integrity of this investigation.
HRW
third argument claims to be eyewitness accounts. These are seven persons, which
HRW credits their testimony with the ability to dispute the Israeli version.
The Israeli version claims a single errant mortar shell hit the middle of the
school's courtyard, when it was empty. HRW claims they're witnesses saw
otherwise. From the article:" The accounts of seven witnesses who
independently spoke to Human Rights Watch contradict the Israeli military's
description of the video. All said that people were in and around the courtyard
when the two mortar shells struck, and that many of the wounded people were hit
there." That is not a contradiction. The Israeli version does not
dispute the fact that this tragedy happened. It doesn't even dispute the fact
that it was caused by mortar fire. All the IDF had said was that it was not one
of their mortars. For the eye witnesses to dispute the Israeli version they
would have to actually see and identify the source of the mortars fired at
them. That is something that cannot be done. The mortar is an infantry carried
long rage weapon that can be fired from behind buildings. With plenty of
interferences to the field of view that exist in any urban settings,
identifying and recognizing the party responsible for the source of fire is
impossible. Unless unique conditions of visibility existed, there weren't any.
If there were any, HRW and their witnesses would have been able to identify the
exact location of the source of a mortar fire. They did not do that. The
ability to identify the exact identity of the source of a mortar fire without
its exact location is self-contradictory. This is basic common sense. The only
way this could actually happen is if unique and even extra - ordinary
conditions had existed at the time. No such circumstances are detailed to us. Like a promise that cannot be
delivered this is an expectation that should not have been made. The accounts
of eyewitnesses should not be discarded, but you shouldn't give it capabilities
it does not have. When you do that you make their testimony useless. Such a
conduct is an abuse of the victims and demeaning the horrific experience they
have been through.
Their
witnesses do offer an important piece of information, the sightings of Israeli
tanks. Unlike a mortar carrying infantry unit, tanks are large, noisy, ground
shaking vehicles. Easily seen and heard;
and when they shake the earth beneath us even the deaf and the blind will
notice their presence. And when they come in numbers they are difficult to
miss. Nonetheless, HRW investigators went to the two locations identified by
their witnesses. And in one of them they had even found boxes of 7.62mm
ammunition, the standard ammunition for machine guns carried by tanks
(and other vehicles). The most important thing regarding these 7.62mm
ammunition boxes is that they are not 81mm ammunition boxes or 120mm ammunition
boxes. And you don't have to be a military expert to know the difference
between machine guns and mortars. But it was enough for HRW to find this
evidence damming because:" The tanks demonstrate the presence of
Israeli troops in the vicinity who could have been the source of the
mortar rounds."
Could…have…been..?
Could?
Could
is a very user friendly word. You don't need the pinpoint location of Israeli
soldiers when your allegations are based on could. Nearly every location
in and around Beit Hanoun can fit the bill. After all, even if they were not
seen at that particular spot they could have been there, or there, or over
there, or elsewhere. When they use the word 'could' they openly admit
they did not find the source of the mortar fire, yet that does not prevent them
from making serious accusations. In a democratic country allegations are not
based on could, but on did. Can you imagine a person been charged
with a crime based on could have been the killer? Someone was killed
with an icepick and the police are charging a person who was caught with a
screwdriver. Their rational, since he was carrying a screwdriver, he could
have carried an icepick. If something remotely resembling this example was
to occur, human rights organizations world over would have protested. And they
would have been right to do so. Charging someone based on could is arbitrary.
The investigators simply picked the easiest locations to find. And that’s what
makes it arbitrary. Piking this location just because of its visibility is an
act of convenience, not of an investigation. Even if the precision argument
wasn't so flowed, these "could have been…" charges would have been
wrong. That is because under the basic principles of democracy and human
rights, arbitrary punishment is wrong. True, HRW does not have the means to
arrest and detain. But, Sarah Leah Whitson, the executive director of Human
Rights Watch Middle East and North Africa division, did call US secretary of
state, John Kerry, to penalize Israel based on their investigations. She did so
in a letter published on August 11th, 2014, which is disturbing
since according to this "In depth look," they were still
investigating (or documenting) on August, 12, 13, and 29.
And
there is another problem that needs explaining. Why would a group of tanks,
with their own canons, and hi-tech aiming systems, as well as armored
protection, need the assistance of a naturally exposed, mortar carrying
infantry unit? That question is not been asked. The unlikelihood of such a
situation only increases the arbitrariness of their accusations. If they had found a mortar carrying infantry
unit they would have been in a better position. They haven't, and that raises
the specter of another possibility. That they did make an effort to find such,
but failed, after all, they did spend three days on this case, while only one
for each of the other two. What was the difference this time? What was it that
required two extra days of work?
At
best the Beit Hanoun investigation is a sloppy one. Since they haven't
identified the exact munition involved, they have no weapon to connect to the
crime. It is either 81mm or 120mm. And their precision argument that backs
there accusations shows no understanding of mortar firing and has no necessary
supporting technical information. They tried to exclude a Palestinian motive in
this incident, without addressing the possibility of bad maintenance of mortars
and bad intelligence on behalf of the Palestinian side. These are two factors
that are the most common causes of unwanted deaths in times of war. They have
no eye witnesses. All their witnesses saw is what anyone else in their position
could have seen. They saw the mortar shells hitting the school's compound and
its enviros, but not the source of this mortars and not the identity of those
who launched them. And by failing to identify a mortar carrying Israeli
infantry unit, operating at the time within the mortar range from that school;
the failed in finding the opportunity IDF had to do this alleged crime. No
weapon, no witnesses, no opportunity to do the crime, and the motives, and
ability of the other suspects, the Palestinian armed groups, are not completely
excluded. And yet they make definitive charges. These are serious charges that
are not supported by a single fact, a finding, evidence, or a testimony. From
this account there is simply no way of knowing who is responsible for that
tragedy.
Next
Next
No comments:
Post a Comment