UN report finds errant Palestinian fire responsible for child’s death during Gaza fighting, but parent and human rights group maintains Israel is responsible

Israel/Palestine
on 91 Comments
gaza photo
Jihad al-Misharawi carrying his son’s body at a Gaza hospital. (Photo: AP)

The U.N. Human Rights Council has issued a report on the November 2012 Israeli attack on Gaza (you can read a PDF of the report here). Although the 17-page report excoriates both Israel and Palestinian forces for numerous violations of international law during the fighting, the headline from the report has been a finding that BBC employee Omar al-Masharawi’s 11-month-old son Omar was most likely killed by an errant Palestinian missile rather than Israeli fire. Masharawi’s grieving photo was one of the most indelible images of the fighting and the story behind the photo is becoming another battle over the narrative of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

From the report (p. 14):

By 19 November, according to IDF sources, at least 99 rockets fired between 14 and 19 November from within the Gaza Strip had landed in Gaza. On 14 November, a woman, her 11-month-old infant, and an 18-year-old adult in Al-Zaitoun were killed by what appeared to be a Palestinian rocket that fell short of Israel. In addition, OHCHR received reports related to an incident in which two civilians, including a child, were killed, and five persons, including three children, were injured, as a result of what appeared to be a Palestinian rocket that fell short and hit a house in Al-Quds Street, near Khilla Gas Station, Jabalya, on 16 November. For its part, Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam Brigades underlined the limited military arsenal of Palestinian armed groups as a reason for failing to precisely attack military targets. Yet the military capacity of the conflicting parties is irrelevant to the duty, under international humanitarian law, of these parties to take all feasible measures to avoid loss among civilians and damage to civilian property.

Although UN officials say they were unable to “unequivocally conclude” Palestinian fire was the cause of the child’s death, and the Israeli government has yet to comment, Israel supporters have taken to social media claiming Israel is absolved in the child’s death. In addition, several writers have called for retractions of previous reporting but al-Masharawi himself refutes the UN report calling it “rubbish.” In a BBC story al-Masharawi says UN investigators never spoke with him and that Palestinian militant groups will usually apologize in cases where they are responsible:

Omar was killed, along with an aunt and an uncle, after a missile hit the family home in Gaza City.

It happened only an hour after Israel launched its operation with the killing of Hamas’s military commander.

The family, and human rights groups, said that the house was hit in an Israeli attack.

The Israeli military made no comment at the time of the incident but never denied carrying out the strike.

Privately, military officials briefed journalists that they had been targeting a militant who was in the building.

Now, though, the United Nations says the house may have been hit by a Palestinian rocket that fell short.

This is despite the fact that the Israeli military had reported no rockets being fired out of Gaza so soon after the start of the conflict.

UN officials visited the house four weeks after the strike.

They said they did not carry out a forensic investigation, but said their team did not think the damage was consistent with an Israeli air strike.

However, the UN said it could not “unequivocally conclude” it was a misfired Palestinian rocket.

A UN official said it was also possible the house was hit by a secondary explosion after an Israeli air strike on Palestinian weapons stores.

Jehad Mashhrawi dismissed the UN findings as “rubbish”.

He said nobody from the United Nations had spoken to him, and said Palestinian militant groups would usually apologise to the family if they had been responsible.

An Israeli military spokesman said he could not comment on the accuracy of the UN’s findings but said it would not be the first time a Palestinian rocket had misfired.

He said that, in the intense first hours of the conflict, it was not always clear what was happening.

A Los Angeles Times report is also dubious of the findings citing other errors:

A March 6 report from the U.N. Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights said the three were killed “by what appeared to be a Palestinian rocket that fell short of Israel.”

It offered no details about how it reached the conclusion. Hamas officials and family members had previously dismissed the possibility that a Palestinian rocket had misfired.

The report also mistakenly identified one of the victims as the baby’s mother. She was not harmed in the incident.

The Associated Press gives more background on the UN investigation, and says the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, which has criticized Palestinian militant groups in the past, rejects the UN findings based on its own investigation:

Matthias Behnke, head of OHCHR office for the Palestinian territories, cautioned he couldn’t “unequivocally conclude” that the death was caused by an errantly fired Palestinian rocket. He said information gathered from eyewitnesses led them to report that “it appeared to be attributable to a Palestinian rocket.”

He said Palestinian militants were firing rockets at Israel not far from the al-Masharawi home. Behnke said the area was targeted by Israeli airstrikes, but the salvo that hit the al-Masharawi home was “markedly different.”

He said there was no significant damage to the house, unusual for an Israeli strike. He said witnesses reported that a fireball struck the roof of the house, suggesting it was a part of a homemade rocket. Behnke said the type of injuries sustained by al-Masharawi family members were consistent with rocket shrapnel.

The Gaza-based Palestinian Center for Human Rights said it still held Israel responsible for Omar’s death.

The PCHR has condemned Hamas fighters and other militants in the past for errantly-fired rockets that have killed Palestinians, including during the November clash.

A researcher said the group interviewed family members, neighbors and security officials before they concluded that an Israeli strike killed the baby. She requested anonymity because she wasn’t authorized to speak to reporters.

91 Responses

  1. Avi_G.
    March 12, 2013, 3:01 pm

    Israel’s defenders will use the doubt cast by this report in order to smear future Palestinian deaths. Watch Haaretz for the keyword “Pallywood”. Then tell me about Holocaust Denial.

    Perhaps this report is yet another Goldstone reenactment, much like the Turkel Commission, both biased as a result of pressure brought to bear by Israel.

    Hopefully, this report, in appearing on Mondoweiss, will appease Peter Beinart, the 14-year-old King of the Liberal Zionists.

    • Denis
      March 14, 2013, 3:05 pm

      @Avi: “Israel’s defenders will use the doubt cast by this report in order to smear future Palestinian deaths.”

      2:30 pm EDT, Mar14. Oren has just appeared on FOX Megan Kelly show. According to Oren and Kelly, there is no room for doubt: it is now a “fact” that this child was killed by Palestinians who are now exploiting the child’s death.

      The take away message is not only does the child’s death impugn the Palestinians — first for killing the child and second for lying about it — it also justifies the 2012 Israeli attack against people who would kill their own children.

      We know that the Palestinians have the self-inflicted problem of a verified history of concocting such stories before. Some people on Mondoweiss have rationalized this type of spin by arguing that the Palestinians have a right to bring attention to the situation any way they can. But that’s what the boy who became wolf-poop thought, too.

      The Palestinians must get out solid evidence that an Israeli bomb killed this child, if that is, in fact, what happened. And they must stop fabricating stories, which do them more harm than good. They cannot win a spin-war against the IDF intelligence operation combined with the pro-Israel media.

      • MRW
        March 14, 2013, 4:02 pm

        The Palestinians must get out solid evidence that an Israeli bomb killed this child, if that is, in fact, what happened. And they must stop fabricating stories, which do them more harm than good. They cannot win a spin-war against the IDF intelligence operation combined with the pro-Israel media.

        Or Americans can start reading the reports instead of relying upon hasbara.

        This was a cute trick: bury IDF sources saying what you want to refute—make the IDF a source—in the middle of paragraph 39 on page 14 of a 17-page report, and know that it’s coming up. Prepare your forces to take advantage of it. Make everyone aware that the 11-month old baby is the BBC reporter baby ahead of time, because it sure as hell is NOT identified in the text.

        I remembered that the mother was not killed with the baby, so when I saw the report two days ago I became suspicious and downloaded the PDF. Sho’ nuff. This had the stench of hasbara working from an advance copy all over it.

      • Hostage
        March 14, 2013, 4:49 pm

        The Palestinians must get out solid evidence that an Israeli bomb killed this child, if that is, in fact, what happened. And they must stop fabricating stories, which do them more harm than good. They cannot win a spin-war against the IDF intelligence operation combined with the pro-Israel media.

        That in itself is really an Israeli propaganda win. Everyone here is fixated on the one portion of the report about the IDF operation that didn’t condemn the attack for being illegal and causing so many other unnecessary civilian casualties.

        The thing I always find amazing is that Israel routinely kills Palestinians in their own territory for merely approaching the Gaza Security fence, while going about their normal business. Hell, they even have remotely operated machine guns in hardened pill boxes and a kill zone that stretches far into the Gaza Strip beyond the fence.

        Yet when a cartoonist illustrates that situation with a caricature of Netanyahu building a bloody fence, Rupert Murdoch apologizes as if it’s an example of hate speech. On the contrary, Michael Orin makes a living delivering speeches on the Fox network that publicly trivialize, deny, or condone war crimes and crimes against humanity that target Palestinians and justify further acts of violence against them. That’s the very definition of hate speech.

      • seafoid
        March 14, 2013, 5:23 pm

        “The Palestinians must get out solid evidence that an Israeli bomb killed this child, if that is, in fact, what happened”

        What Israel is doing right now and has been doing to Gaza for a very long time is going be a stain on Zionism for a very very long time. Oren and the bots may win the odd PR skirmish but Gaza will be where botulism loses the war.

      • tree
        March 14, 2013, 5:37 pm

        We know that the Palestinians have the self-inflicted problem of a verified history of concocting such stories before.

        I don’t “know” that, and I seriously doubt that you do either. I do know that the Israeli government and the IDF and a few right wing Zionist sites have a verified history of implying that Palestinians “concoct” stories. Please enlighten me as to the numerous examples of such a “verified history”. I don’t think you can.

      • Denis
        March 15, 2013, 1:50 pm

        Sure I can, tree. Anybody can, at least any regular Mondoweiss reader b/c these incidents have been discussed here a number of times. Most people here don’t want to hear about Palestinian hasbara b/c their emotional connection to the Palestinian cause is so strong their objectivity suffers. When the issue is raised, people like you get annoyed. It is interesting b/c that is exactly what is happening to the Israelis buying into Israeli hasbara. Nothing like a mirror and strong light to really piss a person off.

        Search “Pallywood.” There is absolutely no doubt that certain Palestinians have fabricated videos and photos to spin Israeli atrocities into something worse than they were. The 2006 staged photos of the Israeli shelling of the family of the Palestinian girl, Huda Ghaliya, is one of many examples that come to mind.

        Before you go ballistic, I know what you are going to say: the Palestinians are perfect and beyond criticism or fault. I don’t agree, although I support their cause and curse Israeli apartheid.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 15, 2013, 4:26 pm

        besides your reference to 1 video from 06, can you produce some examples? why would palestinians need to make stuff up, there’s so much evidence just filming the truth.

      • Cliff
        March 15, 2013, 5:57 pm

        “Before you go ballistic, I know what you are going to say: the Palestinians are perfect and beyond criticism or fault. I don’t agree, although I support their cause and curse Israeli apartheid.”

        As opposed to calling Palestinian suffering, ‘Pallywood’.

        Would it be appropriate to characterize Jewish suffering as ‘there’s no business like Shoah business’?

        You are disgusting.

      • Denis
        March 15, 2013, 6:00 pm

        annie, examples are not hard to come by. I’m on the road at the moment and do not have access to my main computer and notes to give you links and specific information. But I recall a couple oftomh.

        There was the case where a boy and his father were shown trapped by IDF gunfire in the Gaza Strip. The boy was supposed to have been killed, but about 20 seconds was shaved off the vid where he could be seen wiping his face. That case ended up in the French appeals courts and the court concluded there was sound evidence that the vid was faked. Another was Anderson Cooper getting punked over a “killed” Palestinian shown being carried away and later the “dead guy” can be seen up and strutting around. There are plenty of examples. I’m sure you recall some of them.

        As to motive, I agree with your sentiment. With all the cell phones and cameras floating around, there are plenty of bona fide examples of deadly Israeli aggression for the world to see. One would hope that no Palestinians would resort to doctoring a tragedy in order to exploit it. But many people – Israelis and Palestinians – see the ends as justifying the means. Some of these cases have been rationalized as Palestinians reenacting for the camera that which they know happened but was not originally filmed.

      • tree
        March 17, 2013, 4:25 am

        Denis, several points.

        First off, you seem to have a penchant for stereotyping people. Not only have you decided that Palestinians, as a group, have a “self-inflicted problem” of concocting stories, you’ve decided that you can read my mind and everyone else’s here. You think that jumping to the conclusion that you “know what you are going to say: the Palestinians are perfect and beyond criticism or fault.”indicates some great insight and sense of even-handedness on your part. while all it really shows is how willing you are to pre-judge people, and assume you know what they will say without asking them.

        I don’t personally think that Palestinians are “perfect”. I think they are human and individuals, which means that some of them are very good, some are very bad and some are in between, just like any other human group. Some of them may lie, just as some people, no matter what their race, religion, gender, ethnicity, whatever, lie. This individual failing does not mean that the group must bear some collective guilt for the individual’s actions.

        As for your “search Pallywood” comment, it merely shows your ignorance. “Pallywood” is a term used by right wing racists to diminish what Israel and the IDF have done to Palestinians by implying that “concocting stories” is an ethnic failing of Palestinians. Simply finding something on the internet does not make it true. If I told you to search “black killers” one of the first page sites you will find is a list of black serial killers, posted on some white supremacist site, supposed to “prove” that blacks are naturally more criminally inclined than whites are. Your “Pallywood” search is of the same crappy racist mold.

        The 2006 staged photos of the Israeli shelling of the family of the Palestinian girl, Huda Ghaliya, is one of many examples that come to mind.

        Her family members died. That is a fact. All evidence points to the fact that the IDF was responsible for the family’s death. Although they continue to claim that they were not responsible, the injuries to the family were consistent with Israeli shelling, rather than with a Palestinian land mine, which the IDF, in a wild improbable story claimed was the culprit, and the IDF admitted that they were shelling in the area, and they were shelling too close to a civilian area, such that the normal zone of accuracy of those shells included the area where that family, and other civilians were present. As for when the picture of the girl’s grief was taken, it all seems quite petty and beside the point. Was her grief supposed to end an hour or two after her family’s death? Is your point that she was secretly happy that they were all dead, because we all “know”, or at least the most racist of the hasbrats want us to know, that Palestinians don’t really love their families, they just hate Jews, and her family probably killed themselves just to make Jews look bad, right? Otherwise, I fail to see how a picture of a grieving girl could be somehow more atrocious than the killing itself.

        As for you other two examples, one is the case of the killing of Muhammed Al-Dura, which the IDF originally admitted to being responsible for, and then months later decided to deny. I suspect that the IDF would not have admitted to something unless it believed it was true, and logic would dictate that the most likely way it would have “known” that was from information gathered from its own soldiers. The IDF does not have a record of believing Palestinian witnesses, or of even interviewing Palestinian witnesses.

        Many months later, there was some Israeli that tried to prove it was actually Palestinian fire that killed the boy. This was of course long after the boy was dead and buried, and long after the IDF had destroyed the wall against which the boy and his father were crouching. Later the Israeli story was that the whole thing was staged, or that the boy’s father had purposely allowed his son to be killed (again, we all “know” that Palestinians don’t love their families, right?) and even later morphed into the boy wasn’t killed at all, despite the fact that there was a dead boy with his intestines shot out that looked very much like Muhammed al-Dura in the morgue that day.

        The case in France was a libel suit brought against a French guy who accused France 2, the French television station that aired the video, of faking it. The Paris appeals court overturned the acquittal of the accuser last year, and it was sent back to court, with a new decision supposedly scheduled for April of this year.

        The “wiping of the face” that you describe was described as the “death throes” of Al-Dura by the French TV producer, who did not show that last few seconds because he felt it violated the stations standards for acceptable viewing material . The boy was originally crouching and after the shots were fired he was sprawled on his side with his hands over his face. I have not seen that video portion, but having unfortunately witnessed death throes myself, it seems entirely plausible that the French TV producer was correct.

        Another was Anderson Cooper getting punked over a “killed” Palestinian shown being carried away and later the “dead guy” can be seen up and strutting around.

        I’m not sure of the “Anderson Cooper” reference but it sounds to me like something that I recall from the second intifada period. As I recall it, IDF drones had captured an image on their cameras which the IDF immediately publicized as an example of Palestinians faking casualties. The drone video, which was of course grainy and from some distance, was purported to show Palestinians carrying a body on a stretcher, or carried as a funeral procession, being filmed by another Palestinian but the “body” jumped or fell off the stretcher and jumped up and tried it again. Voila! Palestinians faking casualties! Of course, the problem was that it was a drone video and the Israelis failed to notice that the Palestinian camera person was a bit bigger than the pall bearers and the “dead body”. A day or so after the IDF report came out, a filmmaker came forward and said that the drone video appeared to be of his filming. He was making a documentary on Palestinian children, filming the type of playacting that children do of things they have seen or experienced and the pallbearers and dead body were actually all children. He wasn’t attempting to “fake” casualties, but just to show what Palestinian children were acting out. (If he wanted to fake casualties he wouldn’t have used children.) Of course, as usual his testimony got little play, so the false IDF version stood in some people’s minds.

        As I said, there are numerous example of the IDF and the Israeli government falsely claiming that Palestinians are “faking” it, or “hiding behind civilians” or “throwing rocks” or a multitude of other pat excuses for their own atrocious behavior. Many of them have been exposed as such. If you want a few verified examples I can give them to you when I get back home.

        Is is possible that a few Palestinian individuals have exaggerated or lied about thing that have happened to them at the hands of Israelis? Certainly. Human nature would dictate so. But the overwhelming impression I have gotten from studying these allegations is that much more often than not, it is the IDF and the Israeli government that is lying.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 17, 2013, 7:43 am

        There is absolutely no doubt that certain Palestinians have fabricated videos and photos to spin Israeli atrocities into something worse than they were. The 2006 staged photos of the Israeli shelling of the family of the Palestinian girl, Huda Ghaliya, is one of many examples that come to mind.

        absolutely no doubt 2006 staged photos of the Israeli shelling of the family of the Palestinian girl, Huda Ghaliya eh? i happen to know about that incident because i wrote an article about it: link to mondoweiss.net

        Shani Boianjiu, author of “Means of Suppressing Demonstrations” opens her story replicating a highly publicized, brutal massacre on June 9th, 2006. The event broke a 16-month ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, setting off a summer of death (Operation Summer Rains) which resulted in over 400 dead human beings. Boianjiu described a famous photo in her fictional story, which matched a real life photo that McClatchy described as “an icon of the Arab-Israeli conflict” and “a potent symbol in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that could embolden Palestinian resistance and erode international support for Israel.”

        She named the character in her ‘fictional’ account Huda, the very same name as Huda Ghaliya, the Gazan child who lost her family on the beach that fateful day, a day that will never ever be forgotten by Palestinians and people in our movement.

        now denis, how interesting to read, along from your “I agree with your sentiment ” pandering, you and ms Boianjiu are of the same ilk. it’s not everyone who can accuse a little girl, who just witnessed her whole family getting slaughtered on a beach, as being an actor in a ‘pallywood’ flick.

        we have example after example of israel minimizing their slaughters with faked and chopped videos (the execution for furgan dogan comes to mind) what would you think if people started referring to Israeli hasbara as ‘jewywood’?

        i hope you read my attached link, your comment is really disgusting. btw, if you google ‘jewywood’ you can find other examples, of people just like yourself. of course, they probably don’t think they are engaging in racism either.

        you suggested we use that name in a search to find examples to support your ptv. outrageous.

      • Denis
        March 16, 2013, 12:39 pm

        @Cliff: As opposed to calling Palestinian suffering, ‘Pallywood’.

        Thanks, Cliff. Perfect. Precisely the type of deceitful spin I am criticizing both the Palestinians and the Israelis for. No one in this thread except you has referred to Palestinian suffering as “Pallywood.”

        What is disgusting is anyone who would have the kind of mind that could belittle the Palestinians’ suffering by equating it with Pallywood — or who could concoct such a disgusting quip as “Shoah business.” You must be writing Joan Rivers’ sicko, nauseating material for her.

      • Cliff
        March 16, 2013, 1:11 pm

        Are you insane, Denis?

        YOU SAID ‘Pallywood’:

        link to mondoweiss.net

        Search “Pallywood.” There is absolutely no doubt that certain Palestinians have fabricated videos and photos to spin Israeli atrocities into something worse than they were. The 2006 staged photos of the Israeli shelling of the family of the Palestinian girl, Huda Ghaliya, is one of many examples that come to mind.

        And ‘Shoah business’ comes from Norman Finkelstein when he wrote ‘The Holocaust Industry’ – but he said it in a documentary made about him. It was used to describe the hysterical politicization of the Holocaust for various Zionist political agendas.

        Maybe you have a short-term memory or maybe you’re a liar. Maybe both.

      • Donald
        March 16, 2013, 2:39 pm

        Denis, I gotta say, of all the things to talk about, faking atrocities by Palestinians should be way, way down on anyone’s list of things that matter in this conflict. Of course people tell lies and exaggerate on individual cases. It’s personally why I am always uneasy when someone takes a particular incident (like the Martin shooting in Florida) and elevates it to the level of something that demonstrates a fundamental truth about a given society. No individual incident can bear the weight that people tend to put on them. There’s always more details that come out and change the interpretation.

        The Big Lies in this conflict have been told by the Israelis–things like “The Palestinians all fled so they could come back on the heels of the Arab armies and pillage the Jews”. Stuff like that. On the Palestinian side, I suppose the denial that Jews have any connection to the area under the Dome of the Rock might be of that nature. But I’d be amazed in any conflict if there weren’t individual liars on both sides and your advice that Palestinians should stop telling lies is really peachy–while you’re at it, why not tell humans in general to stop telling lies. I’m sure that one piece of advice of yours would revolutionize politics as we know it, if only people follow it.

        On “Pallywood”, you ought to know what the connotation of that stupid racist phrase is. It’s used by far right Zionists to imply that every atrocity story reported by Palestinians is just propaganda. Any search using those terms is going to turn up a lot of allegations by far right nitwits, some perhaps true and some not.

      • gamal
        March 16, 2013, 3:12 pm

        “What is disgusting is anyone who would have the kind of mind that could belittle the Palestinians’ suffering by equating it with Pallywood —”

        great
        ” There are plenty of examples. I’m sure you recall some of them.” oh?

        but of course “One would hope that no Palestinians would resort to doctoring a tragedy in order to exploit it”

        “There was the case where a boy and his father were shown trapped by IDF gunfire in the Gaza Strip. The boy was supposed to have been killed, but about 20 seconds was shaved off the vid where he could be seen wiping his face.” really? how disappointing, how does he explain his actions, as he is no doubt available for interview, hope he is not of the Al-Durra clan.

        “the “dead guy” can be seen up and strutting around.” strutting no less, probably rejoicing in his staring role in a Pallywood production, there is a very good recent novel by Boianiji or something which, through a profound and sympathetic (tm. oleg) exposition of Pally psychology we learn why its all in their heads.

        “What is disgusting is anyone who would have the kind of mind that could belittle the Palestinians’ suffering by equating it with Pallywood — or who could concoct such a disgusting quip as “Shoah business.” You must be writing Joan Rivers’ sicko, nauseating material for her.”

        ok i am confused, is “Shoah Business” a quip, i dont think so, in my mind it refers to the practice of some organizations in raising funds ostensibly on behalf of
        Holocaust victims and then not only failing to distribute them but also failing to address serious cases of hardship amongst Holocaust survivors while these funds found other uses. Why do you think it’s a disgusting quip, by the son of Holocaust survivors who got very little or nothing from such funds.

        “What is disgusting is anyone who would have the kind of mind that could belittle the Palestinians’ suffering by equating it with Pallywood” is this some kind of self-hatred in action or why did you bring up the widespread, according to you, of atrocity fabrication by Palestinians, its weird isnt it fog of war never comes up with Palestinians, in a shattered deeply penetrated society living under a rain of ordinance its the nature of racism to posit selectively either incapacity or require super-humanity of its targets, in either case they are stigmatized. Ehud Barak explains Arabs lie you know, its in their culture.

        since you are presumably not on a road to nowhere as a matter of courtesy could you post an extensive list of Pallywood productions, and the accompanying debunking, its odd i thought in America the concept of the “Dead Man (guy)” walking was a well understood trope, it maybe in Palestine too you know, but they dont strutt its true.

        “b/c their emotional connection to the Palestinian cause is so strong their objectivity suffers. When the issue is raised, people like you get annoyed.” like the young Israeli novelist I see you too can discuss the human condition with both depth, subtlety, and sympathy (tm oleg), without sympathy it will be “lousy”, and thats a fact.

        so

        “We know that the Palestinians have the self-inflicted problem of a verified history of concocting such stories before. Some people on Mondoweiss have rationalized this type of spin by arguing that the Palestinians have a right to bring attention to the situation any way they can.”

        thats two links both the extensive history of fabrication on the part of Palestinians, and links to posters here rationalizing lying on behalf of Palestine. better check my archive, as a muslim, obs i am a taqiyyi muslim, well done i would never have concocted my new sect without you.

        “Another was Anderson Cooper getting punked over a “killed” Palestinian shown being carried away and later the “dead guy” can be seen up and strutting around.”

        he was punked by Pallywood, i dont get it.

        “Some of these cases have been rationalized as Palestinians reenacting for the camera that which they know happened but was not originally filmed.”
        Yes nowhere except in the Pallywood hills are reconstructions ever used, just check with that well known star of Pallywood Jessica Lynch.

        “There are plenty of examples. I’m sure you recall some of them.” well er not at all, er the missiles being loaded into an ambulance, oh no, of course Hollywood’s ( could we call it some other kind of wood) Exodus and “To cast A Giant Shadow” contain no spurious claims of atrocities whatever you say at least white people rarely lie. Sadly that is not true of Palestinians, it pains me to say it but there you are, oh i mean after Denis has substantiated his claims it will, it should make it through moderation if Obsidians contribution to the Seafood and Hummus post is anything to go by, you should be ok with your Pallywood expose post.

      • Cliff
        March 16, 2013, 4:04 pm

        Exactly.

        ‘Pallywood’ is used by Zionist commentators to demonize the Palestinian struggle and to make the case that Palestinians aren’t suffering at all and if they are – its not Israel’s fault (in the overarching sense).

        Zionists attempt pitifully to characterize Palestinian suffering ‘incidents’ as isolated and unrelated.

        So while there may be exaggerations and inaccuracies – they do not amount to a conspiracy or Big Lie or general dishonesty.

        It’s the Israeli story that is the Big Lie. Literally, since for decades common Zionist memes prevailed that said ‘the Arabs’ told the Palestinians to leave.

        Or that the Palestinians supported Hitler (see Hophmi’s comment history).

        In fact, our resident Zionist hate-mongerers regularly spam these ‘Pallywood’ stories or attempt to spin current atrocities as ‘Pallywood’.

        I cite Hophmi often because he’s Phil Weiss’s favorite Zionist troll and has a lengthy comment history full of Holocaust denial type intellectualism.

        So if you like, you’ll find constant references to suicide bombing as if they’re still going on. Constant references to Palestinians and the Mufti. Etc.

        That is Pallywood.

        And putting that on a pedestal and assuming there’s a parity between both narratives is horse****.

        The New Historians didn’t legitimize ‘Pallywood’ – they delegitimized Exodus.

      • sardelapasti
        March 17, 2013, 8:07 am

        Denis – «such a disgusting quip as “Shoah business.” »
        A quip? It is a major business with hundreds of operations, huge MSM presence, big budget, international scale, everything you expect from any of this kind of businesses. With the added advantage of insanely large profits through extortion from big banks, by the Zionist state, on behalf of victims who lived and were victimized when there was no such state. The only problem is the poor taste of turning a genocide into a money-making operation. In fact, it is worse than disgusting but you are shooting the messenger.

      • Cliff
        March 17, 2013, 4:57 pm

        BTW in reference to the Gaza beach murder story:

        link to hrw.org

        What is the consensus on that?

      • gamal
        March 19, 2013, 9:29 pm

        yes but I am sure Denis and all right thinking posters will agree there is nothing “incredibly human” about that child or her grief, do i get a syndicated column? how do i activate the meritocracy around here

  2. Annie Robbins
    March 12, 2013, 3:36 pm

    thank you adam, great coverage.

  3. Obsidian
    March 12, 2013, 4:04 pm

    The exculpatory evidence was there all along, but hate blinded the BBC, the NGOs Mondoweiss, et al.

    • Annie Robbins
      March 12, 2013, 4:16 pm

      hate blinded the BBC

      lol. everyone you disagree with is full of hatred, again. it’s such a monotone form of discourse.

    • Avi_G.
      March 12, 2013, 4:27 pm

      but hate blinded the BBC

      Yes, the very BBC whose director went to Israel, sat with Ariel Sharon and hatched a scheme on how to be more Israel friendly in the BBC’s reports. Google it, AbsurdOne.

      No wonder US politicians are constantly asked to pledge allegiance and show full loyalty to Israel. Anything short of that is to be ‘blinded by hate.’

      How much exactly does the world owe Zionist Jews? And for how much longer will this extortion go on?

    • RoHa
      March 12, 2013, 9:13 pm

      “hate blinded the BBC, the NGOs Mondoweiss, et al.”

      And what is the reason for all this alleged hatred?

      Or do you think that everyone got together and said “Let’s hate that lot, just for fun”?

    • mmayer
      March 12, 2013, 11:18 pm

      I think that perhaps lobby $s is what blinded the US Congress, President, Administration. One can certainly hate the actions of a state and not be an antisemitic. What, do you love the practice of Apartheid, oppression of a whole population and land theft?

    • eGuard
      March 13, 2013, 5:43 am

      Obsidian: The exculpatory evidence was there all along.

      Where? Not in the UN report. Not in the media reports. Where?

  4. American
    March 12, 2013, 4:05 pm

    It’s entirely possible it was a short fall Hamas rocket but I find the report itself laughable.

    • American
      March 12, 2013, 10:55 pm

      @ Avi_G

      No argument from me on that.
      I’ve said repeatedly that the “original sin’ was taking/being given the Palestine’s land to being with.
      It’s alway been encumbent on Israel to do whatever they could “to make up ” for that……the responsibility was theirs, to make nice, to compromise, to do whatever it took to have the Palestines “agree’ to let them be there.
      If they had been the kind of people who went to Palestine to ‘request” some room for Jews there or the kind who were willing to ‘share” and enrich the whole community of Palestine thru their efforts…they probably would been accepted and it would have been a different story.

      • ritzl
        March 13, 2013, 11:07 am

        Great comment, American.

    • Obsidian
      March 13, 2013, 1:07 am
      • Shingo
        March 13, 2013, 8:00 am

        More reports for American to pick through.

        They simply repeat the same thing. They are not separate reports.

      • Donald
        March 13, 2013, 9:03 am

        The pchr link you provided about rockets killing Palestinians in 2010 speaks to the integrity of the Palestinian human rights organization there.
        You should think about that.

        Your comment about how Israel “tried to give back Sinai” for a peace agreement was weird–Israel did give the Sinai back and got a peace agreement. Perhaps you’ve heard of the Camp David agreement between Sadat and Begin. Perhaps you’ve also heard how Egypt made peace overtures before the 73 war and was spurned–Israel saw no need to discuss peace then, still basking in the glory of its 67 victory.

      • Hostage
        March 13, 2013, 9:49 am

        The exculpatory evidence was there all along . . . More reports for American to pick through.

        It’s more of a case of the damning evidence still being there all along. We don’t really need to sift through more reports, since the Human Rights Commission reports, including the one cited in the article, inevitably condemn both sides for their obvious war crimes and crimes against humanity:

        Throughout the crisis, airstrikes by the IDF targeted and damaged farmlands, residences, other civilian property, and other infrastructure, in the course of which civilians lost their lives and were injured. Hospitals and schools were damaged. Some of OHCHR‟s concerns related to the apparent failure of the IDF to respect the principles of distinction, proportionality and precautions, as required by international humanitarian law. In cases in which military objectives were targeted, the possible failure to take all necessary precautions, including by providing effective advance warning, and take all feasible measures to assess whether an attack would respect the principle of proportionality were noted. Concerns were also noted in relation to incidents in which media offices were destroyed and members of the media killed and injured.

        While some of the projectiles fired by the Palestinian armed groups at Israel appear to have been directed at military objectives, the indiscriminate nature of the vast majority of these projectiles raises serious concerns under international humanitarian and human rights law. Further, some Palestinian armed groups clearly or indirectly stated that their intended targets were civilians or large population centres in Israel, or objects that are prima facie civilian objects, such as Israel‟s parliament, in clear violation of international humanitarian law. Rockets were launched from densely populated areas, in contravention of customary international humanitarian law. In addition, seven Palestinian men detained by the de facto authorities for allegedly having collaborated with Israel were summarily executed, in public, by unknown armed persons, in clear violation of international humanitarian and human rights law.

        link to ohchr.org

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        March 13, 2013, 11:01 am

        Notice how the language is so much more cautious when dealing with Israeli rather than Palestinian crimes (putting aside the whole issue of who is ultimately responsible for any violence in that part of the world, the obivous and only answer being Israel).

        ”Some of OHCHR‟s concerns related to the apparent failure”

        ”the possible failure to take all necessary precautions,”

        ”Concerns were also noted in relation to incidents in which media offices were destroyed and members of the media killed and injured.”

        What does that last sentence even mean? ‘Concerns were noted’? And look at the use of the passive rather than saying who the culprit was: Israel of course. If that tone is typical of the entire report, I think we may have another Goldstone on our hands – people are realising it’s just not worth the hassle of seeming to ‘pick on’ poor ol’ Israel.

        BTW The Guardian, which has either ignored or buried stories of the Palestinian hunger strike, the death of the Palestinian prisoner, bus segregation – and much else besides – has featured this story on its front page.

      • Hostage
        March 13, 2013, 3:45 pm

        What does that last sentence even mean? ‘Concerns were noted’? And look at the use of the passive rather than saying who the culprit was: Israel of course.

        It means concern over human rights violations. The language in the reports is consistent with the fact that OHCHR is not a UN judicial organ, neither was the Goldstone Mission.

      • Obsidian
        March 15, 2013, 4:10 pm

        @Hostage

        Has there been any war within recent memory that didn’t have it’s share of war crimes?

        BTW. Unless I’m mistaken, you seem loathe to condemn the United States war on terror, drone campaign, invasion of Iraq and ten year military presence in Afghanistan.

        Is this because you are former military?

        Is it more convenient for you to bash Israel rather than examine American ‘war crimes’?

      • Cliff
        March 15, 2013, 4:54 pm

        Obsidian,

        First you mention an inane truism as if it undermines Hostage’s politics.

        ‘In war, war crimes happen.’

        Then you characterize Hostage’s comments as ‘bashing’ Israel.

        So you accept the legitimacy of Zionist war crimes whilst establishing some lip service to the humanity of people who are in your way.

        This is an Israel-Palestine blog.

        Hostage doesn’t make excuses for American war crimes. Nor does he make excuses for Israeli ones.

        But you do. You whitewash Israeli criminality and call criticism ‘bashing’.

        The end.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 15, 2013, 4:59 pm

        shorter Obsidian:

        “Hey, look over there! Something non-Israeli!! Pay attention to that!!!”

      • Light
        March 15, 2013, 6:13 pm

        Obsidian,

        In other words, from “How to make the case for Israel and win. Point #4″

        For mopping them up, you use the ultimate postmodern wisdom: Everything sucks.

        War, genocide, racism, oppression are everywhere. From the Roma in Italy to the Native-Americans in the U.S., the weak are victimized. Why pick on Israel? It’s the way of the world. Look! Right is only in question between equals in power; the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. Ethics, schmethics. Life is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Eat, drink! Carpe diem! The Palestinians would throw us into the sea if they could. Ha ha!

        link to jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com

      • Hostage
        March 15, 2013, 8:15 pm

        Has there been any war within recent memory that didn’t have it’s share of war crimes?

        On several occasions I’ve commented here that some people get so caught up in discussions about war crimes, that they forget that initiating a war is a crime, e.g.
        * link to mondoweiss.net
        * link to mondoweiss.net

        BTW. Unless I’m mistaken, you seem loathe to condemn the United States war on terror, drone campaign, invasion of Iraq and ten year military presence in Afghanistan.

        LOL! I think “mistaken” is a guarded understatement. There’s some guy named Hostage who has been raising hell about the illegality and unconstitutionality of drones strikes on the Opinio Juris blog for a long time now:
        * link to opiniojuris.org
        * link to opiniojuris.org

        I’ve been doing that for a long time here at Mondoweiss (and as Haver at Tikun Olam) too:
        *http://mondoweiss.net/2011/02/a-massacre-committed-by-another-close-friend-and-ally-of-the-united-states.html#comment-282411
        * link to mondoweiss.net
        * link to mondoweiss.net
        * link to mondoweiss.net
        * link to mondoweiss.net
        * link to mondoweiss.net

        I’ve stated that the President and the UK PM both engaged in hate speech with the intent to commit aggression or maintain an illegal occupation against the Iraqi people:
        link to mondoweiss.net

        I’ve noted that I don’t believe that the applicable international law regarding collective defense allows for NATO to conduct the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan and that Afghanistan is an ICC member state.
        * link to mondoweiss.net
        * link to mondoweiss.net

        I’ve noted that the United States has killed hundreds of thousands and has turned millions into refugees in its wars of aggression against Muslims and other peoples in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
        * link to mondoweiss.net

        Here are some criticisms about the murder campaigns and assignations during the war in Vietnam:
        * link to mondoweiss.net
        * link to mondoweiss.net

        I could cite comments on the genocide campaigns against Native Americans and Fillipinos, but the readers probably get the point by now.

      • Shingo
        March 15, 2013, 10:34 pm

        Unless I’m mistaken, you seem loathe to condemn the United States war on terror, drone campaign, invasion of Iraq and ten year military presence in Afghanistan.

        Yes you are mistaken. Not a single pro Palestinian advocate on this blog has ever supported any of the above, but Israeli supporters most certainly have.

      • Obsidian
        March 16, 2013, 2:27 am

        @Hostage

        “There’s some guy named Hostage who has been raising hell about the illegality and unconstitutionality of drones strikes..”

        You’re quite right.

        I hadn’t sifted carefully enough through the 5,500 anti-Zionist screeds you’ve posted.

      • Hostage
        March 16, 2013, 2:11 pm

        You’re quite right.

        I hadn’t sifted carefully enough through the 5,500 anti-Zionist screeds you’ve posted.

        The drone strikes that you mentioned have nothing to do with Zionism. I would also add that my comments here about Israel and Zionism are almost always supported by citations to official sources and other published sources that are widely recognized by the mainstream for their reliability. The fact is that there’s no shortage of published material that highlights the social evils of Zionism and the illegality of Israel’s wars and its colonial enterprise.

    • Obsidian
      March 13, 2013, 1:12 am

      Chicken or egg, Israel tried to give back Sinai and the Golan in exchange for a written peace agreement with her neighbors. The neighbors said ‘no’.

      • talknic
        March 13, 2013, 2:12 am

        Obsidian “Israel tried to give back Sinai and the Golan in exchange for a written peace agreement with her neighbors”

        Link to or full text of the offer …. thx

      • Obsidian
        March 14, 2013, 1:10 am

        According to Chaim Herzog:

        On June 19, 1967, the National Unity Government [of Israel] voted unanimously to return the Sinai to Egypt and the Golan Heights to Syria in return for peace agreements. The Golan would have to be demilitarized and special arrangement would be negotiated for the Straits of Tiran. The government also resolved to open negotiations with King Hussein of Jordan regarding the Eastern border.–Herzog 1989, p. 253

      • talknic
        March 14, 2013, 2:18 am

        Obsidian

        Thanks… now let’s look at the deal Israel’s mind numbingly stupid leaders foolishly thought they could get away with… “The Golan would have to be demilitarized “

        UN Charter “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members” States have equal right to self protection. Israel has no more right to secure borders than its neighbours. If the Golan (sovereign to Syria) should be demilitarized, so should Israel. Simple really. Was Israel going to dis-arm as well? No, of course not. Why should anyone in their right mind accept less than equal terms? Especially from the aggressor state? (There are no UNSC Resolutions against any Arab state for attacking Israel. Plenty against Israeli belligerence tho… )

        Furthermore, as all Chapt VI resolutions against Israel have been ignored, Syria has the right, on notifying the UNSC of its intent per Chapt VII, to restore its sovereignty over the Golan, by war if necessary. (Schwebel/Lauterpacht link to wp.me )

      • Obsidian
        March 14, 2013, 8:01 am

        Wasn’t the Sinai (Egypt) demilitarized as per the Camp David accords between Egypt and Israel?
        (yes)

      • Shingo
        March 14, 2013, 9:08 am

        Wasn’t the Sinai (Egypt) demilitarized as per the Camp David accords between Egypt and Israel?
        (yes)

        An agreement which has stoked enormous resentment throughout the Arab world and which required a corrupt dictator to be bribed to enforce.

        The accords were made possible by the US bribing both sides into signing the deal. It still does not prove that it is legitimate according to the UN Charter.

      • Hostage
        March 14, 2013, 10:04 am

        On June 19, 1967, the National Unity Government [of Israel] voted unanimously to return the Sinai to Egypt and the Golan Heights to Syria in return for peace agreements.

        There has never been any doubt that international law requires Israel to do exactly that. So what’s your point?

        The government also resolved to open negotiations with King Hussein of Jordan regarding the Eastern border.–Herzog 1989, p. 253

        Prime Minister Begin was a member of the June 1967 National Unity Government. Donald Neff wrote that during the Camp David summit, Begin had claimed that the wording of the withdrawal clause in resolution 242 contained a deliberate omission and that it had never been intended to be applicable to the West Bank or Gaza. The Foreign Minister of the National Unity government, Abba Eban, made exactly the same claim in his own autobiography. So tell us who is lying, Herzog, or Eban and Begin? You really can’t have it both ways.

      • Hostage
        March 14, 2013, 10:56 am

        Wasn’t the Sinai (Egypt) demilitarized as per the Camp David accords between Egypt and Israel?
        (yes)

        See Avi Issacharoff, “Egypt deployed troops in Sinai without Israel’s prior approval”, Haaretz, August 16, 2012. link to haaretz.com

        Years ago an Army radio interviewer asked Ariel Sharon how he would prevent rocket attacks from Gaza after the disengagement? Sharon responded by pointing out that the IDF had never been successful at preventing such attacks, despite the fact that it had maintained a continuous military presence there.

        Nonetheless, to hear most Israelis complain, you’d think that withdrawing the armed forces from Gaza was a terrible mistake. So I’ve always found it ironic when Israelis insist that the neighboring governments must accomplish the one thing it has never been able to do – exercise effective control over territory without the use of force. If Israel needs to continuosly occupy the territory with one of the most powerful defense forces on Earth, it logically follows that Israelis can’t expect the Arabs to make do with none at all.

      • talknic
        March 14, 2013, 6:34 pm

        Obsidian “Wasn’t the Sinai (Egypt) demilitarized as per the Camp David accords between Egypt and Israel?”

        The word “demilitarized” does not appear in the Oslo accords. Had it, it would have been by agreement, not by law. The Israel/Egypt Peace Treaty mentions only interim & temporary buffer zones.

      • Obsidian
        March 15, 2013, 1:42 am

        Okay. Troop limitations than.

      • Shingo
        March 13, 2013, 7:58 am

        Israel tried to give back Sinai and the Golan in exchange for a written peace agreement with her neighbors.

        False. Next?

      • Hostage
        March 13, 2013, 9:35 am

        Chicken or egg, Israel tried to give back Sinai and the Golan in exchange for a written peace agreement with her neighbors. The neighbors said ‘no’.

        Since Israel never tried to give back the land stolen from the millions of refugees living among the neighbors and took in Russian ignoramuses instead, there’s really no reason for the neighbors to drop their belligerent claims and cozy-up to obnoxious Zionists.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 13, 2013, 10:36 am

        “Chicken or egg, Israel tried to give back Sinai and the Golan in exchange for a written peace agreement with her neighbors. The neighbors said ‘no’.”

        Of course they did. The zionist criminals didn’t agree to make amends for their crimes, so they attempted to blackmail the Palestinians’ neighbors with the stolen land was nothing more than what you might get from any gutter-trawling mafia thug.

        N.B.: if someone steals my neighbors’ house, the thief does not become my neighbor. He is merely the person who stole from my neighbor. As such, it is wrong to say that any of the states in the region are the “neighbor” or the zionist entity. Until that demonic state makes peace with, begs forgiveness from, and makes full restitution to the Palestinians whom its victimized, those squatting criminals are no one’s “neighbor.”

      • ritzl
        March 13, 2013, 11:20 am

        I’m confused. Israel did get a peace treaty with Egypt. A pretty darn durable one, even if externally coerced and artificial.

        And when did Israel ever get serious with an offer to Syria to return the Golan Heights? They can’t even bring themselves to give the tiny Shebaa Farms parcel back to Lebanon.

      • Obsidian
        March 13, 2013, 5:48 pm

        Israel tried a land for peace deal with Syria and Egypt weeks after the June ’67 War. No takers.

      • Hostage
        March 14, 2013, 4:26 pm

        Israel tried a land for peace deal with Syria and Egypt weeks after the June ’67 War. No takers.

        It’s not very surprising, since Israel was still refusing to comply with the second principle of President Johnson’s five point plan and allow the 300,000 or so new Palestinian refugees to return to their own homes. See the text of Johnson’s “Address at the State Department’s Foreign Policy Conference for Educators, June 19, 1967 link to presidency.ucsb.edu

      • Obsidian
        March 15, 2013, 2:35 am

        @Hostage

        Is this your opinion or did the Arab States say ‘no exchange of Sinai and Golan
        without the repatriation of the 300,000′?

      • Hostage
        March 15, 2013, 7:04 pm

        Is this your opinion or did the Arab States say ‘no exchange of Sinai and Golan without the repatriation of the 300,000′?

        Yes, the Arab States made that a condition for any negotiations. That’s why Johnson incorporated it into his 5 point plan. There are an entire chapters of the FRUS volume XIX on the 1967 Arab-Israel Crisis and War devoted to the post war negotiations and the process to draft the terms of Security Council resolution 242. link to history.state.gov

        The Fifth Arab Summit convened in Khartoum Aug-Sep 1967 adopted a resolution which rejected any negotion or settlement with Israel until all the effects of the aggression were eliminated, including the exercise of the rights of those Palestinian refugees in their own country. Resolution Three of the Summit stated:

        The Arab heads of state have agreed to unite their political efforts at the international and diplomatic level to eliminate the effects of aggression and to ensure the withdrawal of the aggressive Israeli forces from the Arab lands which have been occupied since the aggression of June 5. This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab states abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiation with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country.

      • Obsidian
        March 16, 2013, 9:22 am

        @Hostage

        “Yes, the Arab States made that a condition for any negotiations. That’s why Johnson incorporated it into his 5 point plan.”

        Please point out when and where in June 1967, the Arab States had set pre-conditions to negotiations. To whom?

        BTW. As per his five points, LBJ was against a return to the June 4 borders.

      • Obsidian
        March 16, 2013, 9:52 am

        @Hostage

        ‘… Israel was still refusing to comply with the second principle… and allow the 300,000 or so new Palestinian refugees to return to their own homes’

        Israel’s cabinet vote was on June 19, the same day, and I assume prior to, Johnson’s speech. I don’t know that there was any connection between the vote and the speech. Do you?

        The [Israeli] government also resolved to open negotiations with King Hussein of Jordan regarding the Eastern border.–Herzog 1989, p. 253.
        Who knows what Israel wouldn’t have discussed with Jordan had Israel’s peace offers to her neighbors been accepted.
        Maybe the refugees?

  5. American
    March 12, 2013, 4:36 pm

    By laughable I mean it doesn’t look like a serious effort was made on it. From the footnotes it appears whoever carried it out relied on articles about various incidents/strikes from the NYT and other newspapers and then went out and questioned a few witnesses about them.
    Looks like the HRC did a ‘once over’ on it to me—their probably tired of the constant ‘looking into’ the Isr vr Hamas claims…it’s always the same story.
    And I don’t like reports that don’t tell me who the committe was on a investigation and who the on the ground investigators were.

    • Woody Tanaka
      March 12, 2013, 5:59 pm

      Ultimately, it doesn’t matter. If a woman is being raped and pulls out a gun to shoot her assailant in self-defense and accidentally hits a bystander, she might have some culpability, but the rapist is ultimately responsible. The rapist in the Second zionist War on the Gazan People was the israelis. They are ultimately responsible, even if it was an errant Hamas missile.

    • seafoid
      March 13, 2013, 6:04 am

      Germany’s mass market Bild Zeitung gave the story a prominent position on Monday. They love Zionism now in Germany. they should have given the bots Bavaria but it was much easier to shaft the Palestinians and live in a Judenfrei Deutschland. Everyone a winner other than the Arabs.

    • Hostage
      March 13, 2013, 10:02 am

      From the footnotes it appears whoever carried it out relied on articles about various incidents/strikes from the NYT and other newspapers and then went out and questioned a few witnesses about them.

      The footnotes cite admissions made on the IDF, MFA, and Qassam brigades websites which tend to establish the fact that crimes were committed by both sides. The only remaining task is to confirm those reports on the ground and to determine which officials are individually responsible.

      And I don’t like reports that don’t tell me who the committe was on a investigation and who the on the ground investigators were.

      Most UN reports are written by the full time staff. This one was submitted to the HRC by The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Judge Navi Pillay.

  6. just
    March 12, 2013, 5:04 pm

    There is no “exculpatory evidence” Obsidian. Did you even read the article???

    You are a real hoot!

    (by the way– were you party to the “initial” investigation that discovered the ‘exculpatory evidence’ that you cite??? Do you mind sharing?)

  7. Tar de Moutonnoir
    March 12, 2013, 5:05 pm

    The report is not conclusive, it’s ongoing. PLUS there is NO WAY any Hamas “rocket” could have killed 33 civilians. The Israeli response at the time (they admitted it saying they were targeting terrorists) and their reaction now suggests they know it was them. The UN is just plain wrong on this..

  8. ckg
    March 12, 2013, 5:24 pm

    In November the blog Elder of Ziyon argued that an errant Gaza rocket may have fallen short here and provided plausible evidence.

    Regardless of the cause of the damage in this incident, it will be more difficult now for Israel to continue to claim that OHCHR-UNCHR is so hopelessly biased against it that it can just ignore it.

  9. ritzl
    March 12, 2013, 5:38 pm

    Even if this kid’s tragic death was caused by an errant Palestinian rocket, the fact still remains that whole families were intentionally killed by targeted Israeli rocket fire in the same conflict. So as per usual, we get one arguably self-inflicted death that is and will be amplified to the nth degree to “balance” out the much more numerous and egregious wrongs inflicted by the other side, at the same time.

    Balance of the second-order, “If only Palestinians weren’t firing rockets…” variety.

    It’s wacko and it’s tiring to argue against because you’re arguing to establish and/or re-assert simple morality. Simple morality should be a given, a starting point, not an end point, iff successful.

    But I guess, such is the nature of the discussion on this.

  10. justicewillprevail
    March 12, 2013, 6:05 pm

    Even if the claim is true, and a report which doesn’t find any evidence other than a ‘likelihood’ is pretty dubious, then the zionuts who are trying, as usual, to exonerate themselves from the use of overwhelming deadly force towards civilians, should actually read the report.

    It is damning reading for the Israeli government. It concludes that 101 civilians, including 33 children, were killed by Israeli military action. “In a number of cases, civilians who happened to be present in or passing through open areas and fields, locations that could potentially be used for rocket launches, were killed,” it says. “The cases mentioned below raise the question of whether the IDF took all feasible measures to verify that their targets were military objectives, in line with the principle of distinction under international humanitarian law, which requires that the parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between civilians and combatants. Under international human rights law these cases may constitute violations of the right to life.”

    Examples the report gives include a father, his 12-year-old daughter and 19-year-old son allegedly killed by a drone missile while collecting spearmint. An 84-year-old man working on his olive farm and his 14-year-old granddaughter were allegedly killed by an Israeli missile too. “In neither case were residents warned prior to the attack, and that no militant activities were carried out from the attacked locations throughout the crisis,” writes the report. Other children who tragically and avoidably died include an 8-year-old boy; and ambulances that were denied access for 5 hours to two 16-year-olds allegedly killed by Israeli missiles.

    The damning list goes on: “On 18 November, an Israeli air strike without prior warning hit a three-storey house belonging to the Al-Dalou family in Al-Nasser neighbourhood, central Gaza City. The airstrike killed 12 people, five of whom were children and four were women.” Even if there was one militant present, “an attack under the given circumstances with the large number of civilians present, would not meet the requirement of proportionality.” In other examples, the UN “was not able to identify any military objective that the IDF might have had in these cases, thus raising concerns with regard to possible violations of the principle of distinction and potentially also the right to life.” In reference to attacks on health care facilities, the report says: “The attacks on the hospitals could therefore amount to violations of international humanitarian law.”

    So why concentrate on one case which is effectively ‘unproven’, and ignore the deliberate killing of children, the denial of access to ambulances and attacks on hospitals? Because the image went around the world as a symbol of the destructive vindictive policies of Israel. That is what they don’t like. They couldn’t care less about the casualties inflicted by their own government, the horror and bloodshed, the war crimes and brutality. What they object to is bad PR, because they have spent years propagandising their image, denying and hiding the truth. This is yet another confected ‘outrage’ designed to make sure the central message of the report gets lost in the noise.

  11. sardelapasti
    March 12, 2013, 10:07 pm

    Essentially it looks as if the most convincing element of proof is the absence of a Zionist acknowledgement. Until solid proof is there, we know who shoots most…

  12. mmayer
    March 12, 2013, 11:12 pm

    Whether it was a rocket from Gaza that fell short or it was Israel’s missile, does it really matter? You can’t put the screws to the people for decades and expect them not to react to being oppressed, crapped on and attacked. What makes me absolutely crazy is that the whole image of the IDF as the most moral army in the world is reinforced, as if this hasn’t happened before. Did they forget about Abdel Rahman Majdi Naim, aged 2, killed during the Pillar of Defence? Did they forget about the predominantly civilian population, including many other children killed and maimed? To actually promote the belief that a military force from a country that openly practices Apartheid and is guilty of multiple war crimes as the moral barometer makes them just as guilty as those who perpetuate this misery upon a whole population. What is so damn moral about the oppressor holding a higher moral bar for those they oppress which they themselves continually fall short of?

  13. eGuard
    March 13, 2013, 5:40 am

    The first block quote here is from the UN HCHR report. The concluding sentence ends with: … were killed by what appeared to be a Palestinian rocket that fell short of Israel. It has a footnote that says: 69. Case monitored by OHCHR. That’s all. Not the beginning of an evidence here.

    The next sentence makes the same allegation in another situation: … of what appeared to be …, this time even without a footnote (however unclarifying it might have been). One wonders who has fed the High Commisioner’s Office.

    Then the very next paragraph (40) starts with: According to media reports …. Clearly this time they did read the papers. Why not in paragraph 39?

  14. eGuard
    March 13, 2013, 5:54 am

    Unbelievable. So the paragraph (page 14) mentions two situations where civilians were killed by what appeared to be a Palestinian rocket (stated twice).

    Then in the Summary of findings, the very last paragraph of the report (48; bolding added): Furthermore, several Palestinians were killed by rockets launched by the armed groups that fell short and landed in the Gaza Strip.

    So what first “appeared to be”, within two pages mysteriously has become a “fact”.

  15. eGuard
    March 13, 2013, 6:21 am

    Is it written by UN or IDF? Just read paragraph 5 (page 3), of the “Background”. Clearly the topic of research was chosen to be the period of 14-21 November, IDF operation PoC (named the “crisis”). The paragraph is about what happened before that week, as a lead up.

    First action mentioned is a November 10 attack by Palestinians (noone killed, four military wounded), then the Israeli attacks 10-12 November (4 killed, 40 wounded, all civilians), then back to a November 10 attack by Israel. Then it jumps back to January 2012. The rockets from the Gaza strip are counted and noted in the report, but none of the Palestinian killed in that same period is. The first mentioning of a Palestinian killed was on November 10.

    Nowhere is explained why the topic is limited to the operation PoC period, nor why the background is started with an incident on November 10. The incidents are listed out of chronological order (why?), and no precise times are added (why not?). There is no mentioning of Palestinian deaths in the “background” period (which ultimately seems to start in January 2012).

    For example, on November 8, Israel made an incursion into the Gaza strip. It killed 13-year old Abu Daqqa who was playing football at the time. link to maannews.net

  16. Obsidian
    March 13, 2013, 7:42 am

    ” You can’t put the screws to the people for decades and expect them not to react to being oppressed, crapped on and attacked.”

    Really?
    In 2005, the Irish Republican Army announced that it was entering a new era in which it would unequivocally relinquish violence. IRA members were “instructed to assist the development of purely political and democratic programs through exclusively political means” and that “all IRA units have been ordered to dump arms” and “to complete the process to verifiably put its arms beyond use.” In late September the IRA’s disarmament was verified by an international mediator.

    When will the Palestinians follow suit?

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      March 13, 2013, 12:09 pm

      Maybe when the Israelis tell the Palestinians they have no claim on their land, and will be guided by the wishes of the people who live there? Sort of like the British government did with regard to Northern Ireland?

    • MK_Ultra
      March 13, 2013, 5:02 pm

      When will the Palestinians follow suit?

      A good guess would be when their occupier withdraws, when their land is returned, when Gaza is no longer the world’s biggest open-air prison, when their colonialist oppressor, invader and occupier stops slaughtering them. But that’s just a wild guess, of course.

    • Shingo
      March 13, 2013, 9:24 pm

      When will the Palestinians follow suit?

      Probably when the Israelis do what the British did and withdrew their military occupation.

      • Obsidian
        March 14, 2013, 10:22 am

        When did Britain’s military occupation of Northern Ireland begin and end?
        Dates please.

  17. Kathleen
    March 13, 2013, 7:52 am

    “that BBC employee Omar al-Masharawi’s 11-month-old son Omar was most likely killed by an errant Palestinian missile rather than Israeli fire.”

    MOST LIKELY seems vague for a UN report.
    So how would the UN define these stats
    link to ifamericansknew.org
    129 Israeli children and 1,516 Palestinian children
    have been killed since September 29, 2000.

  18. mjrosenberg
    March 13, 2013, 8:06 am

    Apparently, the IDF has never killed any Palestinians. Like Holocaust deniers, the hasbara crowd rushes to prove that every incident that is reported never happened. All this means that no Palestinians have been killed in decades (since the hasbara legions went to work). What delightful news.

    So where are the Palestinian dead hiding?
    It must be the same place the Holocaust revisionists say 6,000,000 Jews are hiding.

  19. mmayer
    March 13, 2013, 2:41 pm

    Whereas the PIRA’s change in direction to implement change through political pressure and non violence is lauded, the point I was making is that continued oppression, desperation leads to desperate acts. Locking a whole population in an open air prison with only one exit via Egypt is what creates “terrorists.” When the Israeli’s do it, it is considered self defense, even when they break a ceasefire, conveniently while the world has their attention directed on the American Presidential elections

    It isn’t Judaism they are fighting, it is oppression through a brutal military occupation (and if you are going to argue that Gaza isn’t occupied, then there is absolutely nothing to discuss), it is land expansionism and it is the violations of basic, fundamental human rights. To base the Hamas response to Islamic extremism is historically selective and limited in nature. It fails to take into account of the Israeli strategic tactics in regard to the conflict.

    “Israel low-intensity strategy was based on escalation dominance, that is disproportionate responses to provocations, as well as military initiatives not in response to specific provocations. At that same time, Israeli strategy tried to walk a fine line between outmatching the challenge with excessive force, on one hand and deflecting blame for escalating minor incidents to all-out wars”. [Maoz, Zeev, Defending the Holy Land: A Critical Analysis of Israel’s Security & Foreign, University of Michigan Press, pg. 18]

    • Obsidian
      March 15, 2013, 2:22 am

      The PIRA’s turnabout is to be lauded and there’s no justifiable reason for the Palestinians not to follow suit. That’s my point.

      BTW. Why the turnabout? Because the IRA’s #3 man in the organization was a traitor who the British ‘turned’. He had the goods on the whole military leadership and could have put them all behind bars for life.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 15, 2013, 2:14 pm

        “The PIRA’s turnabout is to be lauded and there’s no justifiable reason for the Palestinians not to follow suit. That’s my point.”

        Then it’s a stupid point. The PIRA’s actions came almost a decade after the Good Friday Agreements and power sharing. When the Jews in Palestine agree to something as sweeping and impliment it for a decade, then that would be time to ask if Palestinian forces were ready to persue a wholly political track.

        “Why the turnabout? Because the IRA’s #3 man in the organization was a traitor who the British ‘turned’. He had the goods on the whole military leadership and could have put them all behind bars for life.”

        Ignorant nonsense. There’ve always been turncoats and traitors. As for Denis Donaldson, who I assume you’re talking about, he was announced as a traitor in December of 2005, months after the armed campaign was ended and the decomissioning was accomplished and years after the start of the process. It was not through fear of prosecution that they stopped the fight; it was because they’d achieved their goals of freedom from oppression of their people and of powersharing, a process that began back in the 1990s. Even if the entire military leadership was arrested, another group would have taken their place, if they had intended to continue the fight. They didn’t. The success of the Good Friday Accords showed they didn’t have to. With the freedom from oppression for the Catholics in Northern Ireland and the implimentation of the power sharing, the need for the fight was gone. Of course, israelis seem to be too stupid to get that lesson.

      • Hostage
        March 15, 2013, 5:45 pm

        The PIRA’s turnabout is to be lauded and there’s no justifiable reason for the Palestinians not to follow suit.

        Ahem, the Oslo Accords of 1993 were signed several years before the Belfast Peace Agreement of 1998.

  20. American
    March 14, 2013, 12:41 pm

    BBC insists: UN wrong, Israel killed Gaza baby

    By Marcus Dysch, March 14, 2013
    Follow Marcus on Twitter

    Jihad al-Masharawi, a BBC correspondent in Gaza, cries over his dead son (Photo: Reuters)
    The BBC has contested the findings of a United Nations report into an explosion that killed the baby son of one of the corporation’s correspondents.
    Jihad Mashhrawi’s 11-month-old son Omar was killed after Israel launched Operation Pillar of Defence in Gaza in November last year.
    At the time, it was widely claimed that the explosion was caused by an Israeli rocket hitting a residential area. But the UN Human Rights Committee’s advance version of its report into the conflict, published last week, said the incident was the result of “what appeared to be a Palestinian rocket that fell short of Israel”.
    A picture of Mr Mashhrawi cradling his dead son became one of the most iconic images from the eight-day conflict. Mr Mashhrawi this week dismissed the UN findings as “rubbish” and said Hamas would “usually apologise” to the family if it was responsible.

    Jon Donnison
    In a piece published on the BBC website on November 26 last year, Gaza correspondent Jon Donnison dismissed the possibility of the explosion having been caused by a Hamas rocket, saying it was “most likely” Omar had been killed by an Israeli strike.

    Despite the UN findings, Mr Donnison stuck to that conclusion this week, writing that Israeli military officials had ….***“privately briefed journalists that they had been targeting a militant who was in the building” where Omar was killed, and that the Israelis had reported no rockets being fired from Gaza by Hamas at that time.****

Leave a Reply