Israel Apologizes After Tank Kills 3 Egyptian Police

[Rhiannon12866]

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - An Israeli tank killed three Egyptian policemen on the Gaza-Egypt border Thursday, prompting an Israeli apology for what the army said was a tragic error when it mistook them for Palestinian militants.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon telephoned Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to express regret over the incident, which could derail the Egyptian foreign minister's first visit to the Jewish state next week to discuss a planned Israeli pullout from Gaza.

Sharon promised a full investigation and to share findings with the Egyptians. Israeli military officials said soldiers had mistaken the Egyptian policemen for Palestinian militants and thought they were planting explosives against Israeli forces.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6853084&src=eDialog/GetContent§ion=news

[wtmusic]

1. oops

'Sorry. I guess we live by the sword.'

[Rhiannon12866]

2. I guess so. But tell this to their families or the Egyptian gov't

They can't be too happy about this and this incident can't help the peace process, in which Egypt was a major player.

Egypt Demands Israel Explain Killing of 3 Policemen

CAIRO (Reuters) - Egypt protested angrily to Israel on Thursday and demanded a full explanation for what it called irresponsible Israeli conduct after an Israeli tank crew killed three Egyptian policemen at the Egyptian-Gaza border.

"While condemning and protesting strongly at this regrettable incident, Egypt demands the Israeli authorities hold an immediate, full and comprehensive investigation into the circumstances," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

Hours earlier Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to apologize. Israel said its troops had mistaken the Egyptians for a group of Palestinian militants who were planting explosives against Israeli forces


http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6856392

[idontwantaname]

3. the only accident is Israel getting busted for its shoot first policy.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/503304.html

<snip>

According to the army, an IDF observation point had spotted three suspected terrorists and directed a tank in their direction...<snip>... the tank crew accidentally identified the three Egyptians as the terrorists, and opened fire on them.

<snip>

[Rhiannon12866]

4. Good call. This is an important issue that the world needs to recognize

All lives have value, but the U.S. is hardly in a position to bring this to the world's attention, after their actions in Iraq.:-(

[Jackie97]

33. True.

The United States has killed more civilians in either the Afghanistan war or the Iraqi war than all the civilians killed on both sides of the Israeli conflict put together.

I'm not joking. That's true. Add up how many have been killed on both sides of the I/P conflict. Compare it to one of our wars. You'll find that we have no right to talk.

But we could stop giving aid to Israel. That would still be hypocritical, but it would at least be one wrong that we would stop doing.

[pelsar]

5. shoot first policy?

of course....the idea of first being a target, hoping the other guy will miss and only then shoot back isnt really a good policy is you want to live a long life.

I dont know many people who would go for the "shoot at me first and if you miss I will then take out my gun and shoot back and hope that you are standing still so I can kill you " policy

[Violet_Crumble]

6. No-one had shot at them...

There's no excuses for what happened, and to it's credit, the Israeli govt realises it, and has rightly apologised. Even if we were to ignore the IDF's habit of telling whoppers to try to justify what it does and were to believe that there were *terrorists* in the area, somehow I find it hard to believe that there'd be any way of justifying opening fire until they were identified and they'd made some sort of hostile action towards the troops. Opening fire on people because the killers think they might be *terrorists* kind of justifies the dark behaviour of some rather nasty military actions in the past...

Violet...

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

11. Here's a friendly suggestion...

Seeing as you appear to have no comprehension of what I do or do not understand, maybe you should learn more before you post in future? See, just because I disagree with yr strange belief that the Egyptian troops were 'shooting first', and that my understanding of what occured is backed up by all the articles I've read about it, does not mean that I have no understanding of the I/P conflict. Instead of attacking *me*, how about addressing the topic of the thread? Strangely enough, I'm not particularly interested in yr opinions of what you think people's knowledge of the I/P conflict is or isn't...

Violet...

[pelsar]

12. violet precision helps

I would think that someone who has an interest in understanding the conflict would also be interested in precision:

no where did I mention or hint that the egyptians where shooting first. One can hardly have a discussion if what one says is so convoluted.

but actually this is the second time you've done something like that and I am confused as to why.

the first time when I mentioned that manytime the rock throwers have shooters with them, that was ignored, and now you say I mentioned that the egyptians were shooting..

hmmm strange, we can back to the original subject, but you have to really try to be precise with what I write and not make up things.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. This is what you said:

"of course....the idea of first being a target, hoping the other guy will miss and only then shoot back isnt really a good policy is you want to live a long life."

Then you go on to justify the killing of anyone considered to be a 'suspected terrorist', which is justifying the killing by the IDF of the Egyptian troops. Anything not clear there?

What have I ignored? If I haven't responded to something you've said, it's cause I haven't gotten to that thread yet....

Just a hint from someone whose been here a while, but it's not a wise thing to accuse other posters of making things up...

Violet...

[pelsar]

16. violet...yes you've been here a while... i can see...

you sure made a big big jump from what I wrote to:

" strange belief that the Egyptian troops were 'shooting first"

it doesnt make it right to take things out of context. Explaining the general rules of warefare in the context of the palestenian/israeli war and then applying a generalization to a specific event and acusing me of writing that lacks integrety...no matter how long you've been here.

If you have a point and belief its always better to back it up without going through such verbal/written gymnastics

in case it wasnt clear, a suspicious activity, such as crawling in the dark towards a settlement, or army base, digging a hole in the ground at 2:00 along an army road, "sneaking around while carrying "sticks" at 2:00am in areas where fighting takes place are considered 'suspicious".

but then I would be wondering if you had any concrete suggestions as to how to stop the people from placing road side bombs or those that are crawling towards settlements at 2:00am......

[Violet_Crumble]

18. Then put it in context...

If yr acknowledging that the Egyptian police weren't shooting first, or to be really clear and concise for you, not engaged in any sort of hostile activity, then explain what you meant...

Am I wrong in reading the Ha'aretz article as saying the IDF shot across into Egypt? What's so suspicious about Egyptian police in Egypt? The Israeli govt has swiftly apologised, recognising the serious nature of what happened. Do you think they were wrong in doing so?

Violet...

[pelsar]

19. they made a mistake.....

it happens in war, more so when your fighting in civilian areas. And though it doesnt help the dead much, at least israel apologised.

you guys seem to be trying to read far too much into what I write...and I dont really understand.

Rafah is where the smuggling takes place, the Egyptians dont really do anything to stop it, so the IDF is now trying more forcefully. That explains the cross border shooting. In that past it was forbidden, obviously somethings have changed.

The IDF policy since the start of intifada II has been whats called force protection. Instead of waiting to be shot first (that was during intifada I) the IDF now shoots first. The result is far more civilian causulties but far less IDF...Also intifada II is far more violent then I hence the "rules" had to be changed.

I dont think you understand the complexity of a war that involves the civilian populations

[TheKingfish]

36. How about dismantling the settlement and leaving? n/t

[Rhiannon12866]

37. That's the scenario that Israel keeps promising

And this would go a long way in relieving the tensions here, if the settlements in Gaza and the West Bank were dismantled, as promised. And this would also take pressure off of the IDF, who is charged with protecting them. But it would take money, as it did to encourage Israeli settlers to move here, and you must remember that we're dealing with actual people, who may have become fond of their new home, and reluctant to leave, despite any incentives. The mistake was encouraging the settlements, in the first place, deep within Palestinian territory. The Israeli government is going to have to work much harder, and provide much better incentives, to dismantle these settlements than they did to develop them.

[Englander]

17. "hint ...egyptians were shooting first"......

in your 1st post you suggest,state,infer,hint- take your pick, that the IDF tank is a target. It is not a great logical leap to infer from that as we are discussing the murder of 3 Egyptian soldiers you are saying that the tank was under attack from the Egyptian side?

[Rhiannon12866]

20. One strict rule on DU is to attack the message, not the messenger

Failing to adhere to that rule has gotten a great many DUers banned, especially in this forum. I realize that you are new, but you need to read and follow the rules. It's essential, especially in I/P, where emotions tend to run high.

[pelsar]

22. the messenger....

i agree in principle that there is no need for attacking the messenger...however what is perhaps your suggestion to explain in the proper DU manner that said messenger is mistaken in their message?

that it appears that some acusations have no basis in the actual events that played out on the ground?

btw I do not believe I was attacking the messenger per say...I had several questions as to the reason she wrote what she did, since I felt there was no actual data to back it up?....is that no reasonable?

[Englander]

23. If you have any questions about Rules, or what is/not

acceptable behaviour,ask the Admins;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=120

[pelsar]

24. clarify please

those rules are clear...what I "did wrong" here is not. please write here and clarify how does one in the proper DU manner explain that the information on a certain post "doesnt appear to mesh with the facts on the ground"

or how can I question one personal experience if such experience is deemed relevant to ones accusations?

[Englander]

25. Two suggestions;

1. Say "you're wrong,here's what I think,how I see the situation",
rather than "you're wrong,you're an idiot,you know nothing".Consider how you would react if the comments you post are directed at you,would you think they were inflammatory?

2. Ask the admins for further clarification.

[pelsar]

26. wrong....

fair enough...I'll try that,,,,though I never would say "idiote" etc, I thought i was being forceful but polite...

I admit i do take offense when things are written when they have no or little basis in reality..usually I find them to be exagerations to make a point....where that exageration then becomes "the reality".

I dont mind discussion on the israeli/pal issue, but I definitly have little patience for fairy tales. Seems to me that if you cant back it up, you shouldnt write it...exagerations included.

[Rhiannon12866]

28. The point is to say that the facts are wrong, not the person

And then explain why.

[Lithos]

30. Those are good, practical suggestions

Though I think it better to say something like:

your point (of, here, etc.) is wrong because...

I disagree with your statement that...

I feel that your comment here is...


L-

[Rhiannon12866]

27. It's very simple. If you disagree, explain why you do

If you have differing facts, post them. The point is to avoid personal attacks. If that rule wasn't in place, this forum couldn't exist, emotions run so high on this issue. That's the reason that the I/P conflict can only be discussed in this forum. We have stricter rules here than in the other forums, and they are very strictly enforced, to keep things from getting out of hand. Even with these precautions, things can still get out of control very easily. I've seen more people banned from this forum than any other. Since you're new, I wanted to make sure that you didn't become one of them, before you really even got started.

[Lithos]

29. If I may...

A good test for when a post is addressing the messanger and not the message is when the post starts dropping into the second person (you) or when it directly starts referencing the poster by name, direct innuendo, or some other personal reference.

That is one of the guidelines I use when evaluating personal attacks, there are others.

Please feel free to PM me if you have any questions.

Lithos
I/P Forum Moderator
Democratic Underground

[Rhiannon12866]

31. Thank you so much. This is exactly what I was trying to say

Using many more words, of course, LOL! I consider this to be the main rule on I/P, the one that allows us to exist. It is written in stone on my brain and I carry it with me, wherever I go on DU. It makes life here possible.:-)

[Englander]

13. More questions.....

Were the Egyptian police in a vehicle? Did they have torches or lights with them? How far inside Egypt were they? Do IDF and border police co-ordinate their patrols?

[pelsar]

14. some answers....

this is what I know....though it may not pertain to the exact situation. The Egyptian police units (they are actually part of the military) for the most part do not patrol at night, they have no lights. During the day they stay in their towers or in fixed positions. Rafah is a city split in two. One side to Egypt one side to Israel, so sight lines are limited.

There is no coordination on the unit level between the egyptian and israelis. Its been the rule that at night the IDF and terrorists "play" and the egyptians stay out of it. So what happened in this paticular case I dont know...though the papers write up of a miss communication

[Rhiannon12866]

21. This related story contains most of the answers

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6854380

[Jackie97]

32. Isn't this how a lot of these civilian casualties supposedly happen?

IDF confuses a civilian with a militant. They kill the person, and then go "Oops! I did it again!"

[newyorican]

35. Not at all...

they kill the person and claim a terrorist was hiding behind him/her/them, or claim the person(s) were terrorist themselves. The IDF or GOI then announces there will be an investigation and the incident is promptly forgotten by most Western Media and like-minded apologists.

Then it's wash, rinse, repeat...

[Nicky Scarfo]

34. This is the difference between having a nation-state and not having one

Especially when that nation-state is the second-largest recipient of US foreign aid right after Israel. Realpolitik. Israel recognizes there are much more serious consequences involved with wasting Egyptian cops as opposed to Palestinian children.