HRW non-in depth examination of war crimes in the Gaza conflict of 2014 Part 3 of 5

      

Jabalya girls' school and the 100% demand

The tragedy in the Jabalya girls' school took place on July 30^th at 4:40am. In that incident 20 civilians were killed, among them 3 children. Based on all accounts, including that of Israel, the cause of these deaths and injuries were Israeli artillery shells. These shells were clearly identified as 155mm shells, and Israel is the only party in this specific conflict to use them. This time we do have a clear identification of the munition involved. And since the IDF had acknowledged firing them, there is no dispute here in the first place.  Therefore on the face of it Israel is clearly guilty. Only on the face of it; the details suggest this is not the whole picture. This is not where it ends, and this is not where it begins. It begins with the fact that during the battle in the outskirts of Jabalya, circumstances were those weapons were needed, kept on coming. There, as elsewhere in the Gaza Strip, fighters from Hamas and other armed Palestinian organizations were hiding behind barricaded positions scattered in a dense urban environment. This is a situation where every corner is a natural opportunity for an ambush, and where many were used for that purpose. From such fortified hideouts the Palestinian fighters fired mortars and anti-tank missiles at the Israeli forces, as well as long range missiles against Israeli population centers. These were threats infantry unit could not remove by themselves, therefore needing the assistance of the artillery.  As long as these threats had existed, these forces could not carry out their mission, and protect the Israeli civilians targeted by the Hamas rockets and missiles. This general description of the battlefield conditions is an undisputable fact. Both the IDF and HRW acknowledge the fact that heavy fighting took place. And heavy fighting by its very nature is not one-sided. If only one side in a fire exchange has the heavy weapons, the fighting ends quickly. The question as to whether these were the circumstances in this specific case is caught in the predictable dispute between the versions of each side.

In this case HRW's investigators rely a lot on a UN investigation as published by the NYT. The tone of that article is more accusatory towards Israel. But it also provides more details about that incident. As with the Beit Hanoun tragedy we have here a dispute between two versions. Israel, saying that its forces fired at enemy mortars positions firing from a distance of about 180 meters, (200 yards), from that school. And the version of the Palestinian witnesses; claiming not to have seen any such activity. But the details undermine the credibility of their testimony. Not of the witnesses themselves, even though one of them chose to be anonymous, but certainly of their testimonies. First it was dark, as NYT says "predawn", 4:40am. Second, it was noisy, extremely so, violently so. The hell of war was ongoing outside that shelter. As the witnesses told the NYT, "In the hours before the strike, explosions and shelling kept many people awake." In a situation such as this the surrounding conditions undermine the credibility of the accounts given by eyewitness and ear-witness alike. It is too dark to notice activity outside their shelter, and too noisy to clearly differentiate between the various sources of noise. It is simply too confusing to differentiate between the sounds of explosions, or the launching of projectiles, such as mortars, rockets, and missiles. Clearly identifying their distance from the shelter will also be impaired. In these kinds of circumstances confusion is unavoidable. Again it is a part of the very nature of a heated battle. The lack of such confusion, if indeed there was none, is so unusual it is the one that requires explanation or corroboration.  We get more than a glimpse of that intensity and confusion from these two IDF video, showing the Nahal brigade fighting in the outskirts of Jabalya on July the 29^th. 

As for the Israeli version, this one enjoys a support rising from the details provided by both the HRW's account and the account published by the NYT. According to HRW the UN run school and its surroundings were hit by ten 155mm shells, which included smoke and illumination shells, along with high explosive shells. The uses of illumination shells in the darkness of predawn hours help identify and differentiate the intended target from the surrounding area. Smoke shells prevent enemy spotters from aiming their artillery fire, such as mortars. These are the kind of tools the IDF had to use if its version is the correct one, and it did fire on enemy mortar positions. If Israel was firing indiscriminately, why bother including them in the artillery round? True, the UN investigators, mentioned in the NYT article, did not find any evidence of close infantry combat in the immediate vicinity of that school. But no such claim was made by the Israeli side in the first place.

The NYT brings the testimony of villa owner Abdel Latif Al – Seifi who said, "It was clear that they were not aiming at a specific house, but fired lots and it fell where it fell." His testimony is disputed by the map of the hit sites provided by the NYT itself. There we see two clusters on the opposite sides of this school. The central point of each cluster is outside the school at a distance very close to 200 yards. Just as the Israeli version claims.

But the strongest support for the Israeli version comes from the fact that Israel did go into a great length to minimize civilian casualties. A warning missile known as "knock on roof procedure" was sent at 2am, giving people time to prepare. The laminations shells lit the dark skies in order to better identify the actual target; and better aim the artillery away from that school. And from that artillery round only 3 out of 10 shells landed at the school's compound, and only one of them was carrying live munition, (see the NYT list, specifying where each shell hit). As the nameless witness told HRW, the bombardment was short, 3 – 5 minutes. The conclusion is simple and undisputable. Israel did what it could to keep the sheltering civilians from harm. Sent a warning ahead of time, illuminated the skies, kept its own bombardment short by using a handful of shells, and successfully kept most of them away from that school, especially the live ones. And these are just the measures we can learn about from the witnesses' accounts.

However, the most important evidence in support of this claim is the fact that Israel and the IDF were successful in this effort. This was not a 100% success, but very close to that standard. As HRW kept emphasizing, 3,200 people were sheltering in that school. And out of them only 20 were killed, (21 according to the NYT). 'Only', because 20 out of 3,200 is 0.625%, less than 1% killed, over 99% survived, extremely close to 100%. Effort wise, this should be considered, and is, a success. Adding the number of wounded, (45 according Mike Cole, a UN official quoted in the NYT, and 100 according to the Guardian), does not change the fact that most of the civilians sheltering in this school were unharmed, more than 90%. The only way this can be considered a failure is if the standard for success is 100%.  If so, those who set this standard should have the integrity to publicly say so in the first place. If this is not the standard, then the conclusion is unavoidable, the IDF operation in the immediate vicinity of the Jabalya girls' school was successful in minimizing the civilian casualties. Such a success, over 99% survival rate, cannot be achieved without an effort. A huge effort made by the attacking side to minimize civilian casualties. And why bother to go through all that effort, unless there is a real military target nearby?

Nonetheless, people were killed. And the question, could Israel have done more in order to save lives is proper and appropriate. When the value of life is at the core of your convictions, that question is always proper. To the opposing sides in this dispute, this question places each of them in a different position. For the IDF it is a requisite of professionalism and ethics, studying the details of the events in order to do better the next time. Fulfill the military objectives with less impact on civilian lives, less harm, fewer deaths, getting even closer to 100%. For Israel's critics and detractors it is about finding that one detail from which charges of war crimes and/or violations of international law can be built. An integral part of that process, for both sides, is taking into account what the IDF couldn't have done. And as powerful as the IDF is there are a few things it couldn’t do. According to the NYT and its witnesses most of the killing was caused by the only live shell to land in that compound. This one hit the courtyard were men were praying underneath eucalyptus trees. In predawn darkness, underneath the canopy of eucalyptus trees, the briefly lit lamination shells cannot help detect such a gathering. Therefore, these deaths, tragic as they are; the IDF could not have prevented.

According to both HRW and the NYT, another part of the school that was hit, was the second story of a classrooms' building. This place also took a lot of casualties. Judging from the pictures provided by both publications, something came crashing down throw the roof. Not exploding, crashing down. These are most likely the smoke shells or the lamination shells reported by the two accounts. As mentioned above only one shell with live munition fell in that school compound, and that was at the courtyard, not the buildings. Now, unless someone can prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that with commonly known and available means, there are ways to affect their trajectory without compromising their efficiency, efficiency needed among other things to keep the more lethal live shells away from school's buildings; unless someone can do that, this is another tragedy Israel could not have prevented. Israel also could not have prevented the harm caused by the window's broken glass, and the shrapnel that came through. This is typical collateral damage situation, the most obvious and most famous example of it.

A second tier of exclusions has to do with what the Palestinian armed groups and UN personal could and couldn't do in order to protect the lives of the unarmed. However, the role of the Palestinian armed groups is pointless to discuss, since there is a dispute as to whether they were there at the time. As for the UN role, here there is plenty to discuss. It is seemingly outrageous that their personal placed the women and children at the second floor, and allowed the men to gather outside in the courtyard. These are the most vulnerable places to collateral damage and spillovers from the ongoing fighting outside the shelter. The most protected places of course are the first floor and the basement, (if there is one), protected among other things by the second floor. Actually they really had no other choice. They had 3,200 people to take care off, with 24 rooms available; it is an average of over one hundred souls per room. Cramped is an understatement.  What made it all far worse is the fact that it is midsummer near the sea. Heat and humidity are at their highest, producing unbearable conditions even for smaller gathering of people, let alone 3,200.  And the nights offer very little relief. The sound medical decision was to place the women and children in the cooler upper floors; and to allow the men to enjoy the somewhat more breathable air outside. Knowing that, remembering that is to understand why they too had to operate under unenviable constraints. But even under these limitations the UN personal could have done more to help the people it was supposed to protect. For example, they could have prevented the windows' glass from breaking by simply crisscrossing them with duct tape.  If a single Palestinian woman could get enough duct tape to keep the windows in her home from braking so could the UN with its truckloads of supplies coming through the Erez Crossing and Kerem Shalom. And they could have done more. In Israel, one of reasons the number of civilian casualties is lower is because of a long of list of emergency procedures that are taken by civilians and civil authorities when an immediate threat is looming. There is no reference for these kinds of procedures in the accounts published by the NYT and HRW. According to the testimony of Suleiman Hassan Abd el-Dayam, as published in the HRW's account, it was up to him and his extended family to take safety precautions once the warning shell came at 2 am; precautions that were largely improvised. There is no mention in his testimony of any UN activity regarding their immediate safety concerns. No special procedure is mention, and no UN personal came to look after them. And that in a time span of at least 2 hours. As mentioned above the warning shot was at 2 am, and the brief bombardment begun at 4.40 am. According to another witness, the nameless staff worker, most of the injuries from glass and shrapnel he saw were to the heads and faces. This is something that can be prevented or minimized by covering the faces and staying away from the windows. We can see that in these American tornado drills, a natural disaster that can produce similar injuries. 

Interestingly, someone there did do something right. The statistics tell us that only 3 children were killed in that tragedy, a remarkably low figure. This tells us that someone was able to keep most of the children away from the more vulnerable parts of this school's buildings. Who was this person, and what she, he, or they did, the accounts of HRW and the NYT do not convey. But evidently someone was able to save lives in spite of all the difficulties mentioned above. Politics aside, whoever this person is, she, he, or they, deserves our praise. This heroism and ingenuity shows that something could have been done; and that puts to shame the entire UN's organization responsible for the people sheltering in the Jabalya girls' school. 

We, the mere readers and observers, must understand the difficulties of saving lives in such a precarious situation. With or without emotional involvement in the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and no matter which side we empathy with. We must all internalize that for lives of the unarmed and helpless to be saved during a violent, chaotic conflict, all must do their part; all must do their part! And even then there is no guarantee that all will survive. But if one side does the maximum and the other the minimum, more will needlessly die. And here the maximum was not done by the UN personal. And while one may choose dispute the fact that the IDF had done the maximum in order to save the lives of Palestinian civilians, there is no other way to explain the result. Carelessness with massively lethal weapons does not produce a 99% survival rate. If people are lucky, around 70% will survive. If they are not lucky less than 20% will live to carry that horror with them for the rest of their lives. A 99% survival rate can only be achieved if the attacking side goes into a great length to protect those 3,200 lives. This is a matter of a huge effort backed by a long experience. Without these two such a success could not have been achieved. Unless; again; the standard for success is that of 100% survival rate. And since Israel did the maximum and the UN did not, any charge of war crime will have very little to work with.

If the details of the evidences and testimonies speak in favor of Israel why does HRW find Israel guilty? According to them it is international law.  The dispute between the two versions they set aside, even though it is clear which of the versions they are in favor of. Instead they focused on a legal argument that says that the munition used, 155mm artillery shells, is simply too crude to be used in such densely populated urban environment. It has an error range of 25 meters and the spread of the fragments produced by its explosion has a radius of 300 meters. This is not an argument based on international law. This is an argument based on an interpretation of international law, a bad one. But first of all, there are some elementary flaws in the logic of this argument. If the weapon is that crude, and it is crude, that only enhances the magnitude of the IDF success in protecting the lives of the 3,200 people sheltering in the Jabalya girl's school. 99% survival rate is not the product of luck, especially when the weapons involved are crude. But for HRW the survival rate is not a criterion. Crudeness is their only criterion. This leads to a more serious flew of this interpretation. What if those same deaths, this same tragedy, had been inflicted by a more accurate, less crude of a weapon? Would they have been legal then? And since the survival rate is not a concern, will a greater number of deaths produced by a non-crude weapon be also legal?  These are unavoidable logical outcomes of their interpretation. Intentionally or unintentionally their interpretation dumps both the living and the dead and reduces them to mere props in the drama that preceded the accusations. Under HRW's interpretation of international law, even a far higher death rate, where survival rate can be less than 20%, would have been legal. If lives are valuable, the crudeness of weapons is important, but also how there are been used. The most accurate of weapons can be mishandled with frightening results. And evidently a crude weapon such as 155mm artillery shell can be used with such a care, 99% will survive, 90% will be unharmed. Of course HRW and other human rights activists can argue that even the hypothetical scenario introduced here constitute a war crime; since the number of civilians killed is far higher from what we would expect from a more accurate type of a weapon. But that means reintroducing the survival rate as a criterion. And if it is implemented on a more accurate weapon, it should also be implemented on a crude weapon. And the same logic that says it is a war crime when an accurate weapon produces a higher than expected death toll; must also say that when a crude and powerful weapon brings about a distinctly low number of deaths, it is not a war crime.

HRW's interpretation of international law does not only abuse Palestinian lives. It does the same to Israeli lives. There is no questioned that it is easier to avoid civilian harm with more accurate weapons. But such weapons are not always capable in taking out the legitimate military target. A fortified bunker is one example that requires the use of 155mm artillery shells. Another one is a mortar position that is defended by snipers, and various booby traps around it. Giving soldiers the cover they need when uncovering a tunnel that threatens other Israeli soldiers, and probably civilians, is another example. In prohibiting this weapon HRW creates legally secured, freehand regions for armed Palestinian groups to operate from. All they have to do is to be very close to large concentrations of civilians, such as these UN run schools, and target from there both Israeli soldiers and civilians, with no fear of consequences. This interpretation of international law is a non-starter, implementing it only leads to frightening absurd that international law cannot live with.

What international law actually says about situations such as this is more complex than that interpretation. But it is not much different than the analysis presented in this review. The ICRC (the international committee of the Red Cross) has a database that explains international law in simple yet through manner. The rules in this database show how in the Jabalya girls' school incident, Israel had in fact acted in accordance with international law:

Rule 15: minimizing civilian casualties. Remember the 99% survival rate I keep mentioning. It is a requisite of international law. 

Rule 20: advance warning. Even HRW acknowledge this was done.

Rule 17: target selection. This is summarized as follows, "Each party to the conflict must take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of warfare with a view to avoiding, and in any event minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects." As mentioned in this review, Israel gave an advance warning, illuminated the skies, kept most of its lethal ammunition away from that shelter's compound, and kept the bombardment short. As the map provided by the NYT shows, most of the strike sites are outside of the school's compound. One is on its border, and only one inside. The strike sites themselves are clustered outside that compound, and the largest gaps between the strike sites are located on the school compound itself. This shows an effort to differentiate between that school and its immediate environs. With such close proximity, of less than 200 yards, this is extremely challenging; nonetheless, there isn't a single clustering of strike sites inside that compound. The two clustering show were the intended targets were located - outside. With no clustering inside the compound that school was clearly not targeted, selected out of the targets list, and differentiated from its immediate surroundings. And with 99% survival rate among the sheltering population, the minimizing requirement was also met.

What HRW was trying to do was probably based on the misuse of rules 12, 13 and 71. Rule 12 defines the principle of definition of indiscriminate attack. There are basically three such definitions. From them the third concern, rule 12c, is the one relevant to this discussion. Rule 12c defines as follows an important aspect of indiscriminate attack, "which employ method or means of combat, the effect of which cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law." According to HRW the effects of high explosive 155mm artillery shell cannot be limited to the military objective because of the error rang and the range of the dispersal of fragments, see above. The error range argument is disputed by the HRW account of the incident. As they describe it, not a single live shell hit the well-recognized, more easily identified, buildings of this school compound. Those were the places where most of the civilians were sheltering, and the IDF, as required by international law, kept all live munitions from hitting them.

As for the protection from the impact of fragments, these are not chemical weapons, not biological weapons, and not thermo-nuclear weapons. With commonly available means civilians and local authorities have the ability of protecting themselves from this threat. All that is needed is for something to halt the fragments as they spread. This can be done by the walls of buildings, with their windows reinforced with duct tape, of course. Sandbags are another known means of protection against fragments.  And there are also pre arrange shelters, and safety procedures, such as escorting the populace to the more secure parts of the buildings, and more. Since the attacking side is not located on the ground with those civilians it cannot provide those means. This is simple logic, and logic is how international law expects rule 12c to be implemented, see the explanation in ICRC database. This is reinforced by rule 22 which stipulates, "The parties to the conflict must take all feasible precautions to protect the civilian population and civilian objects under their control against the effect of attack." Whether or not this part of international law applies to a neutral party such as the UN is a matter of interpretation. What this does show is that as far as international law is concern, there is a limit as to how much responsibility can be placed on the attacking side. This is a limit that does not exclude the attacking side from doing what is feasible from its end in order to minimize civilian harm, but it shows that the defending side is not expected to do nothing. With 99% survival rate the IDF met the demand of international law. Whether the authorities on the ground had done the same is unclear, if not disputed.

Israel's adherents to international law also include abiding by rule 12c.  The advance warning, gives civilians and local authorities time to prepare and implement their means of protection against the effects of an attack. Therefore the advance warning, known as 'knock on roof,' is not just an implementation of rule 15, which specify such an action, it is also an implementation of rule 12c.

Rule 13 deals with a situation called area bombardment, when a large area is bombarded from the air or by artillery. In situations such as these there is a need to make a distinction between military and civilian objects in that area. But there is no clear description in international law of what is the distance that can make a clear distinction possible. One possible reason for that are the technologies available. Accuracy is a product of technologies; they can determine our ability to make such distinctions. And if such a clarification was to exist based on the technologies of the past, it would constitute a license for murder under the current technologies. On the other hand ignoring this requirement altogether is a license to use human shields. The former is a violation rule 1, the principle of distinction between civilians and combatants. As well as rule 89, that forbids murder. The latter is a violation of rule 97, which forbids the use of human shields. It says, "...using the presence (or movement) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations." While the international community avoided these two traps by not clarifying this criterion. HRW fell right into it, adopting an interpretation that makes the use of human shields legal. Israel on the other hand tried to implement this rule, in spite of the challenging circumstances. A short bombardment lessened the chances of live shells hitting known concentration of civilians – the buildings. And the clustering of strike sites outside that school show that a distinction between the school, and targets less than 200 yards away from it, was made.

Rule 71 forbids the uses in populated areas of weapons that are by nature indiscriminate. However, artillery of 155mm shells is not listed as one of them. And those that are listed do not enjoy a sufficient consensus in the international community.  Since the IDF was able to use this weapon discriminately, and save the lives of thousands of Palestinian civilians, Israel did obey this rule.

HRW remaining legal argument is that Israel did not provide any evidence or information confirming its claim. The claim of attacking enemy mortar positions located 200 yards from that school. Israel is not obligated to give that kind of information to HRW, or to any other human rights organization. This does not constitute a proof of guilt. Moreover, this is an incomplete argument. In order to prove that Israel did not attack military positions near that school compound, they must also demonstrate that Israel did not behave as a party that is attacking closely located military positions. But this part of the argument was not even taken. Instead this was done by this review. And what this review had showed is that from their own information and that of the NYT, the IDF did behave as a military force attacking mortar positions close to this UN compound. Smoke shells to blind the spotters, lamination shells to better detect the targets and avoid hitting the shelter and other civilian objects, clustering of strike sites outside that school – at proximity of 200 yards or less. Along with the successful effort to minimize civilian harm, the facts, evidences, and testimonies that they have gathered, show that the IDF did act as if it is attacking adjoining mortar positions. Now, why would someone who is not attacking military positions act as if it does? Why bother going throw all that meticulous effort, to differentiate between targets, minimizing civilian harm, and abiding by international law, in order to attack something that has no military value?  Along with its misuse and misinterpretation of international law, this account is another incomplete investigation.

There is no question that the case being made here is disturbing. Even neutrals will have problems with it. And there is nothing wrong with that, it is a perfectly human emotion, one that is based on empathy for dead and wounded, and their families.  It is certainly, and understandably disturbing to accept that those 20 deaths will be left unanswered for, with no sense of justice. It is perfectly normal not to feel right about it. It is a part of our natural repulsion from war. Something we must always encourage. It is also understandably difficult to accept this review critique of HRW. After all, why would a respected human rights organization act as such a counter-productive force in the cause of human rights? Why would it be a force that undermines the very integrity of the practice of international law, and advocates interpretations that put more lives at risk, rather than protecting them?

Sadly it is easier to answer the second tormenting question, than it is to answer the first one; painfully easy. As mentioned in the opening segment of this review, a strange pattern had been evolving among human rights critique of Israel's military actions, especially with regards to HRW. It is a pattern where the dilemma of modern warfare is absent; a dilemma where decisions of life vs life must be taken on a constant basis. When you ignore this dilemma you also disconnect yourself from its cause, from the reason it exists, the value of human life. Only people committed to the value of life will be torn by the need to make life vs life decisions. When one is ignoring the existence of such dilemmas in times of war, one immediately disconnects oneself from the cause of these dilemmas, the value of life; all lives. Whatever the criterion implemented may be? It will not be the value of life. This may not have been their intention, but once they made that decision this is where Human Rights Watch ended up at. On a slippery slope that lead to an unavoidable collision with everything that is based on the value of human life. This includes Israel's action as evidenced in the accounts given by them and the NYT, and international law itself. Both are guided by that concern. And when they adopted and advocated an interpretation of international law that legalizes the deaths of more civilians from both sides, they collided with the value of life itself. It is a downward course; once taken it can only get worse.

Providing a sense of justice to those who had died is more difficult. These are men, women, and children, unarmed civilians who had no businesses dying in the first place. Life must matter, that is the guideline we follow if we believe in the value of life. However, punishing Israel for the life it failed to save, means punishing Israel for the life it did save, and protected, close to 3,200 of them. And it is stating the obvious that punishing someone for saving lives is the exact opposite of adopting the value of life. Such a course of action will not only be contradictory to the value of human life, it will be contradictory to international law, which encourages the minimizing of the death and suffering that all wars inflict on unarmed civilians. Worse than that, such an action will be nothing more than political retribution. It will not be a part of a peace process, or a human rights process. It will simply be a part of the conflict, a part of the process that includes wars and deaths in its dynamics. Needless to say, justice for the dead will not be served by more deaths. No one will benefit, especially not those who needs it the most; the most vulnerable parts of the society, the unarmed civilians.  Seeking their wellbeing does not require political retribution. It certainly does not require the misuse and abuse of international law, as preformed here by HRW. As said here before, all it requires is for all to do their part - even if they hate each other. What we all must understand is that clearing the IDF from wrongdoing is not a license for the IDF to kill civilians. It is not a reason for the scrutiny to stop, and it is not meant to be that. This is a matter all sides of the debate must internalize. If we wish to contribute to the saving of innocent lives, then this scrutiny must continue. But for it to be productive it must also include the Palestinian side, the various agencies of the UN working on the ground, and the human rights organizations reviewing the actions of the combatants.  Only this way more will be saved should war comes knocking the next time. The down side of this course of action is that it will give us a glimpse of that tormenting filling when lives vs lives decisions must be taken. But without going through this torment we won't be able save anyone. Worse than that, we might contribute to the suffering and misery of many more.

Is that justice? It is in the sense that preventing needless deaths prevents injustice. But the politically motivated critics will undoubtedly disagree strongly.  The bottom line is simple as it is painful, as we do more and more to save life, and succeed in it; we are left with those only the end of the conflict can save. Peace, that lofty, elusive goal, which few believe it can be achieved.  The idea that we should leave some of the lives needed to be saved for the peace process, is something many will find infuriating. The argument, this is war and people die in it, is an argument we must never surrender to. Whatever measure of humanity we can bring to this monstrosity called war, we should and we must. But when such efforts and concerns are crushed by the reality of war, the course of action must never be the undermining of the ideal of human rights. This is precisely what HRW is offering in their interpretation of international law, as presented here. This is a choice between the unbearable and the immoral. An interpretation of International Law that allows the use of human shields, and prevents a country from properly and effectively defends its citizens, is immoral. It neglects the human rights of both Palestinians and Israelis. Unbearable, is the filling we all have when we come face to face with those we cannot save; those who perished in spite of all our efforts, and those of others. This is not a splendid place to be. The reality needed to be changed here is not a splendid one, far from it. But when we choose an immoral path, what good are we to anyone? If, however, we choose the unbearable path; its unbearableness might be the push we need, all of us, regardless of our political and ideological convictions, to bring about this elusive peace. This is not the most noble motive for peace making, but what has the noble lofty ideals had done for peace making so far? All they did was to become hollow words, with no relevance and credibility to either party. Much like this conflict, peace makers, and human rights activists carry their own open wounds with them. But they are not supposed to inflict them. When they do that, they have no right to preach to others on these issues. More than that, they do not have the credibility to do so. Their word has lost its value. And all the good causes, of peace and human rights, become even more unattainable.

     

I am not asking anyone to cheer the IDF over this horrific tragedy, not of those who support Israel, and not of those who oppose it. People died; there is no room for cheering. Like it or not; there is also no room for condemnation.  The IDF did set out to save lives, and lived where saved. The choice is yours, the readers, carry the open wounds of this conflict with you, or inflict them on unto others, from both sides. Accept the unbearable conclusion that the deaths of these 21 victims could not have been prevented by the IDF. Or share your cause with an ethically bankrupt human rights organization. The second choice will make you fill great with yourself. It will reward you with compliments made up from all the words and phrases that exist in the lexicon of human rights activism. But should this path get implemented… it will require you to be deaf and blind to the suffering of more people, from both sides; people who otherwise could have been saved and protected by international law and those who follow it, like the IDF.  And if this tares you apart, sends your emotions into turmoil, well…, that is good! This means that the value of life is alive within you, powerfully so.



NEXT

Rafah, August 3^rd, 10:45 am; when common sense is another victim of a war crime

START

HRW non-in depth examination of war crimes in the Gaza conflict of 2014 Part 2 of 5

Faults in the Beit Hanoun account

According to HRW, on the 24^th 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 11^th, 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

Jabalya girls' school and the 100% demand

START

HRW non-in depth examination of war crimes in the Gaza conflict of 2014 Part 1 of 5

'Operation Protective Edge', was the Israeli military incursion into the Gaza Strip during July and August of 2014. Following that operation the leading human rights organization 'Human Rights Watch' (HRW for short), published several accounts accusing Israel of War Crimes and indiscriminate killing of civilians. One of these accounts covered the alleged attacks on 3 UN run schools, in Beit Hanoun, Jabalya, and Rafah. Places that served as shelters for hundreds of civilians seeking refuge from the fighting and enjoyed the protection of international law. This paper is a critical review of that account. This critic bases itself on information available online from professional sources regarding international law, weapons and munitions. However, most of the information comes from HRW themselves, as published in this account and elsewhere.

Necessary background

Before reviewing this account we need to remember two important facts. The first is that the Israeli military operation followed a month long bombing of Israeli citizens by Hamas; a bombardment that placed over a million Israeli civilians in constant danger. The bombardment itself was an assault that followed the abduction, and murder, of 3 Israeli teens in the West Bank on July 20^th of that year. This was a crime committed by local Hamas activists, supported and encouraged by the leadership of Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The second important reminder is that alongside 'Amnesty International' HRW is one of the two most respected human rights organizations in the world today. Due to this high statue HRW is trusted by many and its word valued by various segments of the global society. This includes people of influence in democratic countries; especially in the media, academia, and judiciary. But a careful reading and rereading of their allegations suggests that they have violated that trust and abused the power of their words. A power generated by their reputation and the high value our democratic civil societies give to the subject of human rights.

The short comings of this report center around three underline faults. These are, lack of evidence, holding a controversially strict interpretation of international law, and creating false expectations.

The false expectations begins where all writers create expectations, the headlines. 'In-depth look at Gaza school attacks.' It is not an in-depth look! Whatever the word 'look' supposed to refer to, an investigation, an examination, a general overview, or a brief skim through, in-depth it is not.

An In-depth investigation cannot contain a rich presence of expressions that suggest a lack of clarity. These are words and sentences such as "…could not identify the exact location of the fighting", "they believed it was at least a few hundred meters away,"  "The tanks demonstrate the presence of Israeli troops in the vicinity who could have been the source of the mortar rounds." And the general expression, "directly outside;" which can relate to any scale of a distance, near as well as far. Headlines and titles that contain the words in-depth create the expectation of an accurate and clear description of alleged crimes. The seriousness of the accusations alone, war crimes and crimes against humanity, which are the most serious accusations in international law, demand an accurate and clear language. Clearly, that is not the case.

But this inaccurate language does have a role. It acts as acknowledgement, evidence. Evidence demonstrating that a condition known as the chaos of war had existed. The fact that war is chaotic is common knowledge. But when it comes to reports covering the Israeli Palestinian conflict, made by human rights investigators from both HRW and Amnesty International, this inevitable reality of all armed conflicts does not exist. Here however, inadvertently or not, they acknowledge its existence. Because it is the only factor that could prevent them and their witnesses from getting and giving accurate accounts of the incidents reported. And since they are influenced by its uncertainty and confusion so were the Israeli troops caught in the heat of battle, battles. The very nature of the chaos of war is an indiscriminate one. All those caught in a battle are affected by it, soldiers and civilians from both sides. And once HRW had acknowledged its existence their burden of proof has changed dramatically. From here on, anyone accusing Israel of war crimes, unlawful killings, and indiscriminate use of fire power, has to show that in each of these horrific tragedies the causes of the civilian casualties and injuries went beyond the inevitable realities of the chaotic nature of the urban battle field. And when it comes to this reviewed account HRW falls short by over a mile.

Acknowledging the existence of the chaos and uncertainty of war is acknowledging that some civilian deaths are unavoidable. The causes are plenty, bad intelligence, failures in communication between various units, and all sorts of malfunctions with the technologies deployed. The slightest computer glitch can bring about unbearable sights of death and misery. Of course that does not exclude the belligerent parties from doing their outmost to avoid inflicting such harm on the civilians caught in between. On the contrary, it imposes on them the duty to go above and beyond in protecting non-combatants. But the same reality imposes on any human rights activist critical of a military campaign the need to accept that some civilian deaths will occur. It is a dreadful thing to do, especially for a human rights activist, but that is what they are investigating, a war, a violent chaos. And once they made the accusation of unlawful killings of civilians they immediately acknowledged the existence of lawful killings of civilians alongside it. These are death caused by known factors such as accidents and collateral damage, and lesser known factors, such as the inability to evacuate injured casualties because of the fighting or its consequences. Ignoring that runs the risk of developing interpretation of international law so strict and rigid; they will grant all forms of self-defense illegal. In an era when civilians are deliberately targeted by terror organizations this is a violation of the greatest of all human rights, the right to live and to be safe from harm. It is a right every sovereign country is committed to protect.

What is that acceptable death toll of enemy civilian population? Preferably and most preferably it is the lowest minimum possible. And possible is a key word here, because circumstances dictate possibilities, and circumstances change from one situation to the next. They don't always bring about the possibilities that facilitate our desired outcome. To those of us with a moral conscious, attempting to find an answer to this horrific question, this is an unbearable dilemma. This is a dilemma that is slicing us from within, because we do not want to see any civilian getting hurt; from either side.

Bringing that question to an open public debate will bring about countless of answers. Different people, with different backgrounds will give different answers. Human rights advocates, military experts, international law experts, politicians, journalists, ideologues, and opportunists. They all represent a wide array of different points of view, disciplines and expertise, opinions and convictions. All of which are probably very important in their own right, but are irrelevant to the issue at hand, since from a mathematical point of view the lowest minimum will always be one. One attack out of many in the general vicinity of a UN administrated school that happened to hit it. And one attack is exactly what HRW is presenting, one attack in Beit Hanoun, one attack in Jabalya, and one attack in Rafah. In actuality they have much less.

Next

Faults in the Beit Hanoun account

972mag, and the made up drama of Ami Kaufman and Mairav Zonszein, a critical analysis of the rational of demented fantasies

Earlier this July the internet was abuzz with a new story of an Israeli atrocity in the West Bank. A 5 years old child was arrested by the IDF for throwing stones. That was the image been pierced into people’s mind, the actual story was less dramatic.

A first sign of manipulation been made, was the gap between the headlines. In Ami Kaufman’s commentary the key word was ‘detention’ (originally it was the more incriminating word ‘arrest,’ as indicated in the web link and the correction at the end of his column). But the Hebrew title of the youtube clip was ‘icuv,’ a word in Hebrew that can be translated in two different ways. The first option is ‘detention.’ This word raises the association of an arrest because some forms of detention are acts of an arrest, but not all of them. Another possible translation is ‘delay’ as in, “He was delayed for a few minutes.” These are two different situations and two different images rising from the same title. In the first a child faces the powerful might of military system, which raises the concern for his rights as well as the frightening possibility of an abuse. In the second it is just a brief encounter, uncomfortable but brief, and therefore without the concerns that come out of the first possible translation.

Which is true?

None of them!

Because all the soldiers did, with the help of local civilians, was to take the child to his mother.

But since the main block of Ami’s and Mairav’s readership does not read Hebrew, this double gap, (between the two headlines, and between them and the reality of what actually happened), is irrelevant. They have all that they dim necessary in order to launch a scathing righteous rebuke, of Israel, the IDF, the occupation, and the soldiers themselves. As well as individuals engage in Israeli advocacy, Hasbarah, people such as myself for example. People Ami Kaufman does not know, never met, and never talked with about this incident. But that does not stop him from condemning and insulting all of us as racists. And that is before anyone of us had said a single word about this incident.

Now, why do that? Why open a new front before you finished your business with the first front? Which I suppose is the occupation, or isn’t it Mr. Kaufman? And why attack those that are not even involved, yet? Don't you have a case to prove first?

If we choose to protect whatever it is you are criticizing Mr. Kaufman, then by all means, fire away. Since we have actually said nothing before you printed those nasty accusations, it is this nothing that you are accusing of racism. Now, Mr. Kaufman, what kind of person accuses nothing for being racist? Did nothing also steal the jellybeans when we weren’t looking?

Superficial righteousness surpasses logic, and surpasses wisdom. Because Ami Kaufman throws his insults while engaging in a dialogue with imaginary Hasbarah persons, created by his own imagination. And since he opened the door to personal insults I can only step in and merely ponder the possibility that Ami Kaufman is a mentally unstable individual that talks to imaginary persons. After all, he only invented this imaginary Hasbarah folks just so he could tell them to shut up. (Surprise, surprise, 972mag Ami Kaufman is intolerant to other people’s views, even the ones he invented.)

But that is not the case. This fantasy dialogue is a literary device. Its purpose is to fill the gap between the reality on the ground and the severity of the accusations. In fact all of Ami Kaufman’s commentary is a collection of similar devices, with the same purpose. It begins with a heads up warning designed to create an expectation for something serious; thus planting in people’s minds the idea that something bad had happened. Followed by a battery of heavy accusations such as sickness, racists, and smug. Apparently for Ami Kaufman these insults are a substitute for making a case. And of course there is the famous “what if these were my children” line, aimed to create sympathy in any parent heart. Indeed what if it was your child? What if your child got into trouble with the law? (God forbid!) What would you rather have the police do? Arrest him? Lock him up? Or bring him home back to you? Because this is what the Israeli soldiers in the video actually did. They brought the stones-throwing child to HIS MOTHER.

You see, this is what real Hasbarah folks do, check the facts. And the facts are simple, this was not arbitrary, the child was throwing stones, even B’eteselm does not dispute that. And he was not arrested, since the soldiers TOOK THE STONES-THROWING CHILD TO HIS MATHER.

Checking the facts is one of the reasons it takes a long time for the truth to put on its pants before the lie travels across the world, but at least it is now out there. And the truth is that taking a child TO HIS MOTHER is not a violation of the child’s rights, it is not an abuse, and this is not an even arrest. It is most certainly has nothing to do with racism.  IT IS TAKING A CHILD TO HIS MOTHER, where he belongs. It is as simple as that. Otherwise is to suggest that there is something fundamentally wrong with the family unit all over the world. That is the logical outcome of Ami Kaufman’s, and Mairav Zonszein’s assertion.

But it is too complicated for Ami Kaufman, Mairav Zonszein, and their ideological clones to understand. Reading their account it is as if they are in two different universes at the same time. On one hand they give the actual run down of the events, soldiers, and civilians, taking a stones-throwing child to his parents’ house. On the other hand, their rebuke of this act by describing an act of an arrest, something that did not happen, since according to their own account the soldiers TOOK THE CHILD TO HIS MOTHER!

But the scale of Ami’s and Mairav’s fantasy is even bigger than that. Supposed their dream fantasy was true, and the child was been arrested by the IDF soldiers. Even this would not justify their vitriol. For the simple reason that the underline premise of article 40 of the UN Convention on the Rights of theChild acknowledges the right of authorities to arrest children when they break the law. And throwing stones is breaking the law. There are restrictions attached, of course, but the right/duty exists. If any of those restrictions were violated then they would have a case. But the mere act of an arrest is not considered a violation of the child's rights, therefore it is not an abuse, and has nothing to do with racism. And since no arrest was made in the first place, THEY TOOK THE CHILD TO HIS MOTHER, no restrictions were violated. True, IDF’s orders forbid the arrest of children under the age of 12, but that only show that the IDF is stricter and more vigil in protecting children’s rights than the UNICEF. Surprise, surprise!

Like I said, this is what real flesh and blood Hasbarah folks do, CHECK THE FACTS!

The fact is that fantasy is the underline thread of their entire commentary. As the video shows, the soldiers weren’t smug. They were thorough. They had their orders, and the orders were in conflict with one another. On one hand, keep order, on the other hand, do not arrest children under the age of 12. Solution: TAKE THE STONES-THROWING CHILD TO HIS MOTHER. 

And the local civilians were not indifferent. Indifference suggests passivity. But these civilians, mostly kids by the way, were very much active. They are engaging the soldiers, and at some point (around minute 2:03) are the ones that are actually taking the child TO HIS MOTHER.

And why wouldn’t they?

He is a Palestinian, they are Palestinians, and his parents are Palestinians. It is their obvious collective interest to keep him on the Palestinian side. And what better way to do this than taking him back to HIS PALESTINIAN MOTHER.

Yes occupation is bad; everything that has to with war is bad.

Yes in a state of occupation soldiers and civilians are at odds most of the time. But sometime mutual interests meet. Call it a rarity, call it surreal, call it a limited meeting of interests, call it whatever you like. Sometimes there can be a solution that serves both sides, in the narrowest sense of the word most likely. But it can happen and it does. It is evident at the climax of the story. There, after minute 3:20, one of the soldiers asks “Eifo hu gar?” “Where does he live?” and receives answers from the surrounding teenagers, each pointing to the direction of the child’s resident. And later those teenagers are the ones who actually take the child into the army jeep.

Yes, the child was screaming his lounges out, and our heart goes out to any child who cries that way, whatever the reason. But if this is to serve as an indicator of an abuse, then any sibling rivalry would constitute a Breaking News item for all the global news corporations. What constitute an abuse are the circumstances, not just the reaction. And putting a child in a jeep in order to TAKE HIM TO HIS MOTHER is not an abuse, even if it is against his will. There is no question he was afraid of that jeep that is perfectly understandable. But what were the soldiers supposed to do? Once they made the decision to TAKE THE CHILD TO HIS MOTHER, wasn’t their elementary responsibility to provide a vehicle for that purpose?  What would the critics have them do, force him to walk in a hot summer day? If the soldiers had a Segway with a parasol attached the child would have undoubtedly reacted completely differently. But armed forces are using jeeps. This may sound too cynical but it is the sober reality.

Since the perpetrators of this article are insinuating a gross child abuse, we should ask ourselves what is more likely to be considered a child abuse?

A child who is sitting in a jeep that has air-condition; or, a child walking in a hot summer day?

He might be crying in the first example, and cheerful in the second one, but his health will be compromise in the second example, but not in the first one.

Shocking! Isn’t it?

Not only do these Israeli soldiers keep the rights of this stones-throwing child, they also take care of his health.

So why is he afraid? Probably because he did something wrong such as throwing stones, for example.

Even if we, (again), go towards the gang at the 972magazine, and accept their demented fantasy that every crying child is an indication of an abuse. What of all the non-crying children around him? The two boys at the beginning of the clip, patting a dog before, and after the soldiers came, completely unmoved by their arrival.

The smaller boy with a similar shirt at the middle of the clip, bewildered at the hysteric behavior of the stones-throwing child. And what of all the elder teens around them, non-of them fearing for their own lives, non-of them fearing for the lives of the stones-throwing child. It seems that the majority of children view the Israeli soldiers as human beings to be reason with. There is not a lot of love in that relationship, but also absent is the fear sick racist smug soldiers supposed to generate. Shouldn’t the majority overrule the minority? Not really since the circumstances are also important. But the folks at 972magazine do not touch the circumstances, aka the facts, they’ve written them out. They are the ones who created the arbitrary criterion that every crying child is an evident of an abuse. They are the ones that must accept the logical outcome of their own criterion, that a child that does not cry is an evident for the lack of an abuse. And when we face one crying child and half a dozen that don’t, then majority overrides the minority. That is the logical outcome of their criterion. And surprise, surprise, they do not accept it. Worse than that, they’ve written out those kids completely. Instead Mairav Zonszein replaced them with non-existing indifferent adults. In doing so she expanded the fantasy into a complete fiction. The reality behind her fiction is the opposite; the Israeli army respects and observes the rights and well-being of Palestinian children. At least according this evidence provided by Be’tselem and 972magazine.

In the video below Israeli soldiers take a stones-throwing child to his parents' home using an air-conditioned jeep, while aided by local civilians. Later it was the father who actually got arrested. The whole affair was resolved at the offices of the Palestinian Authority.

For some this undisputable conclusion is a heresy so unacceptable every bone in their body shakes at 10 on the Richter scale. But these are the facts. This is what real flesh and blood Hasbara folks do, check the facts. And the fact is that the perception of reality shared by the pack of writers in the 972magazine is a complete fantasy; a strange and demented one to be precise.

Now why would otherwise rational human beings adopt such an irrational fantasy?

The reason is very simple and very rational, rational from a very ago-centric point of view. This fantasy serves them in one of the most selfish ways there is.

When it comes to liberal and progressive causes, (as with any kind of popular causes), there are various types of champions and advocates that fight for these causes. The pioneers of the cause and their successors are people who serve their declared causes. They fight against human rights abuses in order to end them. Or they fight against the occupation in order to bring peace between Israelis and Palestinians. However the people behind the 972magazine belong to a sector of pseudo ideologists where the opposite is taking place. For them the occupation exists in order to serve them, to help portray them as champions of human rights and other Liberal causes. Some people wear fancy close as a status symbol, even if they cannot afford it. Others adopt social causes in order to wear them as lucrative ornaments. And the more devilish is the abuse they claim to fight against the more shining their ornaments become.

For the first group, the existence of situations were Israel and Israeli soldiers are not child eating monsters patrolling the West Bank, is not a problem. They have no problem in acknowledging the existence of human rights abuses made by the Palestinian Authority. They fully acknowledge the existence of incitement in the PA official activity, such as education, television, and diplomacy. Accordingly they recognize its destructive effects on the peace process. They also know that anti-Semitism exits among the loud voices of Israel's critics, and they confront it.

But for the later group such realities are a major inconvenience. If Israel is respecting the rights of children, as this story clearly reveals, then it is not racist, child abusing monster. That means that the folks at 972magazine cannot dwell in the splendor that comes with the position of protectors of abused Palestinian children. This keeps away the most sought of title that of glorious fighters against apartheid, which is one of the most ravishing and desired jewels on the shelf today. If, for example, they are to acknowledge the existence of anti-Semitism among Israel's critic, then this will taint the image of the integrity of Israel's critics, and with it their shining new clothes. They can always turn their attention to places where such atrocities do happen, but that will deny them the prestigious title of self-criticism. Therefore it is not surprising that they have turned to fantasy. But is it the only option, or just the lazy option?

The fact that even their collective fantasy is insufficient to justify their accusations, only demonstrates the pathetic state of their dandy liberalism. This condition however is not a unique one, whenever and wherever dandyism takes itself seriously, it comes out pathetic. And it does not matter in what field of life this takes place.

The main difference between real Liberals and dandy Liberals is in the fury factor. Real liberals will be upset when the authorities of the state do abuse the rights and well being of the people under their control, especially children. Dandy Liberals are upset when these authorities do the opposite, and take care and safeguard the rights and well being of the people under their control. Because this denies them the glamorous jewels, luxurious clothes, and smashing stylish hairdos that comes with the cause they claim to fight for. In their eyes they fight for all the suffering people on Earth, them being mostly and only the Palestinians. And like a spoiled rich girl that cannot take her tiara diamond everywhere she wants, they are furious. The reason they lashed out at the soldiers is not because they did the wrong thing, but because they did the right thing, TOOK THE STONES-THREWING CHILD TO HIS MOTHER!

For these folks the occupation will never end. Even when every Palestinian, every Arab, and every Muslim on Earth declare the conflict over and all grievances resolved. The Folks at 972magazine, and others like them, will continue to cry ‘occupation, occupation, occupation.’ Without it they are like Carrie Bradshaw in a world without shopping for the basic non-necessities.

This is not a stretch of the cynicism employed in this column. It is an accusation proven by none other than one of the leaders of the pack, his royal-highness Larry Derfner. Larry Derfner opposes John Kerry's peace initiative. That in itself is not unusual, due to past experiences and past tragedies, many people are skeptic, and I, myself, am no different. For those who want peace, skepticism, and past experience is insufficient to oppose the John Kerry initiative. There are heavy issues involved. Such as trust, the integrity of the process, the ability of each side to deliver, overcoming misunderstandings and different interpretations, etc. However Larry Derfner’s reason has nothing to do with the peace process.  He fears this initiative will terminate the European boycott of Israelis. His rational is a folly no less than that of his two compatriots, if not bigger. “Israelis need to be scared out of the occupation” he says. It is a good thing that he acknowledges that this boycott is about persecuting Israelis. The settlements are just the excuse. What Larry's logic has however is amnesia. Israelis do compare the grim economic prospect of a boycott with their current economic situation. But they also compare it with the reign of terror they were under during the greater part of the second intifada. As unattractive as dire economic conditions are, the fear of living under the constant presence of death, where in each day there is one or two mass murder attacks on Israeli civilians, is far worse. Like most people Israelis are not looking forwards to live under stressed economic conditions. But like most people it is preferable to horrific death. And the last time Israel was under a massive delegitimation attack, it coincided, not coincidently, with the wave of mass murder attacks on Israeli civilians known as the Second Intifada.

Larry lives in a separate universe where terrorism never happened. Likewise the boycott he supports will not end the occupation and is not meant to bring peace. It is evident by the hypocrisy that characterizes every aspect of this boycott.  For one thing there is no need to put Israel through a financial squeeze in order to get it to make concessions on settlements and on land it conquered in 1967. Israel proved that in 1982 when it delivered the Sinai to Egypt and evicted all settlements there. This was proven again in 2006 with the unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, of soldiers and civilians, and with the settlements freeze of 2010.  History has shown that if Israel’s concerns are attended to it will make painful concession for peace, or for even less. Any peace process must address these concerns, just as it must address the Palestinians concerns. A boycott washes them aside; hence the boycott is against the peace process. The second level of hypocrisy is the selectivity of this measure. We do not see any boycott of Morocco for its settlements policy in Western Sahara, nor of Turkey and its settlements policy in Northern Cyprus. And let's not forget the Chinese massive settlements policy in Tibet and Turkestan. This is not a universal principal; it is a selective one, aimed at targeting Israel. Why punish the one country that has cooperated on this issue?  Because that cooperation is not something the EU is interested in. This is a simple act of assault, and Peace Negotiators do not assault the negotiating parties. They work hard to build trust. And violence, and this is violence, does not built trust. Nor does it meant to be.

From the point of view of international law the boycott bases itself on one interpretation of the international law regarding the legal position of the settlements. One of the issues peace negotiations are expected to reach is an agreed interpretation of the international law, and not just over one issue. So, why does the EU do the opposite if they want peace? Clearly they do not want peace. For the purpose of peace one does not built machinery aimed at the economical persecution of each and every Israeli, no matter how trivial their connection to the settlements might be. For peace to succeed economic opportunities are to be increased not vanquished. But Larry Drefner would rather have the slightest chances for peace extinguishes, and the misery of both Israelis and Palestinians continues so this anti peace measure can be implemented. Totally irrational from the point of view of peace advocacy, completely rational from the point of view of someone who treats liberal values the way a fashionista treats cloth and jewelry. The EU is an important body in the international arena; therefore it can be treated as some kind of a judge. If it says Israel is a rough state then automatically it is. End of discussion before it begins. As demonstrated above, there is plenty to discuss but for Larry Drefner and his like this is an unnecessary distraction. With the EU as a seal of approval they can look oh so gorgeous fighters against this rough state whenever they look in the mirror. The mirror being the fantasies produced by their keyboard and displayed in their magazine. Someone like that, who wants to look high and mighty at the expanse of peace, at the expanse of those suffering from the lack of it, has a well known equivalency in the fashion world: Those that buy huge numbers of luxury goods and other status symbols that were made by child labor. This is a moral depravity, pure and simple.

For people who wish to rid their societies from liberal values, Dandy Liberals are a god sent. They ridicule liberal values more effectively than any right wing incitement. And alienate the majority of the public, including those inclined to support liberal causes. They put under a cloud every worthy liberal cause there is, as if the clouds are not thick enough already. And they make the two-state solution looks like the property of those insensitive to the concerns of every day Israelis, if not worse. For those of us wishing to understand and resolve the problems that incase our global society, among them the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, dandy liberals should be recognized and distinguished from real liberals.

At the same time we must also know the differences between dandy liberals and fake liberals. Fake liberals are those that are advancing certain causes that have nothing to do with liberal and progressive values but nevertheless modern society places them under the wider banner of liberalism. These are causes such as Marxism, Anarchism, plain old anti-Semitism, and in some places even Islamic Jihadism. The values of these causes are a sharp contrast to liberal values. Some of their advocates are true believers committed to these causes; others are more like the dandy liberals. For fake liberals the dandy liberals are also a god sent, because they are willing to buy everything the fake liberals have to say. Kind of like before the issuing of a new smartphone, but less useful. But they are not one and the same. Dandy liberals do not seek to destroy liberal society, fake liberals most certainly do. However, Just like the peace process liberal society will benefit from non-of them. They represent lack of integrity and abundance of ignores. Before human rights were a popular cause, these were the very thing the human rights movement sought to eradicate. Instead this strange and demented off spring of our culture of affluence threatens to reintroduce them into the main stream of liberal society. If we desire to protect the precious achievements of the progressive movement, dandy liberals, and fake liberals, should be recognized and marginalized. Starting all over again is a frightening prospect.