Israeli airstrikes kill two Palestinian children

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

Israeli airstrikes kill two Palestinian children

Reuters in Gaza
Saturday 12 March 2016 21.06 GMT

A Palestinian boy and his sister were killed in Hamas-controlled Gaza when they were hit by fragments from a missile fired by an Israeli aircraft, medical officials said.

The incident took place on Saturday hours after militants launched rockets into Israel. An Israeli military statement said aircraft had targeted four militant training camps belonging to Hamas after four missiles landed in open areas in southern Israel on Friday night. No casualties were reported from the rocket strikes.

Residents of Beit Lahiya in the northern Gaza Strip said Yassin Abu Khoussa, 10, died after debris from the explosion hit his home, which is next to a militant training camp. His six-year-old sister, Israa, who was seriously wounded, later died in hospital, said a Gaza health ministry spokesman.

The deaths were the first from Israeli attacks on Gaza since last October. The Israeli army said that since the beginning of the year and including Friday’s salvo, seven rockets have been fired from the Gaza Strip into Israel.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/12/gaza-boy-dies-in-air-strike-after-rocket-attack-on-israel

[katsy]

1. I hope the Palestinians hold Hamas responsible

for instigating this fight. Don't fucking send bombs into Israel and not expect retaliation.

If Canada all of a sudden launched missles at NE bet your ass I'd expect retaliation.

Those poor innocent Palestinians should steer clear of Hamas military camps. Fukwits instigating more violence.

So so sorry for the innocent babies.

[King_David]

5. +1

[Warren DeMontague]

2. "Hours after militants launched rockets into Israel"

Um, yeah.

[grossproffit]

3. Quite the misleading headline. This has become typical.

[Little Tich]

4. That'll teach them not to live near to a terrorist training camp ever again...

[6chars]

6. It will teach Hamas to keep putting terrorist bases next to homes

The headline is Hamas' payoff. Human shields work again!

[Little Tich]

7. Haaretz: Does the Presence of the IDF's HQ in Tel Aviv Endanger the City's Population?

Source: Haaretz, Jun 09, 2012

No one has ever seriously addressed the possibility of removing the base from the heart of the city. Haaretz investigates the legal and historical implications of the Kirya's location.

The Defense Ministry, by its nature, constitutes a salient military target and, in principle, to attack it is permitted, ? including from afar, using planes and missiles. The same applies, even more obviously, to the compound of the military high command' ?/ the General Staff?. This gives rise to concern about severe damage to civilians, should a target located in the heart of a densely populated civilian area be attacked.” The speaker: Prof. Yoram Dinstein, a world-renowned expert in international law and a former president of Tel Aviv University.

Under international law, is it legitimate to attack a target in an urban area?

Dinstein: “Article 58 b of the first Protocol, from 1977, which supplements the Geneva Conventions of 1949, stipulates that parties to a conflict should ‘avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas.’ No one disputes that this article reflects customary international law, which is binding on the entire international community, although the State of Israel is not a party to the Protocol.”

Is the enemy permitted to attack without limit?

“The rule permitting an attack on military targets is subject to the principle of proportionality. That is, it is forbidden to attack a military target if the anticipated collateral damage to civilians or civilian objects is excessive relative to the anticipated military advantage. However, the military advantage anticipated from a successful attack against the Defense Ministry and General Staff facilities is so great that collateral damage to civilians, even if on a broad scale, will not generally be considered a violation of the principle of proportionality. Hence the inner logic of the provision of Article 58? b.”

What is the implication of this for the Kirya ? the Defense Ministry and General Staff base in the center of Tel Aviv?

“The historical location of the Defense Ministry and General Staff base in the Tel Aviv Kirya [government compound] is simply regrettable, but it’s hard to change the facts of life in cases like this. At the same time, the massive construction of new buildings and facilities recently is tantamount to adding crime to punishment, so to speak, because it was carried out in full knowledge of the dangers to all the close surroundings, ?which include saliently civilian objects?. The new construction should have taken place outside Tel Aviv. If and when new facilities and buildings are constructed, they should be placed outside the urban area, in accordance with Article 58? b? . It is regrettable, even surprising, that no significant public debate has taken place in Israel on this subject.”

Read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/does-the-presence-of-the-idf-s-hq-in-tel-aviv-endanger-the-city-s-population.premium-1.435042

Note: Haaretz Premium, use Google to access full article.

So if a bomb or rocket directed at the Defense Ministry base in Tel Aviv blew up a bunch of Jewish children in their homes nearby, it wouldn't be a biggie for you, you would just shrug your shoulders and blame the IDF?

[6chars]

15. Now you're being silly.

[branford]

8. You do realize that it would make Hamas in violation of the Geneva Accords, not the Israelis?

If you're suggesting that Israel lawfully cannot attack a military site in response to indiscriminate rocket fire from Gaza because such sites are might contain or be proximate to civilians, you need a refresher on international law.

[Little Tich]

9. Just because civilians live nearby doesn't mean that they're fair game.

It's always about proportionality, but the general rule is that civilian casualties should be avoided.

[branford]

10. Unlike the rockets from Gaza and the modus operandi of Hamas,

Israel didn't intentionally target the children. As you noted, they civilians lived near the target and no one has suggested that Israel did anything like carpet bomb the entire area to strike a small Hamas target. In fact, Hamas intentionally locates bases and armories within and conducts operations from civilian buildings and areas to protect them from attack or use civilian death and injuries for public relations purposes.

Quite frankly, what I find most disturbing is not an argument about "proportionality" and certainly not your expressing sympathy for the deaths of children, but rather your complaints concerning Israel retaliation against a clear military target without a single word condemning indiscriminate rocket fire against civilians in Israel.

Are some intentional war crimes acceptable so long as you sympathize with the perpetrators? Are Israeli civilians not entitled to the same protections you demand for Palestinians?

[Little Tich]

11. Israel could perhaps be let off the hook if it wasn't known that civilians were living nearby,

but with the invention of aerial photography and reconnaissance, they ought to know where civilians live, and act accordingly.

One may wonder what kind of massive enemy activity in that "enemy training camp" justified attacking it without regard for civilian casualties? Shouldn't all civilians, Israeli's and Palestinians alike enjoy the same protection?

[branford]

12. It's telling that you still haven't condemned the indiscriminate rocket fire into Israel.

Also, are you suggesting that any otherwise legitimate military target in Gaza (or anywhere) else should be rendered totally immune to attack if there are any civilians living nearby?

No country would tolerate such a situation where in a asymmetric warefare scenario like Gaza and Israel, one party could lob rockets at their civilians (or blow up buses and pizzerias or randomly stab or shoot people) and the other effectively side couldn't retaliate. That's quite literally demanding that Israel surrender to terrorists, and is patently absurd.

I also find the complaints by the Unites States and our European NATO allies about civilian casualties to be somewhat disingenuous considering the level of civilian casualties inflicted in our military adventures far away from our home shores, no less how countries with abominable human rights records like Russia, Turkey, China or most of the Arab and Muslim world routinely conduct their military operations, often against their own people.

I'll begin to seriously consider these stories as important as soon as Israel is judged by the same standards as everyone else.

[Little Tich]

13. What was the damage caused by the indiscriminate rocket fire into Israel?

"No casualties were reported from the rocket strikes."

You're trying to promote a false sense of equivalency - Rocket fire that doesn't cause any injuries is never as bad as two dead children from the retaliatory strike.

[branford]

14. First, you still haven't condemned the rocket fire. That's disgusting.

Further, casualty figures do not necessarily determine legality or efficacy.

I'm curious, do you always favor the insurgents in asymmetrical warfare, or only when the stronger party are Jews?

[Little Tich]

16. I guess I deserved that.

I find the whole concept of civilian casualties repulsive. There's never a good excuse.

[shira]

17. Not only is the problem never condemning rocket fire into Israel....

...there is no condemnation of Hamas for intentionally firing from dense civilian populations. Nothing about Hamas' war crimes against child militants & human shields either.

And of course Israel can do nothing to protect its civilians.

All that adds up to support of Hamas and their war goals IMO.