Israeli Airstrike On Gaza Misses Target, Kills 12-Year-Old Boy, Father, Uncle

[Purveyor]

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) -- Three Palestinians, including a 12-year-old boy, are dead -- apparent victims of an Israeli attack that missed its target.

The boy, his father and his uncle were killed in a strike on a pickup truck east of Gaza City. The airstrike today was intended for Palestinian rocket squads in northern Gaza.

A small, Hamas-allied faction -- the Popular Resistance Committees -- says the apparent target was its chief rocket maker, who was driving in the area in a similar vehicle at the time.

---EOE---

http://www.kgan.com/template/inews_wire/wires.international/25812a8d-www.kgan.com.shtml

[bahrbearian]

1. Just Colateral damage ,, they need more practice,

[Purveyor]

2. "Just an accident" the israeli press is reporting... eom

[kayecy]

3. There is no moral equivalence........

Quote from msmcghee:

"There is no moral equivalence between murder and self-defense"

I guess the mother of the 12 year is expected to think this was an 'accident' resulting from an action of 'self-defence' by a Western Democracy whereas the mother of a child killed by a rocket in Siderot is told her child was murdered by Hamas and that there is no moral equivalence.

[azurnoir]

4. in truth

there is no "moral" anything for or about either death.

[Shaktimaan]

5. Well, do you think this was intentional?

Or do you believe that there isn't ever any ethical difference between collateral damage and the planned killing of civilians?

[kayecy]

6. In what circumstances do you consider .........

I didn't say 'there isn't ever any ethical difference......'but you have raised an interesting point.

In what circumstances do YOU consider military action which has a significant possibility of killing innocent children ethically acceptable?

[msmcghee]

7. I realize this is probably too subtle for many here . .

. . but the difference between murder and self-defense is the intention of the person wielding the weapon.

The intentions in this conflict are rather easily understood.

One side has immense firepower but uses it sparingly, often passing up opportunities to kill militants when there is a high probability of civilian casualties. The other side intentionally targets civilians.

One side states that their intention is to kill as many civilians as possible and claims that their attempts are justified. Their actions follow from their words in all respects.

The other side states that their intention is to defend their citizens from attack. Their actions follow from their words in all respects.

Finally, the intentions of the parties are most easily discerned by which side always regrets when enemy civilians die and which side celebrates when that occurs.

[kayecy]

8. Intensions are so much more important than results .....

.... but the difference between murder and self-defense is the intention of the person wielding the weapon.

No doubt the mother of the 12 year old will understand your subtlety.

Intentions are so much more important than results.

[msmcghee]

9. Yes, that's correct.

Based on the number of Palestinian mothers I have seen celebrating the martyrdom of their children at the hands of the IDF - I don't know if this mother will understand the subtlety. But, it's good to see you are finally catching on. :thumbsup:

[kayecy]

10. Wish I could be as callous as you appear to be n/t

[msmcghee]

11. Normally I'd pass up a response to this kind of comment . .

. . understanding your need to appear not so clueless about issues of basic morality.

However, in this case I'd like you to think about your position. You are trying to create a moral equivalence between murder and self-defense. When you do that you justify murder. You allow people who intentionally target and murder innocent civilians to believe that there are those in the West who will apologize for them and provide moral cover for them. Such statements, published in a public forum like this, therefore make such murders more likely. To that extent, your statement therefore contributes to the deaths of innocent Israeli civilians - and to the deaths of innocent Palestinain civilians caught in the crossfire when the IDF tries to defend them.

I realize that playing the "Narrative" game requires criminalizing Israel's actions and vindicating the militants as struggling for a just cause in all aspects of the conflict. But, sometimes it's good to get back to basics and look at the effect that playing that game has on real people's lives (and deaths).

[breakaleg]

14. I think you are looking at this the wrong way. You are coming at this from the point ot view

that everything Israel does is self defense and is therefore acceptable and justified. That's your assumption. I don't think others here would necessarily agree with that.

So it's not a matter of finding equivalence between self defense and murder.

[msmcghee]

16. Then you are free to provide whatever evidence you can come up with . .

. . that Israel purposely targets civilians. I mean real evidence, not empty accusations by Israel's enemies.

While you're at it you can provide your evidence that the militants don't purposely target civilians.

Unless you can do both of those then it is exactly a matter of your finding equivalence between self defense and murder - and therefore justifying murder.

[kayecy]

21. Thank you for understanding my need..........

Thank you for '....understanding my need to appear not so clueless...'. May I return the complement, by stating that I understand your need to swallow Israeli propaganda.

You allow people who intentionally target and murder innocent civilians to believe that there are those in the West who will apologize for them and provide moral cover for them. Such statements, published in a public forum like this, therefore make such murders more likely

Trite words from a defender of Israel's 'narrative'.

I do not apologize or provide moral cover for the killers of innocent civilians whether Hamas or the IDF. You on the other hand bend over backwards to defend IDF killing.

I asked you once before how many years of road-blocks, random searches and indignities from an occupying power would you suffer before you became murderous?

Your answer was a deafening silence.

[bemildred]

15. I thought is was a matter of "imminent threat" or something like that.

Everyone claims to be defending themselves, that doesn't buy you squat.

[msmcghee]

17. I'm not sure how you would respond to people . .

. . firing 40 Qassams a day into your city, but I don't think even you would try to claim that that was not an imminent threat.

[bemildred]

18. So you feel that murder is entirely a matter of the mental state of the murderer? nt

[msmcghee]

19. I believe that . .

. . the difference between murder and self-defense is the intention of the person wielding the weapon.

I think you will find that most systems of criminal law, the international laws of war, the Charter of the UN and most dictionaries agree with this view.

(Mental state is a very ambiguous term. It could mean "agitated" or "fearful".)

In any case, I described my definition of murder. What's yours?

[bemildred]

20. So if a Palestinian feels he is defending himself, it's OK to kill Israelis?

That would not be "murder"?

[msmcghee]

22. I can see this might take a while.

I have to go someplace today. But, I'll check back on this thread when I return if you want to continue with this.

[bemildred]

23. Don't bother unless you have an answer to that question. nt

[msmcghee]

24. I always answer questions that are asked in good faith.

That's a fair question.

You can indicate your willingness to continue by providing your definition of the difference between murder and self-defense so we can have a baseline for the discussion. You've got several hours to work on it.

[bemildred]

25. But not this time.

It seems simple enough, do the intentions of Palestinians count in the same way as the intentions of Israelis, or not? Why can't you answer it?

[kayecy]

27. Definitions?

I wonder if msmcghee's definitions will be something like:

Murder is when Palestinians intend to defend themselves against occupation and a few Israeli civilians are killed?

Self-defence is when the IDF kills hundreds of Palestinian civilians whilst intending to target only militants?

:sarcasm:


As you said, "....it's good to see you are finally catching on."

[bemildred]

33. Msmcghee said that, not me. nt

[pelsar]

29. if ones definiton....

and i believe PM here agrees with it, that shooting rockets at schools, and homes, shooting children at point blank range, etc,...meaning trying to kill as many civilians as possible is "self defense".....then one can obviously argue that trying to stop people from killing others (the IAF trying to kill the kassam launchers) and those that try to kill others are one and the same.

in the west we usually differentiate between the two...well at least in israel we do.

[bemildred]

34. I'm just trying to establish that there is more to it than whether you think

you are "defending yourself" or not. And also whether the same moral rules apply to Palestinians as to Israelis, or not. You can see yourself where the argument will go if one allows such an arbitrary and subjective criteria for "moral behavior". I submit that any morality worth the name can be defined and applied with some semblance of "objectivity", to individuals, and that it applies the same to all individuals regardless of their ethnicity. If we can get it clear what the situation is in that regard, I'll be satisfied.

[pelsar]

36. i think its pretty straightforward...

put an israeli combat soldier in front of a bunch of unarmed Palestinian civilians in gaza or the westbank...

put an armed hamasnik in front of unarmed israelis civilians anywhere

____

one will open fire and kill them all...the other wont.....i think that pretty much defines the morality. No doubt the hamasnik will claim defense of the land/islam etc....i, as a ethnocentric westerner reject such a value system. (many wont...including some here)

[bemildred]

42. That is not an answer to the question.

It is also not correct. There are clear cases where IDF soldiers have indeed shot unarmed 10 year old girls for being in the wrong place, in fact entire squads. There are clear cases where IAF jets have bombed civilian neighborhoods. And is certainly true that Palestinians sometimes behave well.

But the question was posed in response to specific statements made by another poster. For you to come here and say "We're not as bad as them, so we are moral" is a dodge.

Edit: It also begs the question, you have two different bald statements that Israelis are better than Palestinians, and no evidence, and you claim these two bald statements of the same thing support each other or prove each other, or I don't know what ...

[pelsar]

47. my statements were based on...

not just the actions of the avg IDF soldier and Hamasnik but the policies of their respective societies.

IDF briefings all include a "dont kill civilians'

hamas pre mission briefings are more like: try to kill as many israelis as you can.
________

the evidence?..is seen daily, out of the thousands of missions taken by the IDF, your examples were the exception. and for hamas?...kassams everyday should show their intent.

I'm not saying we're not "as bad as them"..i 'm saying were working on another moral plane all together....the two moral values arent even comparable: one groups says kill as many women, children, babies as possible using whatever means you have....group two refrains as much as possible (personal exceptions noted).

in fact i think its quite deceitful to pretend hamas doesnt mean what they say or what they do....

[bemildred]

49. Blah blah blah. I'm not defending Hamas.

So you attacking my defense of Hamas doesn't buy you much. You know the specific facts support what I said, so you retreat into unsupported generalizations about how "we are better than they are". Which as I said begs the question.

[breakaleg]

12. A lot is written here about how Israel does a good enough job trying to limit

civilian casualties. Here we have a situation in which a target northof Gaza city was mistaken for a truck east of Gaza city. That's quite a bit to be off by. That's quite a mistake. It certainly calls into question how accurate either the weaponry or the people shooting it are in this case. It's certainly too wide a margin to be acceptable. It's not like they were off by a hair.

[msmcghee]

13. I expect the IDF command agrees with you . .

. . to whatever extent your assessment is true.

[eyl]

26. I think you're misreading the OP

The boy, his father and his uncle were killed in a strike on a pickup truck east of Gaza City. The airstrike today was intended for Palestinian rocket squads in northern Gaza.

I think the confusion stems from the fact that "Gaza" is used as shorthand for both Gaza City and the Gaza Strip. "Northern Gaza" seems to me to refer to the northern part of the Gaza Strip* - and Gaza City is in that northern portion.

*You generally don't refer to "northern <city name>". Consider, as an analogy, "northern New York" - barring other information, would you assume it refers to the northern part of Ney York State or New York City?

[breakaleg]

28. Ok. So in your opinion, how far apart are the intended target and the victim? Are we talking a few

yards or miles?

[eyl]

30. Yards, apparently

Palestinian sources in the Strip reported that the three civilians killed were the members of one family – 13-year-old Amir Yazgi, his father and uncle. According to the sources, the missile was apparently directed at Islamic Jihad gunmen, but accidentally hit a jeep traveling behind their vehicle.

YNet

[breakaleg]

31. Thanks for that. I stand corrected. nt

[Scurrilous]

32. Palestinians: Mother and son killed in Israeli strike

IDF launches attack in northern Gaza killing three Palestinian civilians from same family riding donkey cart

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3495737,00.html

<snip>

"Three Palestinian civilians – among them a mother and her son – were killed in an IDF strike in northern Gaza on Thursday, according to Palestinian sources.

Marim el-Rahel, her son Mansour and one other family member were riding in a donkey-drawn cart near Beit Lahia when they were hit by missiles fired from Israeli aircraft.

The IDF apparently launched the strike in an attempt to target Qassam rocket-launching cells but mistakenly hit the three family members."

[kayecy]

35. ....often passing up opportunities to kill militants?

Quote from msmcghee:

One side has immense firepower but uses it sparingly, often passing up opportunities to kill militants when there is a high probability of civilian casualties

How many more innocents must be killed before the IDF loses its power to impress the gullible?

[pelsar]

37. out of curiosity...

in your opinion, should israel not try to kill those who are shooting at the israeli cities...given the problems involved of perfect targeting?

[kayecy]

38. First can I have an answer to my question?

I will satisfy your curiosity but first I'd like someone to answer the question that I have put to Shaktimaan and others.

In what circumstances do YOU consider military action which has a significant possibility of killing innocent children ethically acceptable?

[pelsar]

39. I'll answer...no problem...

in every briefing in the IDF they are general guidelines of not killing innocent civilians, the bottom line is that its up the commander in the field to make the final decision.....in essence it becomes a very personal decision based on the individuals knowledge of the weapon they will be using and the environment.

that said, i can only answer the question from my own personal point of view...

killing a 100 Palestinian civilians to stop a single kassam launch, provided its a "one time event"...i would not do.

possibly killing 10 Palestinian civilians to stop 100 kassam launches i would say yes..
______

in between those two numbers?....if its 4 hamasnikim with kassams ready to launch and 2 civilians? i would say yes......
____

your turn.

[kayecy]

40. Thank you for your answer.....

Thank you for your answer:

possibly killing 10 Palestinian civilians to stop 100 kassam launches i would say yes..

Now. there I must beg to differ. If the kill ratio of Kassams is 1,000 launches for one Israeli death, killing 10 civilians is definitely not ethical.

My answer to your original question is as follows:

It all depends on how many lives can be expected to be saved by the proposed military action. By lives, I mean both Israeli and Palestinian civilians. As a general principle, I consider military action should not be instituted unless the commander is very sure that he is going to cause less civilian deaths than might reasonably be expected by his 'imperfect targeting'.


Got to go now, but I will be happy to continue this in about 6 hours if you wish.

[pelsar]

41. yes i would like to continue...

its a discussion that never ever takes place....so i'll reply now and come back later as well:..(just to clarify about myself, i am a in the iDF reserves as a combat soldier, having spent time in both gaza and the westbank)

it all depends on how many lives can be expected to be saved by the proposed military action ........ Now. there I must beg to differ. If the kill ratio of Kassams is 1,000 launches for one Israeli death, killing 10 civilians is definitely not ethical.

that not the iDFs job.

the IDFs job is not just to prevent israeli deaths..its to provide security. As it stands today in Sederot and environs there is no security: missile alerts going off 5 times daily while waiting to hear the "boom" with the anxiety of wondering if this one will hit "me"...is pure terrorism. The IDFs job is also to prevent terrorism.

and no one knows which particular kassam will be the one that hits a school and kills 20 children......odds are eventually something like that will happen.....no commander will know that and no commander wants to explain to the parents why he didnt stop that missile when he could have.
------

however your general principle has two aspects: one, given the percentage of actual civilian deaths caused by kassams, vs israeli attacks, you seem to be saying that israel should simply not attack or reduce the attacks to near zero.

the result of that: because the hamasnikim are aiming under pressure and not doing what is called bracketing: shoot one, check where it falls, adjust the next one to overshoot in the other direction, etc until one is certain, and then shooting the salvo, they miss a lot. All of that bracketing, takes time, and patience.

Your proposing to take away the pressure...and let them not just shoot at will but adjust aim as well. Then once they kill a few dozen israelis, your saying israel can start striking back. And if the IDF is successful and the kill ratio returns to the present, the IDF then has to back off, let some more israelis be killed....

sure sounds like a pretty morbid policy....

[kayecy]

43. Sderot people are in a terrible situation, I agree, but ......

the IDFs job is not just to prevent israeli deaths..its to provide security. As it stands today in Sederot and environs there is no security: missile alerts going off 5 times daily while waiting to hear the "boom" with the anxiety of wondering if this one will hit "me"...is pure terrorism

Sderot people are in terrible situation, I agree, but is it all that different from the experience of the people of Gaza?

No doubt Hamas would also say it is their job to provide security (To the best of their military capabilities.)

Don’t get me wrong, I think the random firing of rockets is despicable. I also think targeted assassinations, incursions, closures and international blockades are despicable.

however your general principle has two aspects: one, given the percentage of actual civilian deaths caused by kassams, vs israeli attacks, you seem to be saying that israel should simply not attack or reduce the attacks to near zero.

Yes, not only not attack but offer to negotiate a cease-fire with Hamas. No State likes to negotiate with ‘guns under the table’ but just think how many lives might be saved if Israel could just swallow its pride.

I believe Hamas has actually offered a long term cease-fire (Hudna) but this has been rejected by Israel. OK, not what one would wish for but better than all this killing. Israel can, after all, re-occupy Gaza whenever it wants, so what is it afraid of?

[eyl]

44. Not this again!

I believe Hamas has actually offered a long term cease-fire (Hudna) but this has been rejected by Israel. OK, not what one would wish for but better than all this killing.

The past record of these cease-fires does not inspire the Israeli government to undertake another one.

Israel can, after all, re-occupy Gaza whenever it wants, so what is it afraid of?

And you would approve of that?

[pelsar]

45. interesting solution...let israelis live in terror....

at least your honest about it

you seem to be saying that israel should simply not attack or reduce the attacks to near zero......yes, not only not attack but offer to negotiate a cease-fire with Hamas

______

so when israel left gaza and all those kassams were shot and continued to be shot and israel did nothing......and when israel refrained from shooting back months ago...and the kassams still continued..............what "cease fire" was hamas trying to get?

Hamas has been shooting kassams no matter what israel does....
_____

i guess when those kassams were being fired and israel did nothing, you felt that israel was doing the right thing...letting its civilians live in terror.....more so you seem to prefer that the kassam shooters shouldnt even worry about being killed, they should be able to shoot at will..(that would be the result of no israeli attacks).

i just disagree...israeli citizens dont have to/shouldnt have to live in terror....and people who attempt to murder israeli civilians should have to worry about their own lives

[bemildred]

46. First off, it is not correct that Israel "did nothing".

Israel has never "did nothing". That is simply a big lie. It may at times be said to have shown "restraint", but the whole Sabra mystique thing is just the opposite of suffering insults without response.

Secondly the statement from Hamas is along the lines of "Israel will have security when we have security". It doesn't seem to me that you have much to lose by giving it a shot. The present situation sucks, and I don't see any sign that if you just stick with it things are going to get better,

[pelsar]

48. when israel refrained from shooting back....

thats "doing nothing".......kassams have been shot since israel left......hamas isnt looking for "security"....for that all they have to do is stop shooting. The whole "cease fire" thing came up when israel started shooting back in ernest and the hamasnikim started getting killed.

hamas prefers the previous situation, when islamic jihad did the shooting and israel did nothing....and let its citizens be terrorized.

[bemildred]

50. No that's "restraint".

We have had this discussion before. It is not even good military tactics to counterattack every time you are provoked. It doesn't mean you are being a nice guy.

[pelsar]

51. restraint...

ok we can call it restraint...the point is israel in effect had a "cease fire"..i.e. they didnt shoot back. That "non shooting back"/restraint/one sided cease fire had no effect on the kassams being shot, they just kept on coming.

[bemildred]

52. Not shooting back is not a "cease fire".

A cease fire is a negotiated agreement between two sides. Not shooting back is a tactical choice which one might make for any number of reasons.

Israel does not want peace, it wants to discredit and destroy Hamas. That is OK, but is is a desire for victory, not a desire for peace.

[kayecy]

53. Both people are living in terror .....

Both people are living in terror - why must you assume your own people are the only ones to suffer?

I am suggesting that any civilised people would try everything to stop the killing on both sides. Both the Israelis and the Palestinian people have their 'narrative', but to an outsider, both Hamas and the IDF seem indifferent to civilian life.

As I said, what has Israel to lose? Show the world that you have offered to negotiate and it has been rejected.

[pelsar]

54. your suggestions....

thats what i am responding to...not the philosophy of "killing is bad", etc.

I'm more interested in practical solutions....if you want to criticize israeli policy...thats fine with me, and if you have a suggestion, that is also good....but all actions have consequences... accept yours

You've made it clear that israel should not shoot back.... knowing full well from the history of the last two years that hamas and friends have been terrorizing israel regardless of what israel does.

the consequence of your suggestion is clear: your preference is for israelis to be terrorized rather than those who are doing the terrorizing to be killed (and the civilians around them). You may not like that preference...but it is the consequence of your suggestion (even if there are negotiations, hamas/Islamic jihad will most likly be shooting kassams while the negotiation....as per the history).

us israelis dont like the idea of being "sitting ducks"....we have relatives who tried that (not "shooting back, just being shot at")...it didnt work out too well for them....

why dont you suggest that to the Palestinians?

[kayecy]

56. You are wrong.........

your preference is for israelis to be terrorized rather than those who are doing the terrorizing to be killed (and the civilians around them).

You are wong. My preference is to stop the killing, period.

You claim Israel has no alternative but to continue the bloodletting but after 40 years that seems to indicate a certain lack of imagination.

I think at this point we must agree to differ. I am glad your actions are not on my conscience.

[pelsar]

59. you say two things at once...and they contradict one another....

you have made it clear that you want the killing to stop...and at the sametime you have made it clear that the Palestinians shooting kassams shouldnt be interfered with by the IDF....

perhaps you can explain to me how those consequences dont mean continued terror for israelis?.......

[LeftishBrit]

55. I agree that both people are suffering.

And that everything should be tried to stop the killing on both sides.

I even agree that Hamas should be invited to negotiations - but it should also be made clear that certain things such as the very existence of Israel are not up for negotiation. Therefore, I don't think that Hamas would even agree to negotiate.

[kayecy]

57. I may be mistaken but ............

.....but it should also be made clear that certain things such as the very existence of Israel are not up for negotiation. Therefore, I don't think that Hamas would even agree to negotiate.

I may be mistaken but I believe Hamas has no problem with anyone making anything clear. What it is not prepared to do is to agree Israel has a right to maintain a Jewish majority by restricting Palestinian right of return.

Israel has similar hard-line positions. The killing can be stopped by a simple 'armistice' type of agreement where each side keeps its hard-line positions but agrees to stop Kassams, shootings, targeted killings, closures etc.

[msmcghee]

58. You are very mistaken.

Israel actions are defensive. When the attacks stop, the IDF attempts to quell the attacks will stop.

There is no moral equivalence between killing civilians and protecting them - no matter how many times you say it or imply it.

[pelsar]

60. psst israel tried that....

right after israel withdrew from gaza.....no targeted killings, no closures,.........there was one thing...kassams and mortars on the border stations where food and material were brought in....

so you "got your wish".....no israeli attacks.....(just terror and attacks on israel)

[eyl]

61. If only it were that simple

The problem is that in the past, all the "cease-fires" were often breached. In many cases, these breaches occured due to Palestinian factions who were not party to the ceasefire; but the Palestinian factions who were party to it refused to do anything to hinder them, and conversely viewed any Israeli responses against those attackers as violations of the cease-fire and justification to resume their own attacks. Until Hamas et al agree not only to cease their attacks but also to make sincere efforts to stop the attacks of other factions, such cease-fires are worth little to Israel because they essentially allow the "rejectionist" factions to attack Israel with impunity.