Israel to pay for treatment of Palestinian girl hurt in IAF attack

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"A panel appointment by Defense Minister Amir Peretz decided Wednesday that Israel will fund the treatment of a 3-year-old Palestinian girl seriously wounded in an Israel Air Force raid in the Gaza Strip two weeks ago.

The girl and other members of her family were hurt when the IAF fired missiles at the vehicle of a wanted Islamic Jihad militant in Gaza. The wanted man was killed, as were three members of a family traveling in an adjacent car.

The girl is being treated at Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer; her uncle, who was also wounded in the incident, is hospitalized at Ichilov Hospital, in Tel Aviv.

Physicians for Human Rights - Israel appealed to Peretz, warning that money transferred by the Palestinian Authority for the girl's treatment has almost been exhausted, and that Israeli authorities may send her back to Gaza."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/724151.html


Related story:

Collateral damage: Entire Gaza family

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x126459

[Kipling]

1. Well, it's a start.

They could save money and lives by taking really drastic steps, like not bombing toddlers in the first place.

[Phx_Dem]

2. You know dude it's not like they did it on purpose

Maybe Israel should just stop responding to terrorism? What do you suggest Israel do about rockets fired from Gaza, or terror cells operating/training in Gaza, do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion?

[Poll_Blind]

3. Continued grossly negligent behavior is tantamount to intent.

Phx_Dem, if you wonder why so many liberals have really big problems with Israel, consider the subject of this message: Continued grossly negligent behavior is tantamount to intent.

When a suicide bomber boards a bus and blows themselves up they may kill a few soldiers, but they are also likely to harm or kill innocent civilians, including children, as well.

When Israel launches a helicopter strike on a car driving down a crowded street, or drops a bomb on an apartment complex they may kill what they have identified as a threat but civilians are also invariably harmed or killed.

What is the difference between those two scenarios?

I find very little, if any at all. Continued reckless application of military force with disregard for civilian casualties is the same as intent to kill or harm those civilians. It damns both sides- it is the stain that each try to brush off, again and again, with excuses or silence, in vain.

It is possible to argue the motivations a bit to try and draw distinctions but no amount of arguing can bring back the dead.

I'm glad to see Israel stepping up to the plate to accept some responsibility for their actions. I doubt it is the beginning of a trend, but I'm optimistic.

PB

[Phx_Dem]

4. The difference is obvious

"When a suicide bomber boards a bus and blows themselves up they may kill a few soldiers, but they are also likely to harm or kill innocent civilians, including children, as well.

When Israel launches a helicopter strike on a car driving down a crowded street, or drops a bomb on an apartment complex they may kill what they have identified as a threat but civilians are also invariably harmed or killed.

What is the difference between those two scenarios?"


The first is terrorism and the second is self-defense. Most liberals seem to understand the distinction.

[idontwantaname]

5. theyre both terrorism

dont be fooled to thinking the air strike is the "only option" available to the IDF

[Phx_Dem]

6. I realize there are always other options..

but I disagree with your assessment that the IDF is committing terrorist acts.

[idontwantaname]

7. of course

definitions of what is terrorism vary between person to person... and though one size does not fit all i am glad you recognize the IDF is heavy handed with its unwarranted and illegal targeted assassinations by air... but how do you feel about them forcefully occupying homes at 2am and invading an entire town to assassinate folks?... with the tanks and artillery, bulldozing homes ect.

perhaps one or two isolated incidents of air strike assassinations and we could all look the other way... but this is a system of oppression against a civilian population.

this is a statement of fact regardless of definitions of what constitutes terrorism.

ps- such arguments of what constitutes what reminds me of when condi rice asked "what is the definition of genocide"...

[Phx_Dem]

8. I have mixed feelings..

about the way the IDF defends it's civilian population. On one hand targeted assassinations have worked well by reducing the number of successful suicide bombings but it's unfortunate that so many non-combatants are killed in the process. The IDF does have the responsibility to protect it's soldiers as much as possible, which is why I suppose they minimize their risk when combating terrorists.

The only long term solution is for both sides to start negotiating again, a unilateral solution will never work even if the OTs were completely walled off. Israel and Palestine are natural trade partners and they both need to recognize that together they can form a formidable trade zone.

[Englander]

15. That's an abuse of logic/language, frankly.

The only entity being defended, or protected, is the ongoing malignant occupation, & the right
of the occupiers to use illegal measures to continue that occupation, regardless of the cost to
the civilian population that's targeted by those illegal measures.

[Behind the Aegis]

16. ....

:eyes:

[Phx_Dem]

19. The settlements are being protected from terrorist attacks..

that's for sure, but Israel proper is the primary focus, which you neglect to mention in your post.

[Englander]

22. Non-sequitur, ad hominem. n/t

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Phx_Dem]

25. Englander stated:

"The only entity being defended, or protected, is the ongoing malignant occupation, & the right of the occupiers to use illegal measures to continue that occupation, regardless of the cost to the civilian population that's targeted by those illegal measures. "

In my reply I pointed out that the IDF defends the settlements AND Israel proper. Making this point does not constitute a personal attack imo.

[idontwantaname]

23. are you talking about gaza or the west bank? n/t.

[sabbat hunter]

9. how would you suggest

how would suggest they handle terrorist rockets coming into israel

[idontwantaname]

20. i would suggest

working with multinational peacekeepers to "guard" or oversee that part of the border.
of course israels bombing retalliation, which is 10 times worse than the initial rockets, would have to stop too... as well as the snipers.

[eyl]

17. Care to name

some of those "other options"?

[idontwantaname]

21. how does it sound eyl?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=126873&mesg_id=126981


better than lobbing explosives at each other. plus it may work to boost gaza economy.. having all that foreign money inside... or do you think israel is afraid allowing intls in will expose itself to war crimes charges or at least criticism for being an oppressive asshole country(like the US)

[barb162]

28. I think not

as to the "terrorism"

Self defense is not terrorism

Options? WHat are they?

[idontwantaname]

29. please explain your definition of "self defense"

please see my previous posts for other options.

[barb162]

35. Basically, self defense is self-protection

Go to any number of web definitions if you want, since there is no one agreed standard on it in international law of which I am aware.

What's your definition of it?

[idontwantaname]

36. thats the thing...

which is why i asked you for your definition of what is self defense... because there are so many variations that what i may consider to be offense, you may consider to be defense.

for example, when we invaded iraq for the WMDs i considered this to be an offensive move... like the shellings and missle assassinations.

[Englander]

14. Extrajudicial assassinations = state terrorism.

In some cases they're also war crimes;

'7 March 2006: Targeted Killing in Gaza: Grave Suspicion of a War Crime

The Israeli air force launched a missile yesterday afternoon into a residential neighborhood in the north of Gaza City, killing five Palestinians. Two of those killed were the targets of the attack, and were suspected by Israel of firing Qassam rockets at Israeli towns. Three bystanders, all of them minors, were also killed in the attack: brothers Ra'id (age 8) and Mahmoud (age 15) Al-Batash; and Ahmad a-Sweisi (age 14). Nine other bystanders were wounded, one of them critically.

The circumstances of their death raises the grave suspicion that the targeted killing constitutes a disproportionate attack, which is defined as a war crime. B'Tselem requested the Judge Advocate General to order a Military Police investigation into the attack, including the actions of those who carried it out and the role of high ranking officers such as the Chief of Staff and the Air Force Commander.

Legal Analysis

The principle of proportionality constitutes one of the central pillars of international humanitarian law. According to this principle, an attack is forbidden, even when directed against a legitimate military target, if it is known that the attack is liable to result in injury to civilians that is disproportionate to the military benefit anticipated from the attack. The burden of proof that the anticipated military benefit was so great as to justify harm to civilians rests on those carrying out the attack. Breach of the principle of proportionality is defined in humanitarian law as a war crime, for which the perpetrators bear personal criminal responsibility.

The targeting killing was carried out in the afternoon in the heart of a densely populated urban neighborhood (the a-Tufah neighborhood in northern Gaza City). Given the time and place chosen for the attack, the planners should have known that it was liable to injure many innocent civilians. Despite the extensive harm to civilians resulting from yesterday's attack, Israel has once again failed to provide any evidence regarding the necessity of the action or the lack of alternates that would entail lesser harm to civilians. These facts create a grave suspicion that yesterday's attack was disproportionate and thus constitutes a war crime.

http://www.btselem.org/English/Firearms/20060307_Gaza_Assassination.asp

[barb162]

27. The intent of a suicider is to kill as many civilians as possible

in most cases. And in most cases, the intent of the IDF is to get the perp, who often uses civilians as cover

And there is no such thing as totally precise shooting and bombing

[idontwantaname]

31. perhaps

perhaps you missed the point of this story barb.

ive gone over these numbers before with coastie, that while the "intent" of the IDF is not to harm civilians, it does so at a rate of 10 to 1.

so for every 10 innocent victims(injured/killed), 1 actually target is killed.

now see how this works is the IDF invade a palestinian civilian area, they shoot and kill innocent women and children... intentional or not they still die.

a palestinian suicide bomber invades israeli civilian areas and blows himself up... killing off duty IDF personnel and innocents.

[barb162]

33. And maybe you missed the point of the story

My statements stand

What's the point(INTENT) of kassams being fired daily from Gaza

[idontwantaname]

34. the story was not about kassam retaliation

there is no thought process behind the kassams. its like throwing rocks in the water or shooting your guns in the air. once it leaves the ground you(the launchers) forget about it.

as for israels retaliation for kassams, there is a lot of thought behind it. there is planning, intent and consideration about how many shells should be fired, and where they should be fired.

this shelling as retaliation is just as much a terrorist act as launching kassams. its an eye for an eye.

[barb162]

30. "Israel stepping up to the plate"

And it's time for the Palestinians to step up to the plate to pay for Israeli injuries from their attacks on Israelis.

[idontwantaname]

32. paying for medical bills is hardly stepping up to the plate

if your mother, husband and son were killed would you be satisfied if the guilty party paid for their medical bills ONLY, but didnt allow you to visit your severly injured uncle and daughter?

[Kipling]

10. Give Palestine independence.

Then there can be a proper, international effort to clamp down on any remaining nutters.

[Phx_Dem]

11. Sounds good to me..

hopefully the two sides will start negotiating soon.

[Englander]

12. There won't be any negotiations.

The GoI has zero intention of engaging in any meaningful talks, there won't be any. The GoI is
going to annexe the Jordan Valley, the big settlement blocks, & keep control over Jersualem, the
majority of the West Bank & the resources of the WB. There's no intention of the Occupation being
ended, or even the consideration of that as a possibility.

[Behind the Aegis]

13. You are right about no negotiations...

...either Fatah will lose its power, or Hamas will block every move. It will be more of the same. Hamas has no desire to negotiate, and they sure as Hell aren't to be trusted.

[Phx_Dem]

37. Let's hope you are both wrong....

[Behind the Aegis]

38. Honeymoon is off: Hamas military wing calls off Israel truce

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x127111

[Phx_Dem]

39. bummer....

[sabbat hunter]

26. israel should keep control

of jerusalem. it certainly wasnt ever intended to be part of palestine. it was meant to be an international city. but the UN failed to send in troops to enforce that in 1947 or in any subsequent years to throw jordan out. (jordan did not allow any non muslims into the old city)

however after israel won the 6 day war, the gates of the old city were thrown open and all religions were allowed in to pray. how does palestine have any more right to jerusalem than israel? it was never part of a country called palestine (palestine was a province/protectorate/mandate but not an independent country) nor was it meant to be under the UN partition plan.

as for the west bank, israel should pull out of most of the west bank to safe and defensible borders as stated by the UN resolutions. the resources of the WB (ie jordan river) should be jointly used by palestine and israel and watched over by the UN to make sure everything was fair.

the settlers are given two choices
1) leave the west bank and be compensated monetarily for their homes there
2) are allowed to stay and become citizens of the new state of palestine.

the refugee issue is settled by israel pay to palestine for the original families that left in 1947 (not all their descendants and such) at the same time the arab countries pay to israel for all the jews that were forced out after israel declared independence.

[Englander]

18. Israel Pays Costs After Missile Killings

Israel Pays Costs After Missile Killings
By SARAH EL DEEB
Associated Press Writer

12:04 PM PDT, June 7, 2006

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip — The Amen family's joyful trip in a new car came to a devastating end last month when an Israeli missile aimed at a Palestinian militant hit their Mitsubishi by mistake.

Three generations -- a grandmother, mother and son -- were killed, and a 4-year-old daughter and uncle were paralyzed.

Dozens of Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli airstrikes aimed at militants in six years of fighting. But the Amens were the first civilian casualties since Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz, a political dove, took office in May.

Peretz hasn't halted Israel's policy of hunting down militants. But he ordered an investigation into the Amens' killing, and on Wednesday agreed to pay their medical bills, gestures almost unheard of under his predecessor.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-palestinians-shattered-family,1,1866266,print.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines

[Englander]

40. Paralyzed for life

By Gideon Levy

The tangle of tubes and the artificial respirator attached directly to her windpipe cannot hide her beauty. A little 3-year-old girl lying in the pediatric intensive care unit at Sheba Medical Center, Maria Aman's sad, brown almond eyes are wide open, her lips murmur in a whisper: "Food, I want to eat," but all her limbs are paralyzed, forever. Not far from there, in an intensive care unit at Ichilov Hospital, lies her uncle Nahed, age 33 and father of two, who is in even worse condition: He is not only on a respirator and completely paralyzed, he is being kept asleep.

No, these are not the victims of this weekend's operation, but their predecessors - victims of an airborne assassination in Gaza three weeks ago yesterday, an operation that shocked almost nobody here in Israel. The events of this past weekend should not come as a surprise to anyone: The deterioration has been going on for weeks, and the question that should be asked is not what Israel is doing to counter the Qassams, but what it is not doing. An army that fires missiles at busy streets and tank shells at a beach cannot claim there was no intent to harm innocent civilians.

The girl's mother Naima, 27, her brother Mohand, 7, and her grandmother Hanan, 46, were killed in that "targeted" assassination. It was a relatively happy family, eight people traveling to visit relatives that Saturday afternoon in a car bought only two hours earlier. Only the father Hamdi, 28 - who grew up in the Carmel Market in Tel Aviv, his little son Moaman, 2, and cousin Imad emerged relatively unscathed, wounded only by shrapnel. The missile was aimed at Islamic Jihad activist Mohammed Dahduh, and it killed him, after his two brothers were eliminated in the past. The missile also hit the Aman family, whose vehicle was next to the Dodge Magnum in which the wanted man was riding.

Dahduh, by the way, was heading to Shifa Hospital to visit his wife, who had just given birth. There was no bomb, certainly not a ticking one, but Israel has long since made the assassinations a wholesale weapon, legitimate and justified, and once again there is no public debate about the method.

>snip

Only the vigorous and dedicated intervention of Physicians for Human Rights prevented, at the last minute, the return of the two to Gaza. A letter from the organization to the defense minister that demanded the girl and her uncle be treated in Israel went unanswered for more than a week, until MK Dov Khenin from Hadash bumped into Amir Peretz in a Knesset corridor and asked him about the case. Peretz, who knew nothing about it, promised to find out. Only after the matter was reported on Israel Radio last Wednesday by military correspondent Carmella Menashe did the Defense Minister's Bureau finally issue a statement saying that a committee would be convened to approve medical treatment for the two in Israel.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/725208.html