B’Tselem finds: No justification for live fire that killed 10-yr-old Khalil ‘Anati in al-Fawwar R.C.

[Jefferson23]

On the morning of 10 August 2014, a soldier shot 10-year-old Palestinian boy Khalil ‘Anati in al-Fawwar Refugee Camp in the West Bank. The boy was rushed in his uncle’s car to hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

An investigation by B’Tselem field researcher Musa Abu Hashhash revealed that at approximately 9:30 A.M., a white Water Authority jeep drove into the refugee camp, accompanied by two army vehicles. The white jeep reached a water facility inside the camp and the army vehicles stopped nearby, at two different locations close to the camp’s main road. Some five boys and youths, including Khalil ‘Anati, threw stones at one of the army vehicles from alleys leading off the main road. Some ten minutes later, the white jeep drove out of the camp, followed by the army vehicles.

One of the military vehicles had parked facing the center of the camp and turned around close to one of the alleys from which the stones had been thrown. On its way out of the camp, the vehicle stopped next to another alley, from which stones had apparently been thrown, too. The driver opened the door, fired a single shot, and resumed driving. About half a minute later, the second vehicle drove by the same alley without stopping. The single shot, which was preceded by no warning or use of non-lethal measures, killed 10-year-old ‘Anati. Medical records obtained by B’Tselem show that he was struck by a live bullet that entered his lower back and exited through his thigh.

B’Tselem spoke with Tha’er ‘Anati, who lives on a hill overlooking the main road and described what he saw:

http://www.btselem.org/firearms/20140921_killing_of_khalil_anati

[oberliner]

1. Every country needs to have a group like B'Tselem

It can't only be Israelis who care about human rights.

[Shaktimaan]

3. Sorry.

What exactly is wrong with btselem? Do you really consider it unfair to Israel?

[DanTex]

5. NGO monitor? LOL.

[shira]

7. Far Left org politically compromised, not grassroots, funded from afar.....

http://mida.org.il/2014/08/19/btselem-hamas-mouthpiece/

The fact that the head of B'Tselem refuses to call Hamas a 'terrorist organization' is no surprise • All throughout Protective Edge, B'Tselem served as the de facto propaganda arm of Hamas, doing everything in its power to undermine the legitimacy of the IDF's operations • Among other things, B'Tselem consistently emphasized Palestinian losses while making no mention of Hamas' cynical use of the civilian population as human shields • Even Ismail Haniyeh seems pleased

....The second spearhead was launched by B'Tselem head Hagai Elad, formerly head of the Israeli Civil Liberties Union, also a major recipient of NIF largesse ($900,795.41 in 2012 in total).

Already at the beginning of the Operation, on July 9th, B'Tselem called attacks on the houses of terrorists as 'a violation of international humanitarian law'. Because of this, per B'Tselem, these targets cannot serve as an excuse for collateral damage to civilians (property and lives). This event shows how B'Tselem APPLIES blame for those killed in bombings. Thus, when the home of the Karawe family was attacked, as reported by B'Tselem, it was specifically stated that on July 8th, the family received a phone warning at 1:30 PM. "One of the sons, Ouda Karawe, is an activist in Hamas' military wing. The family initially obeyed the order and left the house, but then they and dozens of others congregated around it." At 2:50 PM, a UAV dropped a small bomb on one of the solar boilers, in what is known as the "knock on the roof" procedure. In spite of this, "a few minutes after the firing, the family members and neighbors went up to the roof of the house. At 3:00 PM, a missile was fired at the house from an F-16. At this stage there were four people on the roof and additional people in the stairwell or in the courtyard, on their way to the roof. The roof collapsed from the missile's explosion and eight people, six of them children, were killed. Additionally 28 people were wounded, ten of them seriously." Ouda Karawe, the original target, was not among the dead.

Although they were warned both by telephone and through a warning bombing, B'Tselem blames the IDF for the innocent casualties, since for them the bombing itself was not justified by international law. Assuming B'Tselem's own report is perfectly accurate, we have before us a clear cut case of civilians being used as human shields. In spite of this, B'Tselem doesn't seem to wonder why the civilians insisted on staying on or near the roof after both the warning and the knock on the roof, and somehow it does not assign a smidgen of blame to Hamas or even the family members, who enabled others to follow them in trying to protect the house with their bodies.

In the wake of the bombing, B'Tselem and nine other human rights organizations – all NIF-supported – appealed to Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein "to instruct the government to avoid attacks which may cause disproportionate damage to civilians in the Gaza Strip and act to establish an external, independent and effective mechanism for examining decisions and instructions at the political and command levels regarding the conduct of the fighting." Weinstein was not impressed, and he summarily rejected their demands. According to him, all of the IDF's strikes stand the test of proportionality and international law, and he even reminded them that because of "the cynical and criminal exploitation" by Hamas of "the civilian population as a human shield protecting from IDF strikes", "unfortunately even legal and proportional attacks can cause unintended and undesired harm to civilians and civilian property."

But when you fire the arrow and paint the target around it, even such an authoritative legal opinion is not enough. Indeed, Hagai Elad stuck to this line in his two appearances in the foreign media. The first took place the first day after B'Tselem's publication on the matter. At the beginning of his Sky News interview, Elad was asked what he thinks of the IDF's claim that they're doing everything they can to minimize harm to civilians. Elad responded that attacks on the houses of Hamas members "are in and of themselves a violation of humanitarian law" - ducking the actual issue – A.W.. The host wouldn't give up and questioned Elad regarding the argument that Hamas uses the civilian population as human shields, making it very hard not to hit civilians when attacking terrorist organizations in the Strip. Elad didn't answer. Instead, he continued to read from a prepared list of points, including the change of the IDF's version of events in bombing terrorists' houses as mentioned above.

[Jefferson23]

8. What are Eric Greenstein's credentials and who the hell is he? The website is yet another right wing

source from you. I find it hilarious how you can't accept any human rights group, and that
you focus on slandering B'Tselem is beyond pathetic.

Avi Woolf is English editor at Mida, a politically conservative Israeli website (www.mida.org.il). He lives in Israel, is Modern orthodox and skews libertarian. Likes chess and classical music.

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/should-israel-have-reconquered-gaza/

[shira]

10. His 2 main charges are that the head of B'tselem refuses to call Hamas terrorists.....

....and that human-shielding played no part in civilian casualties where people were called up to rooftops by Hamas.

Both charges are true, regardless whether the source is rightwing.

Like HRW and Amnesty, B'tselem defends Hamas fascists by refusing to call them out for their most heinous war crimes.

B'tselem is also wrong about a terrorist's home not being a a valid military target.

[Jefferson23]

13. Yea, so you have no idea what his credentials are, another right wing source though.

I'm not worried about their reputations, HRW and the rest will come out fine in the end
despite your attempts to slander them.

I am keeping track, so far you're 3 for 3, HRW, AI and B'Tselem.

I imagine the Palestinian human rights groups are a foregone conclusion to be liars
out of the gate too.

You already know why B'tselem does not refer to Hamas as terrorists, their own
words explained it and you left that out for anyone to read.

Carry on.

[shira]

15. More deflecting. Facts suck for you, huh? n/t

[Jefferson23]

17. I'm not worried about corroborated facts at all.

3 for 3, and more to come from you, I am sure.

[shira]

18. Corroborated to you = acknowledged by the right people

If facts are ignored, it's as if they don't exist.

Nice pretend-world to live in.

[DanTex]

9. Where do you keep finding these right-wingers? You're like an encyclopedia of right-wing sources.

[shira]

11. From past discussions, I understand that you're against any criticism.....

....of politically compromised groups masquerading as human rights organizations.

The facts remain:

1. Hamas is a terror org and B'tselem refuses to acknowledge this.
2. Targeting terrorists' homes is not against IHL
3. B'tselem refusing to report on Hamas human shielding is reprehensible, considering the mountains of evidence proving they do it.

[DanTex]

12. As long as you continue the pattern of posting from right-wing sources, I'll continue pointing out

that the world human rights community comes to vastly different conclusions about the legality of Israel's conduct that the right-wing think tanks where you get your information.

We've already been through the details. No point in really going over it again. Just in case anyone else is reading (doubtful), they should be aware that your posts here reflect the opinions of right-wingers and your selective presentation of facts would make Fox News blush.

[shira]

14. As long as u keep deflecting, I'll keep reminding u of the facts.

I understand facts do not matter to Hamas and friends of Hamas propagandists and liars, but what's keeping a progressive like yourself from acknowledging the facts and discussing issues rationally?

[DanTex]

16. You forgot the quotation marks around "facts".

For example, if you want to learn about Israeli policy of demolishing homes, here is a detailed report by Amnesty International:

For decades Israel has pursued a policy of forced eviction(1) and demolition of homes of Palestinians living under occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the homes of Israeli Arabs in Israel. In the past three and a half years the scale of the destruction carried out by the Israeli army in the Occupied Territories has reached an unprecedented level. The victims are often amongst the poorest and most disadvantaged in both Israeli and Palestinian society. Most of the houses demolished by the Israeli army in the Occupied Territories were the homes of refugee families, who were expelled by Israeli forces or who fled in the war that followed the creation of Israel in 1948.
More than 3,000 homes, hundreds of public buildings and private commercial properties, and vast areas of agricultural land have been destroyed by the Israeli army and security forces in Israel and the Occupied Territories in the past three and a half years. Tens of thousands of men, women and children have been forcibly evicted from their homes and made homeless or have lost their source of livelihood. Thousands of other houses and properties have been damaged, many beyond repair. In addition, tens of thousands of other homes are under threat of demolition, their occupants living in fear of forced eviction and homelessness.
Forced evictions and house demolitions are usually carried out without warning, often at night, and the occupants are given little or no time to leave their homes. Sometimes they are allowed a few minutes or half an hour, too little to salvage their belongings. Often the only warning is the rumbling of the Israeli army’s bulldozers and tanks and the inhabitants barely have time to flee as the bulldozers begin to tear down the walls of their homes. Thousands of families have had their homes and possessions destroyed under the blades of the Israeli army’s US-made Caterpillar bulldozers. In the wake of the demolitions men, women and children return to the ruins of their homes searching for whatever can be salvaged from under the rubble: passports or other documents, children’s schoolbooks, clothes, kitchenware or furniture which were not destroyed.
In most cases the justification given by the Israeli authorities for the destruction of homes, agricultural land and other properties is "military/security needs", while in other cases the justification is lack of building permits. The result is the same: families are left homeless and destitute. They must rely on relatives, friends and charity organizations for shelter and subsistence.
The destruction of Palestinian homes, agricultural land and other property in the Occupied Territories, including East Jerusalem, is inextricably linked with Israel’s long-standing policy of appropriating as much as possible of the land it occupies, notably by establishing Israeli settlements. The establishment of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories violates international humanitarian law,(2) and the presence of these settlements has led to mass violations of human rights of the local Palestinian population.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/033/2004/en/24cc1bb1-d5f6-11dd-bb24-1fb85fe8fa05/mde150332004en.html


Oh, and yes, home demolitions are a violation of international law.

Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.

https://www.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/380-600060?OpenDocument

[shira]

19. Facts are ignored or denied by Amnesty, like Hamas human shielding

You've seen all the evidence for yourself, but you're holding out hope that one day - maybe within the next decade or so - Amnesty will "complete" its research and acknowledge facts that have been out there for years.



Sorry, but I could care less what an organization says when they masquerade as activists for human rights by defending fascist terror organizations' most heinous acts.

[shira]

23. Here's a fun "fact" for u. Fatah fired rockets @ Israel this summer

http://www.timesofisrael.com/moderate-fatah-joins-hamas-and-islamic-jihad-in-missile-launches/#ixzz374Qz2bRV

Here's al-Aqsa martyr's brigade (part of Fatah) boasting about it...
http://www.nedal.net/ar/index.php?Action=Category&ID=13

More from Palestinian sources:
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=712302
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=712566

They're so proud of their rockets, it's on Fatah's Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=720473044655873&set=a.408417995861381.83523.408411429195371&type=1&theater

And if none of that is enough evidence, it's okay because they wanted everyone to see it on video:

Question:

Where is HRW, Amnesty, and B'tselem to condemn these war crimes?

[azurnoir]

26. better question: are you charging the POTUS and SoS with dealing with terrorists?

but then again you post from such notables as Anne Bayefsky who not only disguises herself as a human rights organization as seen here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=80286

http://www.humanrightsvoices.org/site/about/who/

but also writes for Fox News and blames this summers Palestine/Israel conflict squarely on Obama's "Obama's obscene moral relativism" (her title) as seen here:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/12/israel-crisis-obama-moral-relativism/

[shira]

27. The Israeli gov't deals with Fatah terrorists, so? Bush dealt with Fatah.

Are you denying Fatah launched rockets at Israel this summer?

Do you approve of human rights groups ignoring Fatah's war crimes?

[azurnoir]

28. No I am asking you if you are saying the POTUS and SoS are

dealing with terrorists in contravention of US law?

[whosinpower1]

29. Were they firing rockets from the house?

Did Israel also destroy the houses of the settlers who burned the Palestinian boy alive??? Just asking.

[shira]

24. Also, see #23 below. n/t

[Jefferson23]

6. B'Tselem's quixotic fight against the 'temporary' occupation

Security and human rights aren't mutually exclusive, says new chief of Israeli organization.

By Mira Sucharov | Sep. 21, 2014 | 10:53 AM

It’s a question that defines the debate over Israel’s policies and the state’s grand strategy: do Israeli human rights organizations monitoring the occupation merely serve as a fig leaf, adding an ethical patina to what is a fundamentally immoral situation?

Four months into his new position as head of B’Tselem — having come from the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Hagai El-Ad and I spoke by phone the other week about this and other issues.

Given that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza was supposed to be “temporary,” Hagai is well aware that “at some point the term loses its meaning.” So as he took the helm of B’Tselem last May, the organization issued a position paper provocatively named “47 Years of Temporary Occupation.” As Hagai puts it, B’Tselem is shifting its focus from “fighting against human rights violations under occupation to a strategy [emphasizing] that the occupation will forever violate the human rights of Palestinians.” To this end, B’Tselem is now trying to end the occupation — not just help manage it.

It’s a laudable goal. But how achievable is it?

B’Tselem is starting with some concrete steps, however limited. For one, they have recently announced that they will not cooperate with IDF military investigations around Operation Protective Edge. Calling it “theater of the absurd,” Hagai believes that the military investigation system is one intended to “always result in impunity.” And this protected military violence is a necessary “lifeline of the occupation.” Hence the need to squelch it.

As far as the bigger picture goes, Hagai is cautiously optimistic: probably a necessary blend for anyone in human rights work in the Israel/Palestine morass. He takes comfort from what he sees as B’Tselem’s mission being fundamentally buttressed by the very human rights discourse extant in Israel. That the concept of human rights is a “relevant currency” in Israeli politics gives the organization an important starting point by which to leverage societal consensus. Though without the clout or mandate to engage in electoral lobbying efforts, working to end the occupation must be done very much at arms length from the policy sphere. Still, it’s a start.

Hagai adds that he invites others to see what they can do “in their own communities” to disrupt the idea of the occupation as “business as usual.”

OK, so most of us can agree that the occupation is an undesirable situation. But what about the argument, issued frequently by Israel’s most strident defenders, that the status quo is a security imperative? If Hamas didn’t launch rockets, the thinking goes, the war in Gaza wouldn’t have been necessary. And if West Bank Palestinians didn’t seek to blow up Israelis, the checkpoints and night raids and (the various) separate roads could be dismantled. And we all know about the apartheid, uh, separation, ahem, security wall.

Trading off between security on one hand, and human rights and ending occupation on the other, is a false dichotomy, Hagai explains. In Gaza, “we’ve encountered time and again the theory that using more and more force will provide the desired outcome. But that’s not really working.” And when it comes to day-to-day military policing in the West Bank to ensure the safety of Israeli citizens, we all know the chicken-egg argument: the internal checkpoints would be unnecessary were there not settlements (illegal under international law) to protect: hence B’Tselem’s claim, in its “47 Years of Temporary Occupation” document, that settlements are “the heart of the matter.”

Now that the fighting in Gaza has died down, B’Tselem is reflecting on its work compiling data on casualties, monitoring international humanitarian law violations — including by Hamas, and collecting first-person testimonies, attempting to put a face to the Palestinians in Gaza. Hagai is quick to note that the media coverage in Israel tended to be one-sided, with little coverage of the war experience for Gazans. As an antidote, B’Tselem relied heavily on social media and web coverage to get additional information disseminated, despite a hacking attempt that left their website site crippled for a few days.

After talking to Hagai, I’m left with a strange combination of hope and cynicism. As someone who cares deeply about seeing an end to the occupation, I’m buoyed by the fact that the head of Israel’s most important human rights organization has this broader goal top of mind. At the same time, absent the apparent political will in the top echelons of the Israeli government, I can’t escape the belief that intelligent, passionate and committed Israeli change makers like Hagai are too often left clapping with one hand.

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/the-fifth-question/.premium-1.616938

[Carlos Rodrigez]

20. It was intended to be temporary . ..

but then the occupied chose terrorism to try to capture Tel Aviv, as with voting for Hamas. So the temporariness has to keep being extended until they they vote against terrorism and in favor of terrotorial compromise.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

21. LOL ...

There was no "Hamas" in 1967.

Massive fail.

[Carlos Rodrigez]

22. Fantastic Anarchist does not follow the events.

The Palestinian rejection of a two state solution has been going on since 1947 when all Arabs rejected the UN partition plan.

Not so massive a fail.

[King_David]

25. Why don't you direct the answer to his posts?