- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 11,862
- Reaction score
- 10,300
- Location
- New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
So are you now saying it was shear incompetance, not hostility? Because it simply can't be None of the Above.
Shear incompetence is not the sole explanation for accidents.
Look at the whole picture of the Israeli actions. Can you explain reasonably why these things occured:
1. The use of explosive shells instead of non-explosive bullets in a "warning" shot?
2. Land was hit instead of water with a warning shot, not once by a lone wayward shell, but twice by two wayward shells?
3. Why Israel is firing so often in the region PRIOR to the event that caused injuries during... sorry, DESPITE the cease-fire?
When an armed terrorist group is engaging in hostilities (as was witnessed earlier today), Israel can ill-afford to go unarmed. Multiple warning shots were fired. One warning shot does not always suffice. As I don't know the circumstances involved e.g., the response to the first warning shot, I can't comment on the necessity for multiple shots.
If the fishing boat in question was located between the Israeli Navy and land, warning shots would have been fired in the direction of land by virtue of the fishing boat's position. That is a likely location since the Israeli Navy has been blocking outgoing and incoming watercraft essentially since Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip in June 2007. Therefore, it would have been unlikely that the fishing boat had come from outside the Israeli naval cordon. Of course, this is not cast in stone.
Given the competancy level of the Israeli military, it is absurd to think that they could have this many ****-ups in such a short span of time. No, the prima facie assumption must be that at least some of these instances were purposeful.
To assume otherwise is to engage in self-deception.
That is little more than declaration of a presumption of guilt. By such reasoning, U.S. and NATO airstrikes that have repeatedly caused harm to civilians or civilian objects would be presumed to have been purposeful.
I disagree with reasoning that a nation or person should be presumed guilty. Concrete and credible evidence alone should be required to establish whether or not guilt is present.
Things like this cause me to question Israeli honesty:
Israel admits using white phosphorous in attacks on Gaza - Times Online
The article also states, "'Some practices could be illegal but we are going into that. The IDF (Israel Defence Forces) is holding an investigation concerning one specific incident.'”
To its credit, Israel is investigating the incident. Israel has an effective judicial system and high standard of justice. Just recently, Israel's critics initiated an outcry when two Arab parties were barred from the election. As I had expected, Israel's high court overturned that decision and they will have a chance to participate.
The reality is that abuses have often occurred during times of war. The abuses at Abu Ghraib are one example. In that case, the U.S. investigated and convicted some individuals who were responsible.
Similarly, I have little reason to doubt that Israel won't take such meaures as are appropriate should it find that white phosphorus had been wrongly used, clumsy PR approach notwithstanding.
Finally, as previously noted, I have no objections to an objective investigation into what took place during the Gaza conflict. I even suggested that such an examination could be conducted under the auspices of the Madrid Quartet with the consensus findings being released to the public.
Where there is wrongdoing, I support bringing the individuals to justice. What I don't condone is an automatic presumption of guilt.