Rafah,
August 3rd, 10:45 am; when common sense is another victim of a war
crime
There
is no major dispute between the IDF and HRW as to what has happened outside
the Preparatory 'A' Boys' School in Rafah, on August 3rd, at 10:45
am. A motorcycle chased by an Israeli drone was hit by a missile, probably a
Spike missile. This happened across the street from the open front gate
of that school, where children and adults were buying ice cream and sweets from
food vendors. As a result 12 were killed, among them 8 children, and around 30
were wounded. According to Israel there were three members of Islamic Jihad on
that motorbike. HRW does not dispute that, instead they argue that it was an
unlawful attack because it was a disproportionate willful attack. Here, again, a serious actuation is made,
without supporting evidence, based on another incomplete investigation. But
even before that they needlessly undermine their own credibility. Out of the
3,000 or so people sheltering in that school, these dead and wounded make less
of a percentage than the dead and wounded of the Jabalya tragedy. But this is
completely irrelevant to this case, since this is a totally different
situation. As Mark Regev, the Israeli foreign ministry spokesperson pointed out
at the time, it was not an attack on the school, rather on a motorcycle
operating in the vicinity of that school. And the testimonies gathered by HRW confirm
that. The very testimonies that captured the horror of this situation, also verify
the Israeli government line. Moammar Shaqlaih is a 32 years old volunteer who
helped mediate a dispute between one of the directors of the school and another
volunteer at the front gate, he says: "I was 20 meters away
from the explosion when it happened. I didn't see it happen because my back
was to the street. I ran towards the explosion, and I was completely
shocked. Kids who had been buying ice cream were lying in the street,
their bodies were bleeding everywhere. It was horrific….We brought the
dead and the wounded inside the school…" The second male
volunteer, described as a, 45 years old volunteer that choose to remain
anonymous, also describes the motorcycle and the attack as taking place in the
street, outside the school. "In the street there were
three people on a motorcycle. The motorcycle slowed down, exactly in front
of the gate of the school, I could see it. The minute the cycle slowed
down, the missile hit." He too had to step outside to see what
happened. The testimony of Saber al Hams, the ice-cream vendor who left early
is taking place entirely in the street. There he sold ice-cream for about an
hour. Along that street he walked away, and run back again once he heard the
explosion. And in the street he saw the horrific site of the dead bodies. He
was never inside that school. These testimonies confirm what Mark Regev had
said. This was not an attack on a UN run school. It was an attack on a
motorcycle that rode nearby. The idea that this is an attack on a school
is an outcome of false impression. This false impression was initially created
by the news media. By the time the news crews got there the dead and wounded
had already been moved into the school. Since around that time the ambulances
came to take them away, the news crews entering the school saw the casualties
been taken outside and into the ambulances. This created the impression that
the school itself was attacked, and that is what the world saw. But for some reason
HRW chose to sustain this false impression. First with the main headline that
suggests all three schools were attacked, then with the secondary headline, containing
just the school's name. Yes, the two places, the site of the attack and the
school were close, close enough to make those who were at the school at the
time witnesses, but not victims or survivors. The two separate places are not
one and the same. This false impression undermines the credibility of HRW
account regarding the events outside the UN run school in Rafah, but it also
puts Israel's defenders in a bind. Because percentage wise, these 42 dead and
wounded, are probably close to 100% of the people standing around the sweets
and ice cream vendors, if not all of them.
For the purpose of making serious s accusation against Israel, this
false impression is completely unnecessary. They could have made a stronger
case without it, if it wasn't for the other holes in this account. The faults in this one are far more serious
than everything reviewed so far.
Here,
HRW is announcing a guilty verdict against Israel that is based on several
failures of the common sense type, and one omission that is simply too big to
be overlooked. HRW's first argument introduces itself as a common sense
question, "why couldn't the drone takeout the motorcycle before or
after it slowed down in front of that school?" There are common
sense answers to this question. The first has to do with the laws of nature and
science. The drone could not have hit the motorcycle before it slowed down in
front of that school from the simple reason that fast moving objects are more
difficult to hit. The idea that the drone, could have taken out motorcycle,
"after," makes even less sense. Taking it after it resumed
speed, requires the drone to hover around and wait until the motorcycle riders
decide to resume the chase. Why would
they do that? This would also make the drone vulnerable to fire from the
ground. And what if slowing down was a part of getaway trick - some kind of an
escape maneuver? If the three men on that motorcycle posed a military threat, a
fact HRW reluctantly accepted, then the drone operator could not have afford to
let them get away. Elementary reason shows that there was no after option
either.
In
their second failure of the common sense type HRW's emphasized the fact the
drone's alleged missile, a Spike anti-tank missile, uses an optical guidance
system. This they say suggests the drone operator had a clear view of the food
vendors and the children gathering around them. And therefore could have seen
the civilians and aborted. No it doesn't. A clear view requires a clear field
of view with no obstacles. As HRW keeps emphasizing the Gaza Strip is an urban
environment. Videos that came from that street shortly after the attack, (some
of them from the above mentioned news crews), show a street that is wide to
some extant but with its share of buildings and tall trees. To argue
responsibly that the operators of the drone and its missile could see the
children around the food vendors, an accuser must identify the course taken by
the missile as it chased the motorcycle. And show that along that course its
guidance system had the alleged clear view. HRW did not even address this
necessity. Another key requirement they did not address was whether or not
aborting that launch was possible. If this was indeed a Spike missile then its
operator had only 30 seconds to choose a different target for it. The school
was clearly not an option. And neither were the surrounding buildings, where
people were living in. As this IDF video shows, a successful abortion of
missile strike requires identifying the civilians, and a large enough available
clearing. A grossly incomplete investigation is a good enough reason not to
file criminal charges of any type. You do not need to be a lawyer to know that.
But the faults of this account don't stop here.
HRW
next fallacy is the following description of the Spike missile, allegedly fired
from the drone. "Spike missiles can create casualty-producing fragments
up to 20 meters from impact, which was well within the distance of the school's
front gate." This statement is simply wrong. It is not the missile
that produces the wide distribution of the fragments, it's the warhead.
Without identifying the warhead this charge cannot be made. Identifying the
warhead is needed for another important reason. It is needed in order to
explain an inconstancy in the account. According to the nameless 45 years old
volunteer, one of three men on the motorcycle survived the attack. Now, how
could a man sitting next to an explosion that is able to kill people 10 or 20
meters away survive it? It is quite possible that the science of physics can
explain this, but such an explanation is not provided. Until this is resolved
an alternative explanation has the same level of credibility as HRW's
accusation. As agreed by both the IDF and HRW, the occupants of the motorcycle
were members of an armed group. As such there is high probability that they
carried bombs and explosives with them. In almost all cases of bombs used by
armed Palestinian forces, the bombs included large amounts of debris and
fragments added in order to maximize the harm to civilians. As the evidence and
testimonies gathered by HRW tell us most of the casualties in this horrific
tragedy were caused by fragments that went deep inside their bodies. (Read the
testimony of the volunteer Moammar Shaqliah). Therefore the alternative
explanation suggests that it was not the Spike missile or its warhead that
caused the large number of casualties outside the school's gate. Instead, it
was a secondary explosion from an explosive device carried by the occupants of
that motorcycle that caused this tragedy. The gap between the two explosions
may have been too short to be detected by the nearby crowd, but it was enough
to allow one of the riders of that motorcycle to survive the two explosions.
The large amount of fragments added to all Palestinian made bombs is what
brought about the horrific deaths and injuries of 42 victims of this explosion.
Only a further investigation can determine if this explanation is the correct
one. Until then it has the same merit as the explanation offered by HRW.
HRW
had challenged the taking out of a legitimate military target with arguments that
supposed to be those of common sense. This makes their glaring omission of
another common sense question, far bigger, alarmingly bigger. It is a very
simple question, what were those kids doing out there in the first
place? It’s a war zone outside that shelter. If they wanted ice cream and
sweets so bad, there were plenty of adults who could step outside and buy it
for them. This is such a disturbingly unusual behavior in times of crisis any
reasonable person would have noticed it. Children are not supposed to be
outside in a war zone for the same reason they are not supposed to do this when
a hurricane or a tsunami is approaching. It is simply and obviously too
dangerous. If we are to accept HRW's version of events at face value, we will
have to accept the unlikely occurrence of a horrific set of coincidences. When
a set of highly rare, unusual, and bewildering behaviors, took place in a
monstrously perfect sequence needed to bring about this horror. First we have
the food vendors. For some reason these guys decided to risk their lives and
businesses, and open shop in the middle of a war. Yes they started during a
cease fire, one of many that kept collapsing, the danger they were under was
imminent. Food vendor like these guys had no way of knowing where and when the
war will fall on them. This is a very unusual decision, which the average
business person is unlikely to make. This is made worse by the testimony of the
surviving ice cream sales man Saber al Hams, who said that the vendors kept on
selling their ice cream and sweets after the cease fire had collapsed. More
unusual is the behavior of the parents. Apparently not even a single parent,
out of hundreds, protested. Hundreds of
parents inside that shelter and none were concerned? All are apathetic to their children safety?
Does this sound likely to anyone? A third group with a similar bewildering
behavior are those of the staff and volunteers that operated this UN run
school. Judging from HRW account non-of of them said a thing either.
Each
of those behaviors is an extremely unlikely conduct in its own right. Normal
food vendors do not open shop at a war zone during war time, especially after a
cease fire had collapsed. Normal parents do not let their kids step outside of
their shelter, no matter what the danger is. And responsible staff workers and
volunteers will keep them inside and sent away such un-normal vendors. Each of
these behaviors is extremely unusual, and extremely rare, if not totally
unlikely. And for these three separate highly unusual counter safety behaviors,
to occur at the same place at the same time, is so unlikely it is outright
suspicious. Made worse by another
suspicion coincident; that of all the places the motorcycle riders could choose
to slow down at, they did it in front of this school, the sight of an already
implausible set of bad coincidences. The more likely explanation is that this
was prearranged at some point earlier, as an escape route. An escape route,
were those kids were the equivalent of smoke screen, a cover of protection for
the escaping motorcycle riders. Prearrange by militant elements that took
control of that school and kept the parents and staff from interfering by
either deceit, force, or both. All they had to do was to keep the vendors
outside the gate, tempting the kids to stay out of the shelter, beyond the end
of the cease fire, and long enough for that motorcycle to arrive.
This
suspicion is reinforced by another suspicious coincidence. This is what 23
years-old Azhar Odwan said about the reason she became a volunteer: "I
started to work as a volunteer because I felt a need for more women volunteers.
The women sheltering inside the school need to be able to talk to women, not
only men." More women volunteers were needed because the women
there had only men to talk to. An all men hiring policy is very strange
hiring policy for an organization that belongs to the United Nations. But it is
quite common among religious fundamentalist organizations in the Middle East.
One such organization that is highly active in the Gaza Strip is Islamic Jihad.
And according to the IDF, the riders of the motorcycle belonged to that
organization. So we have here a motorcycle ridden by people Israel's says
belongs to Islamic Jihad, which slows down near a UN run school, with a hiring
policy of volunteers that follows the religious philosophy of that very same
organization. This is a suspicious coincidence in its own right. Add the two
together and the alarm will turn on even for the skeptic.
For
those who are not yet convinced that something very suspicious was happening at
that school prior to the attack, here is a question. What was the getaway
vehicle doing there? Here is what the nameless 45 years-old volunteer told HRW:
"There were two guys killed on that motorcycle and the third one was
taken away by a car immediately." Only a getaway car in a standby
could take him away immediately.
And any good escape maneuver, no matter how cynical, needs a good
diversion or a good cover. Something both Hamas and Islamic Jihad are more than
capable of arranging.
There
are two options in understanding the events of that day as they are described
in this account. We can take HRW account at face value and accept that nothing
unusual or worth investigating took place at the Preparatory 'A' Boys' School
in Rafah, on August 3rd, prior to 10:45 am. This means accepting as
a fact that Palestinian parents are grossly careless and apathetic to their
children's safety. This is actually something many right-wingers will agree
with, loudly and obnoxiously. Or accept as highly likely the possibility that
one of the armed Palestinian groups had taken control over that school, used it
and abused it for their own needs; including sacrificing children in order to
save three of their men.
There
is no choice to be made here. Just listen to the witnesses.
This
is how the ice cream salesman Saber al Hams, describes how unusual their
presence was: "The place was full of people. Actually the rest of the
street that day was calm, because there had been a ceasefire, but then it
collapsed, so people didn't go out." However it is the
beginning of his testimony that is the most revealing. "I felt that day
it was not busy enough. And it was not picking up, so we only
stayed for an hour. I left at around 10:30 am…" Simply put, it made no
business sense for the vendors to be there. Most of the kids in that shelter
simply did not go outside to buy ice cream and sweets. What kind of kids do not
go out to get ice cream and sweets? Only one kind, the ones forbidden to do so
by their parents! And be certain it was not easy for them. Here is how Azhar
Odwan describes the conditions inside the school's compound, "the
playground is always full of people, especially kids. Given that its summer in
Gaza, and the humidity…" The parents in that UN shelter kept
their children from stepping outside and buying ice – cream even under the
unbearable conditions of the heat and humidity of the Gazan summer. In the
complex and tense situation that had existed inside that school there are going
to be a few parents that will cave in to their children bagging, and a few
others that will be deceived by their kids. It is unavoidable, but it does not
change the fact that the parents at the Preparatory 'A' Boys' School in Rafah
behaved admirably, more precisely - parentally; and kept their kids from harm's
way.
Their
typically normal behavior as parents, in the highly un-normal circumstances of
war and crisis, strengthen the already strong suspicion that something
extremely wrong was taking place. And
they are not the only ones to do so. As the testimonies of two male volunteers
tell us, those of Moammar Shaqliah and the nameless 45 years old volunteer,
some kind of an altercation took place at that front gate. It was an
altercation between one of the organizers of this UN run school and a third
volunteer. It was so heated these two witnesses/ volunteers had to
mediate. There is no way of knowing from
this HRW account what the debate was about. But anything short of immediate
concern for the safety of children outside the gate would have been a huge dereliction
of duty by this UN staffer. There is no way to confirm it with this data, but
it is a strong likelihood that the UN staff also behaved normally and
responsibly. And the reason he and the rest of his staff could not get that
gate close is because they were not in charge of it at the time. Think of the
picture of this mediation. We have here 3 volunteers vs one UN staffer. What
kind of objective mediation they could offer, if any, is not all that
important; since whatever the mediation there was, it was sufficient to keep
the gate open long enough for the motorcycle to arrive. And bring about this
devastating tragedy.
And
for those who will oppose the idea that any of these volunteers is capable of
such brutality I bring the full testament of the nameless 45 years old
volunteer. And I recommend reading it, over and over again.
"On
the black day, I was at the gate of the school trying to resolve a dispute
between one of the managers and a volunteer. Suddenly the sound of a drone
became really loud – it was unusual and very aggravating. I looked up to the
sky and we all stopped talking. I was still at the gate, when one of the
displaced families asked me to get them another gallon of water. The families
get only one gallon per day, and to get an extra gallon would be a big
procedure, so I was just turning around to go talk to another supervisor inside
the school. I was 15 meters from the gate, in the middle of the court yard,
there's a basic football (soccer) field there, a playground. That's where I was
when the explosion happened.
In
the street there were three people on a motorcycle. The motorcycle slowed down,
exactly in front of the gate of the school, I could see it. The minute the
cycle slowed down, the missile hit. I didn't see anything suspicious about
them. There was a big fire, lots of smoke. As usual there were ice-cream
sellers at the school gate; four or five carts are always there. The children
always buy from them. As soon as the smoke cleared I run towards the street,
but I was so nervous, I was not sure there would be another strike. Everyone
else was running the opposite way, into the school. I was in such confusion
about whether to go forwards or to run back.
I
saw dead bodies all over the place, and wounded, mainly children, and the
ice-cream sellers. One of the ice-cream sellers, Abu Harb, his body took most
of the shrapnel. He was an older man. He was always there with his cart. There
were two guys killed on the motorcycle and the third one was taken by car
immediately – I don't know where he went."
Just
listen to this guy:
First,
he wants to be anonymous. Why? Who is he hiding from? With a testimony critical
only of Israel, he clearly has no reason to fear Hamas or Islamic Jihad. This
means that he is hiding from Israel. Only members of armed Palestinian
organizations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad have a reason to hide from
Israel.
Second,
he is the only one who thinks this was not unusual for the ice-cream vendors to
be there. There are always there, he says, which is probably true. But war is
not always there, the last time war took place there was on the eve of 2010.
And that is why over 3,000 souls in that shelter actively disagreed with
him.
Third,
he is the only witness to mention the drone. He found its present unusual and
aggravating, but not frightening enough to get people inside and close shut the
gate.
Forth,
he was able to notice the motorcycle while been preoccupied by a family asking
for another gallon of water. And that is when he was 15 meters inside the
school, which is a distance 25 or 35 meters away from the motorcycle.
Surrounded by the school's confines and the distracting commotion of hundreds
of people, (as described by the female volunteer Azhar Odwan); he was able to
notice that motorcycle coming, slowing down, been hit by the missile,
exploding, and one of its occupants surviving and taken away by a getaway car.
That is the kind of attention to details we would usually find in a person
waiting for that motorcycle to arrive.
Fifth,
while all the other witnesses were devastated by the site of dying children his
attentions was focused on that motorcycle. All he could offer them was this one
sentence, "I saw dead bodies all over the place, and wounded, mainly children,
and the ice-cream sellers. Abu Harb, his body took most of the shrapnel. He was
an older man. He was always there with his cart." Not a single child
that was dying or wounded caught his attention or broke his heart, and that is
cold, very cold. The kind of cold bloodedness we would expect from a person
able to sacrifice children for his own needs. In his testimony the nameless 45
years old volunteer exhibits all the properties needed for someone who
participates in such a brutal escape maneuver. Besides helping keep the gate
open, he acts like someone who is waiting for that motorcycle to arrive. And he
is totally indifferent to the suffering of the children around him. Apparently,
when many others were carrying the dead and wounded into the school's compound,
he was the one who was too shocked and confused to do the same. But one of the
casualties did catch his attention, the elderly ice-cream vendor Abu Harb. He
was focused to notice that Abu Harb body took most of fragments from the
explosion.
The
allegation made in this review of HRW account, suggests that Palestinian
militants, probably Islamic Jihad, orchestrated this situation in order to bail
their friends on the runaway motorcycle. An escape maneuver like this, were
children are nothing more than expandable pawns, requires the presence of
someone like nameless 45 to co-ordinate and supervise. Well, here he is. He is
waiting for that motorcycle to arrive even when he is distracted away from the
front gate. He is indifferent to the suffering of children he himself put in
danger by keeping the front gate open, even after the cease fire had collapsed
and an enemy drone has been sited. His presence is no longer a matter of
another unexplained coincident. This is incrimination. We have in front of us
cold blooded humanitarian volunteer that seeks anonymity. Who just happened to
positioned himself just where it is necessary, to monitor the escape maneuver
of the motorcycle's occupants.
The
fact that only one of the casualties caught his attention, the elderly
ice-cream vendor Abu – Harb, does not exonerate him from any charges. It only
increases the level of the incrimination. Abu – Harb represents the most
disturbing and monstrous part in this revealed outrage. He is a very peculiar
ice – cream vendor, and not in a nice way. Besides been one of the ice-cream
vendors who stayed, thus keeping the children in danger, he has a strange name.
Abu Harb is an Arabic name that usually means father of war. This is not the
kind of a name we would associate with selling ice-cream. If his name or nick
name was Abu Boora, father of ice-cream, or Abu Mahroot, father of cone, as in
ice-cream cone, that would have made sense. But father of war, is the kind of
name usually associated with members of armed organizations and their
sympathizers. In a culture where Jihad, holly war, is a common first name, the
likelihood of someone being called Abu – Harb, may not be a small one. But if
that is the case, it is another co-incident to add to the list; maybe not the
most glaring, but disturbing enough. According to the testimonies gathered he
took most of the hits from that explosion. This means that he was the closest
to it when it happened. It also means that he was the farthest from the
school's front gate. Why would he do that? Why would he sell his ice-cream far
from this school? His market is inside that school. With business been tough,
he should be doing the opposite, getting as close as possible to that school,
shouting, singing, promising cold refreshing ice-cream. Instead he is in the
worse possible location, battling his competitors over the handful of kids that
did come out. Business wise this is pointless, counterproductive. But if he was
a part of that escape maneuver, then his behavior would have made perfect sense.
For the organizers of this diabolical escape maneuver to guarantee its success
they had to make sure the operators of the drone and its missile are able to
see those kids. As the IDF video of aborted missile strikes shows, it is the
visual verification of the presence of civilians that leads to these
cancellations. And the best way to ensure that is to get at least some of those
kids as close as possible to the arriving motorcycle. This requires perfect timing and
co-ordination. In the clear division of labor that emerges here, the volunteers
at the gate and the motorcycle riders had to work on the co-ordination and
timing part of it, while Abu Harb's job was to make it perfect. Obviously, he
failed, and a cold blooded gamble with children's lives became a war crime. A
war crime performed by Islamic Jihad against their own people. And quite possibly, people from their very
city and neighborhoods.
It
is a war crime that violates international law on several levels. International
law forbids the use of human shields. It also requires all parties to a
conflict to give special protection for children. From a moralistic point of view, using
children as human shields is especially outrages and monstrous. The problem is
that international law's main focus is on war crimes aimed against an enemy
population, not when it is self-inflicted.
When international law does face such situations, it refers to them as
extraordinary. Best example is the Khmer Rouge trials, known as the 'Extra
Ordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia'.
This war crime may not require extra ordinary chambers, but it does
require attention. It shows that
civilians need the same legal protection from their own forces as they do from
enemy forces.
Having
established the fact, that Islamic Jihad has committed this war crime, a war
crime against their people, a new question rises. Does this conclusion, means
Israel is innocent? After all, the Israeli missile was an instrument of death
in this crime.
If
an international judicial authority does decide to launch criminal proceedings
against Israel and the IDF regarding this war crime; justice demands of them to
take a series of actions first. The first among them is to take on the issues
HRW investigators had avoided. Completing their investigation and proving that
the operators of the Israeli missile could see those children and had the
ability to abort its flight. That means also been able to identify in time an
accessible vacant area where the missile could have exploded at safely. They
also must verify that no secondary explosions took place; that no bombs or
other explosive devices were carried on that motorcycle.
And
once this judicial authority believes it has all the necessary information
needed to actually file charges against Israel and the IDF, they must first
file charges against those who share the greater part of the blame, Islamic
Jihad and its group of volunteers that operated that day at the Preparatory 'A'
Boys' School in Rafah. Why them, and not
those who sent the instrument of death? Think of the following analogy. A group of kids is playing in the open. At
some point a smaller group of adults is joining them. They are not complete
strangers to those kids, so the two groups interact friendlily; especially when
the adults have more fun staff to offer those kids. A fancy new football
(soccer) that looks awesome when kicked skywards, a baseball with a bat to
match, a few throwing balls to toss around, and a couple of skateboards. And of
course the accompanying snacks and sweets. With these they lead those children
to a different playground, the nearby highway.
At this time of the day it is still empty, silent, a tempting playground
in its own right. But as the games continue, and the kids are distracted by
their entertaining toys, this time of the day is about to end. And from behind
the hill, that of which the empty highway goes over, rush hour traffic is
coming in full speed. The outcome is as unavoidable as it is horrific. With
wounded and dying children scattered all around. The question is who would you blame for their
deaths and injuries? The adults who lead them there and placed them in lethal
jeopardy, or the drivers driving the instruments of death?
This
analogy applies perfectly to the crime committed by Islamic Jihad outside the
Preparatory 'A' Boys' School in Rafah; on August 3rd 2014. Ask
yourselves two simple questions, If there were no civilians and children
outside that school, would that motorcycle have slowed down in front of its
front gate? And if there was no motorcycle trying to escape an Israeli drone,
would that gate had remain open after the collapse of the cease fire? The
answer to both questions is NO, and without those two actions this
horrific incident would not have taken place.
The IDF operators of the missile may or may not have had a choice in
their actions. If they did it was during a very narrow window of time, much
like the car drivers in the analogy. The motorcycle riders and those who kept
the gate open definitely did have other choices. And like the adults in the
analogy they are the ones that brought the kids into a place of lethal
jeopardy. Therefore their share of the
blame is both bigger and definite. And justice demands that they be the first
to be prosecuted. Because prosecuting
the least responsible party to a crime while leaving out completely the chief
instigator and facilitator of the crime, is a definition of injustice.
NEXT
Human Rights Watch as war criminals
START
No comments:
Post a Comment