Michael van der Galien This puts a whole new perspective on this event. Absolutely insane. This has to be shared with every single person living in this world. Absolute insanity.

Yet, where Israel’s critics loudly proclaim every incident, rumor, conspiracy theory, and even outright fabircation of Israeli crimes, they remain silent when this kind of evidence emerges.

davideff Israel's leaflets said that if Hamas militants use human sheilds, they are responsible for the civilian's life. I think its kind of b.s. that Israel can just say "we are absolving ourselves of responsible warfare". If the enemy is using a school with civilians as a base, the attacking country should not just say "oh well, kill them too". This is horribly irresponsible behavior, and clearly explains why the Arab world is in shambles. How is killing innocent people justified when they are put in harm's way by the enemy they are simply close to in proximity? Spin and bias aside, just tell me how that is right?

C Stanley And yet still, people like Juan Cole don't believe this information:

Let us just repeat that. It was a school. It was flying a UN flag. The UN had given the Israeli military the coordinates. People were seeking refuge there from Israeli air strikes and military operations. If it were true, as the Israelis now charge after the fact, that the building was being used for mortar attacks on the Israeli army, the why in the world would anyone in their right minds stay there. It would be like playing golf in a lightning storm, and Gazans are not stupid about war. Second, how come dead soldiers didn't come out of the building?

Despite the fact that we've all seen videos of Hamas fighters despicable acts of pulling children directly in front of them, and despite the fact that the UN even acknowledges that their schools have been used for this purpose before (once, I think in '07, possibly this same school, where there were stockpiles of weapons and one teacher was found to be a 'resistance fighter', and previously also in Lebanon a school had been taken over by terrorists without any action taken by the UN.) And what does Cole mean when he asks why no soldiers were taken out of the building? Does he expect to suddenly find uniformed soldiers of Hamas fighting according to international conventions? This is the type of reaction from many on the left that I referred to in an earlier comment- there is nothing in their minds that provides justifications for any action by Israel, and they refuse to see what is obvious right before their eyes about Hamas.

Michael van der Galien I now read the JPost article and it does not say that the Hamas terrorists were firing from within the school. Instead it says: "Two residents of the area near UN school that was shelled by the IDF on Tuesday said that they had seen a small group of terrorists firing mortar rounds from a street close to the school." "From a street close to the school." That is not from within the school. Anyway, what this does make clear is that we should not jump to conclusions. Let the UN and Israel carry out an investigation (I think that such incidents should always be investigated).

C Stanley I think that level of skepticism is appropriate too, Michael. But what IDF claims is that some of the shrapnel from the shells they fired back set off explosions within the school. We'll have to wait and see if the investigation supports those facts (though I have to also have some skepticism for the UN led investigation, since they will be engaged in CYA if they failed to prevent the use of their facility by the terrorists.) My complaint though is with people like Cole who can't even accept that this version could be true, even though previous similar events have been documented.

Rudi666 The article from JP and another from AP say that the mortor fite was from a "street close to the school". JP:

Two residents of the area near UN school that was shelled by the IDF on Tuesday said that they had seen a small group of terrorists firing mortar rounds from a street close to the school. The two spoke with The Associated Press by telephone on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal.

AP:

Israel's military said its shelling — the deadliest single episode since Israeli ground forces invaded Gaza Saturday — was a response to mortar fire from within the school and said Hamas militants were using civilians as cover. Two residents of the area who spoke by telephone said they saw a small group of militants firing mortar rounds from a street near the school, where 350 people had gathered to get away from the shelling. They spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal.

Mortars are not stationary artillery, a PU dropping off the mortARS doesn't make the school a base. I could buy into this if the school was an isolated incident. But this from UKTimesOnline:

Israeli mortar rounds blasted a United Nations-run school that had been converted into a refugee shelter for hundreds of Palestinians displaced by the ten-day war in Gaza, killing more than 40 people. It was one of three UN schools hit by Israeli ordnance yesterday. The strike against the Fakhora school in the northern town of Jabaliya was the deadliest single attack of an already blood-soaked offensive.

Michael van der Galien "My complaint though is with people like Cole who can’t even accept that this version could be true, even though previous similar events have been documented." Cole can explain the nuances of the Arab world wonderfully, yet ignores all nuances (someone else said this recently and I agree 100%) when it comes to Israel. With the Arabs most is gray according to Cole while with Israel all is black. You can take him seriously when he talks about Arabs, not when he talks about Israel.

Rudi666 Marl Lynch formerly of AbuArdvark ahs a similar post without the hyperbole of Cole. Mark Lynch - Foreign Policy

... and the winner is (speech!) Wed, 01/07/2009 - 6:52am Ayman al-Zawahiri has finally weighed in on behalf of al-Qaeda over the Gaza crisis, calling it part of the West's war on Islam and calling on Muslims everywhere to attack Western and Israeli targets. He sounds about as happy as I can remember hearing him of late. He probably can't believe his luck. Israel's assault on Gaza has really created an almost unbelievable no-lose situation for al-Qaeda.

C Stanley Rudi: Apparently Cole was not only hyperbolic but also inaccurate: http://sandbox.blog-city.com/cole_spills_wine_at_cana.htm And the trouble with this kind of handwringing anyway is that terrorists will turn anything into an opportunity for recruitment anyway. Policy can't be determined on that basis, because it's a no win. If Israel had refrained from responding to the incoming rockets any longer, then that too would have encouraged further attacks on Israeli and Western interests.

Rudi666 @C Stanley CS The Gaza situation is similar to Northern Ireland. Peace came about when the militant wings of Sinn Fein and the IRA were removed from the political wing of Sinn Fein. The same needs to happen in Gaza, not a military cleansing. It took 70 years for peace in Northern Ireland, with the militants in the IRA running wild from 1960 to the Good Friday Agreement of 10 April 1998.

eddo @davideff Seriously man? Are you blaming Israel for the civilian casualties in Gaza? This is how Hamas operates. Israel has no idea who might be used as shields when setting up areas to fire from. It is sad to no end that innocents die in these situations, but wars are not won - enemies are not defeated by fighting a politically correct war. I don't see Hamas dropping leaflets before they carelessly lob missiles, or whatever they call them, across the border. I cannot believe people are so blind as to what is happening & so ignorant as not to know good from evil. Yes evil!

eddo @Rudi666 But C Stanley, how is Israel supposed to reason with Hamas when they will not accept terms? You cannot reason with any person or group that is hell bent on ending your existence.

C Stanley And what exactly would bring about that type of separation, Rudi? I agree there are some similarities in the two situations (and it's helpful that Blair brings that experience to the table now that he's Mideast envoy, if negotiations can eventually be resumed.) But not knowing enough about how it all came about in N. Ireland, and also assuming that no two situations are exactly alike, I can't really comment further.

C Stanley eddo- not sure what you mean about reasoning with Hamas. What I was getting at is that Israel hasn't always done everything it could to promote more moderate leadership for the Palestinians and they have sometimes been guilty of taking advantage of the situation (settlements, using Palestinians for cheap labor, etc.) I'm not at all saying that Israel hasn't done enough to negotiate with Hamas- I don't think they are a legitimate negotiating partner. But Israel still is responsible for certain domestic policies which affect the Palestinian situation. I can certainly understand why some Israelis would feel little sympathy for the Palestinians- but sometimes it seems to me that that's used as an excuse for behavior that is also inexcusable.

Menlovewar The rocket fire into Israel is totally unacceptable. However, in light of the response you can't help but notice how pathetic it also is- Imagine groups of hate-filled men running around firing rockets that are as likely to kill neighbors as they are to fall into a random spot in Israel... These cowards then run and hide in civilian areas. Rather than using the rocket attacks as a political wedge to make a diplomatic and media blitz that undermines Hammas among Palestinians and International community, Israel instead decides to go full-out and use all those 'defensive' weapons they have. The massive, disgusting, civilian slaughter does not turn locals against Hammas, instead it helps motivate the next generation of Hell-bound suicide bombers and extremists. "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" - Mahatma Gandhi -

C Stanley Menlovewar- that might make sense if the rest of the world really would support the kind of diplomatic and media blitz that you recommend. Instead, everyone turns a blind eye to Israel's security concerns as though this is acceptable behavior that Israel just needs to tolerate.

Craig Travis The Palistineans are a more primitive less educated people. Still Israel bears more responnsibility. It is like the USA and the american indians. It makes me sad the burden Israel will have to carry for its actions. I was proud of Israel when it won in 1967, and I despised the palistineans for their terrorism. Now I feel just the opposite. Israel has to see the palistinean's side of things, and the palistinean extremists have to give up as hard as that may be.

Jason, Managing Editor Michael, I do not think that the pretense of even-handedness and "let's criticize both sides" is a useful position once genocide is put on the table. Hamas puts genocide on the table every time it talks about Israel and about Jews. That has to come first. To say, as some do, that Israel has greater responsibility because they are more advanced and westernized is to simultaneously embrace an anti-Semitic principle (that the threats and attacks that Israel must deal with are less important because are directed against Jews) and an anti-Muslim one (that Muslims are somehow incapable of being responsible for their own words and actions).

Elif Jason, I do not agree with the idea of Israel having to bear more responsibility than Palestinians because it is more advanced. As I said before, nothing Israel does justifies any of the actions of Hamas and it is also the other way around. According to me every side is responsible for their own actions and equally (although you disagree). When someone says this, he / she does not mean that Hamas is not evil or not the cause of what is going on today. He / she just tries to point out that Israel can not hide behind the hard cold fact that the cause of all this is Hamas and do whatever it wants(not that I am saying Israel is doing that right now). But a comparison of Hamas to Israel on that ground and a justification of Israel by saying Hamas is not calculating any collateral damage, even he is targeting more civilians so why should Israel is of no help according to me. Hamas is a terrorist, we know he is targeting even more civilians to be killed for a fact, however according to me you can not respond evil with more evil (again I am not saying that Israel is doing that). You respond terrorism with utmost responsible and reasonable behaviour otherwise you become no different than the terrorist himself. Of course there will be collateral damage in the process but if it is minimized or you are making every effort possible in your own power to minimize that despite the human shield of the enemy, then it is justifable. This is just my opinion, you may agree or disagree. It is up to the leaders to minimize the collateral damage and therefore Hamas is a so called Muslim leader. He has proven to everyone by now what he is after. It is not peace, that is for sure. In my opinion he will not surrender. On the other hand Israel has a right cause (as far as I am concerned majority here agrees with me on that one) and is just trying to defend its borders and civilians. While doing that though if it is disturbed by the bad publicity and critisms because of its war tactiques then it has to explain itself. This does not mean that Israel wants it both ways. This simply means that I would also understand Israel's position when it would not see the need to explain itself and would see an explanation of self defense enough. However in that case then Israel would not be in a position to get surprised by the bad publicity it received (this does not also mean that it is convicted before proven guilty, noone is convicting Israel here, everyone is aware of the cause of the problem). C Stanley in some other article of Michael indicated that Israel is already explaining itself but it is not good enough for many. If that is the case, then it is worth focusing on this part. That is also I guess what you are trying to point out in your article. C Stanley also in that other article responded me by saying that she disagrees with me when I thought the international community should have two sets of expectations for the two sides. Since it is related to this article, I thought it was worth mentioning. I do not think that the international community should have two sets of expectations for the two sides. When you give the equal chance of justification and reasoning to both sides over a period of time, if one side fails you over and over again (in this case Hamas), you no longer value what he has to say or even you know what he has to say (that he is declaring a 'Holy War' on Jews). This does not mean that you become immune to his evil actions or you no longer condemn him for what he is doing. This merely means although you continue to give him the benefit of the doubt, you trust the other side more. When you trust the other side more, you do not want that side also to fail you. Therefore I do not think that it should be any surprise to anyone when people expect Israel to explain itself. According to me this is not related to taking sides over the long conflict of land and territories, this is just condemning terrorism. If Israel is already explaining itself but if it is not getting enough media coverage, that is another problem though.

Bruno DeGourville When i first read this post i decided not to respond because i considered it worded in a way that could easily drag myself and other readers in the the eternal blame game of which some in this region are fond. But today i noticed that it was one of the most commented post so i decided to give my two cents worth of thought: Just as i was pointing out on other posts, people seem more readily prone to assigning guilt and responsibility rather than understanding the core issues and finding solutions. Out of all the comments i've read so far on this post, i get a sense that people were interested in either highlighting the evilness of a party or how much more evil one party was compared to the others, or playing the "he said, i said, you did he did .." game. Showing how evil one party is over the other is pointless: to the article mentioned by Michael "Hamas was using the U.N. school as a base for mortar fire" one could oppose the Qana Massacre of 1996 or Its Repeat in 2006 or even more gruesome, the Sabra and Shatila Massacre !...and vice-versa! Let's be clear, neither one of us on here are expert on those issues, nor do we have all the elements to guilt and responsibilities. Horrible and inhuman events are aplenty in this region. As long as there won't be any reliable trustworthy entity able to impartially monitor any truce or agreement between the parties, this attitude is pointless and counter productive. So let's stop that blame game, especially us who are physically removed from this conflict. Let's not allow us to be dragged in this region emotional and spiritual dysfunction and keep our heads cool if we genuinely want to help them get out of this mess and find solutions. Playing their blame game won't help us, won't help them. We have spent far enough energy, money and good will on this region, on both parties and still have to rip the benefits.

C Stanley Bruno- even if we accept your premise, your approach is still problematic. I do agree that we don't always have enough information to make correct assessments of blame. And certainly, the information that we do get is always filtered through the lens of people and institutions with their own bias. I'm perfectly willing to say that I may generally be giving too much benefit of the doubt to Israel. I suppose if there weren't already a huge number of voices in the world that condemn Israel, then there would be some risk in doing so that Israel would not be held accountable. Since so many people, including our ertwhile United Nations, are in my opinion highly biased against Israel (and actually providing a roadblock to a peaceful two state solution when they exercise that bias,) I'm not at all concerned that my voice joining those who support Israel would lead to an abandonment of their responsibility to reduce civilian casualties as much as possible. Again I'll bring up an analogy regarding the need to deal with blame and justice, rather than just focusing narrowly as you do on the suffering of the civilians caught in the crossfire. I mentioned yesterday a situation of a child killed by police when they were forced to enter a building where that child had been held hostage by a dangerous man. If we were to take the approach that this must be prevented at all costs, or that the police and the criminal were equally liable for the death of that child (or even to say that we can't possibly know since we weren't there) then we would be sentencing everyone in society to anarchy. So the problem I have with your claim that we must not judge the various players is that this in the long run creates more misery and suffering for the very people who are the victims in this war. Neither Israel nor Palestine can exist without a sense of security and order in their societies (no peace without justice), so our failure or refusal to take sides results in the fomenting of the violence rather than a resolution. In short, we're putting off any possible hope of a two state solution if we don't draw a line in the sand for the Palestinians. If they cannot or won't elect responsible leaders, then they will never see a brighter future- so the current leadership has to be held responsible. As far as whether Israel's actions are the right ones, or whether they go too far- the problem there is that the international community will not step up and allow Israel to have other options to respond to the constant barrage of rocket fire. If other parties would be willing to hold Hamas (or any other terrorist groups) responsible for those actions, then Israel could be satisfied that it was not under constant threat. But instead we get Jimmy Carter and his ilk saying that the rocket fire is the only way the Palestinians have to express their frustrations, and that the tunnels they dig should be seen as defenses (even though they are constantly used for arms smuggling and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers.) When those actions aren't accounted for, it's not only unfair to Israel but also to the Palestinians who deserve far better for hopes for their future. They deserve leaders who will work for economic and infrastructure improvements so that foreign aid isn't required; and leaders who will actually work for these improvements rather than scapegoating the Israelis and spending all of the public resources on rockets and mortar shells (while expecting to have a place at the negotiating table for peace.) And again, some people in society have the role of direct aid to the victims. In my law enforcement scenario, for instance, we'd expect medical personnel to focus only on providing livesaving treatments and pain relief to a victim in a situation like that and not worry about who is to blame for the injuries. But the rest of society can't put all resources into saving victims of crimes- there has to be an outcry for justice which holds the correct parties responsible. And law enforcement does have to make difficult decisions sometimes (some even impossible) to go after dangerous criminals even if there is some risk to innocent bystanders. Requiring the police to avoid those confrontations altogether would doom society to a situation of constant fear and threat, since criminals would quickly learn that they can avoid consequence by using human shields. In fact, this is what the terrorists in the Mideast have clearly learned- that by using these tactics of hiding within the population, they can manipulate world opinion against Israel and act with relative impunity. As long as they keep this situation on those terms, they will never make peace.

Elif Bruno, with all due respect when a leader or militants of that leader announces / announce to world that they will continue to use human shield to beat Israel, then it is not very difficult for one to understand the cause for the loss of civilians. You are right, we should indeed stop the blame game and focus on loss of civilians but this does not prevent us from announcing our thoughts about what is going on today. As I indicated before, nothing Hamas does justifies Israel's actions and vice versa and Israel should try anything in its own power to minimize the loss of civilians. Yes we are not experts on these issues but I do not think we need to be experts to understand that Hamas is in no intention of peace - making. Here is some part of an article posted on Al Jazeere English recently (the article is called 'Hamas: We will win war in Gaza') 'Members of Hamas have said that Israel is using collective punishment by targeting civilians who support Hamas. But is Hamas' targeting of Israeli civilians also not a type of collective punishment? We are defending ourselves. When you talk about any occupation, people should resist the soldiers and the army who occupy their country. We don't have weapons sophisticated enough to launch at exact targets. We are sending a message: "You can't provide security to your side until you bring security to the Palestinian side." We are looking for freedom and for security for the Palestinian people. This is our message to Israel. They need to understand that we are working for an independent state.' As you see, the approach is simple, when it comes to suicide bombings or else it is self defense but when it comes to loss from their side it is collective punishment. I am not going back to the roots of the problem and as I indicated in other posts according to me Israel should not bear more responsibility just because it has technological equipment. For me taking sides in this conflict like that prevents us from being able to understand what is going on today objectively. However when you readily know that you are declaring war on someone that has a better chance of beating you and you know that you will have a lot of casualties then you are no more than a so called Muslim. I am a Muslim myself but just because I am a Muslim does not mean that I will defend one side in a blind fashion. Life of a human being is more important than anything. I also indicated that before and said in another comment of mine that Islam allows us to deny our religion when we are under the threat of losing our lives. The explanation for that is simple for me. Hamas failing to understand that or thinking that for a greater cause anything is justifiable is sorry but no more than hypocrisy according to me. Whatever happened in the past (ie. Israel supporting Hamas for internal chaos in Palestine due to the conflict between Fatah and Hamas) does not justify Hamas’ actions today. Whatever great cause he is after does not justify use of human shield. Same thing applies to Israel. Use of human shield by the enemy does not justify Israel bombing mosques or UN schools just because bombs are hidden there unless Israel is trying everything in its own power to minimize the loss of civilians. Although life is full of actions reactions this is no reason for any party to wash their hands clean off of anything. This is my humble opinion, you may agree or disagree but I do not think there is any harm in discussing these, entering into debates or exchanging ideas.

Bruno DeGourville Let me add that at this point the fact that you are or the reader is muslim or jewish or christian is irrelevant. It's all about the value we put in life's sanctity; we, as human individuals. And this value shouldn't depends on the value the other or our enemy puts in it. Although you say you don't want to play the blame game, you still cannot resist the pull: You start giving us excerpts of an interview of Hamas leaders on Al Jazeera. Your own words betray the realm in which you seem stuck like so many unfortunately, the blame game again -"I am a Muslim does not mean that I will This text is strong one side in a blind fashion"-the key word here is: defend. Let me say that we all know what Hamas's goals are and i don't think they have ever hidden their agenda or goals. If we as people living away from the zone of conflict, are not able to bring solutions to the problem, we ought to steer clear of the same belligerent aggressive mind set in which the parties in conflict have been stuck for generations. Again the question i was raising was about the value we give to life and the innocent victims, regardless of your ethnicity, creed or location, regardless of your enemy's value of life. I wish people would stop trying to convince people that Hamas or Israel is guilty. There is no point for us unless we have direct vested interests or are paid to do either party's PR campaign.

Rudi666 I have to add these two articles to the frey. Seems both sides use "human shields", but the Israelis High Court told the IDF to stop using unwilling Palestinians. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/02/israel1 http://www.btselem.org/english/human_shields/neighbor_procedure.asp

After the state filed its response, the IDF continued to use Palestinian civilians to order other Palestinians to leave their houses to be arrested. This practice, the "neighbor procedure," led to the death of a Palestinian man: on 14 August, soldiers sent Nidal Abu Mukhsan, a nineteen-year-old resident of Tubas, to the house of Nasser Jarar, a Hamas activist, and ordered him to get Jarar to leave his house. When Abu Mukhsan approached the house, Jarar, apparently thinking that the person coming toward him was a soldier, shot Abu Mukhsan. Even after Mukhsan's death, the IDF did not prohibit use of the "neighbor procedure," so the seven human rights organizations went back to court, on 18 August, and demanded that a temporary injunction be issued forbidding the IDF's use of the procedure. The High Court granted the application, and the temporary injunction remains in effect.

C Stanley Rudi: I agree that those actions by IDF soldiers were wrong. It sounds as though there is imperfect accountability for those types of human rights violations- and yet even the fact that there is accountability at all is better than it is on the other side, where Hamas openly admits war crimes with impunity. Two rights don't make a wrong, but I think we shouldn't draw a moral equivalency when there is definitely not such equivalence.

C Stanley Let me add that at this point the fact that you are or the reader is muslim or jewish or christian is irrelevant I agree with that completely- these are issues of ethics and human dignity, which have no boundary according to religious sect. I guess I can understand that Michael and others are simply trying to disavow people of the notion that somehow Islam would condone some of these actions- but I think it should be pointed out that when people talk about being a 'good Muslim' or 'good Christian' or 'good Jew', that the criteria for such is no different in these matters than just being a good human being.

Rudi666 @C Stanley The current narrative is the evil Hamas using "human shields", while the truth is that both sides are guilty of this. In most cases the Palestinians are willing participants, not victims. The one hero is the Israelis Supreme Court which stopped many of the corrupt and immoral Israelis practices like torture and neighbor procedure.

C Stanley But Rudi, that's the point- the Israeli Supreme Court is an authoritative body that is part of Israel, and they acted to stop these practices. There is no such constraint whatsoever on the Palestinian side, and no international outcry to reign in the Palestinian war crimes either.

Rudi666 @C Stanley The IDF and the Israelis government didn't go willingly. They ignored the initial ruling in 2005. http://www.btselem.org/english/human_shields/neighbor_procedure.asp http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=620507

The Israel Defense Forces is still using Palestinians as human shields, in defiance of a High Court of Justice ruling forbiding the practice, Haaretz has learned. An IDF force broke into Mahmoud Rajabi's home in the Jabel Johar neighborhood in eastern Hebron at about 4 A.M. last Wednesday and forced three brothers to serve as human shields.

C Stanley Of course, Rudi. So, there are elements within Israel that will seek to justify unconscionable acts, and then elements which push back against that. However, on the other side there is only rationalization for acts that can never be excused. And externally too, the UN and other nations constantly hold Israel to a higher standard and accept that the Palestinians just do these things- a consistent double standard.

Elif Bruno, as much as I hear what you are saying, you seem to be ruling out the possibility of being able to discuss today's incidents completely. I disagree with you about your assertion of having to be paid or having to be in a PR campaign to be able to discuss the incidents of today as much as I disagree with C Stanley about having to be part of an NGO to be able to focus on the humanitarian sides of the incidents more. The reason I indicated I am a Muslim is exactly the same with you indicating that religious beliefs should be irrelevant. Me being a Muslim should not rule over my thoughts of incidents of today or affect them and just because I am a Muslim I should not be defending one side. The use of defend here is for a 'must not do' so I am struggling to understand your line of reasoning behind your thought of me contradicting myself or as you put it, me betraying myself. Not taking sides in the conflict does not necessarily mean that you can not see the cause of incidents of today and I really do not believe that one should be in an agressive state of mind to be able to qoute from an article. Am I in an agressive state of mind because I am quoting from an article about the motives of Hamas? Also that quotation was a response to your assertion of we should not comment about the topic because we are not experts. We do not need to be experts to see that Hamas is not after a truce or peace. That is already indicated by yourself.

Muslims Against Sharia Let us pray for the safety of Palestinian civilians who held hostages by Hamas and the safety of Israeli soldiers. May this campaign end swiftly and may Hamas be annihilated. May moderate Muslims emerge victorious in the struggle for Gaza! http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2009/01/israel-invades-gaza-in-attempt-to.html

Crimson Politics Agreed... MAS :)