From AP:
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) — Israel shelled the United Nations headquarters in the Gaza Strip on Thursday, engulfing the compound and a warehouse in fire and destroying thousands of pounds of food and humanitarian supplies intended for Palestinian refugees.
U.N. workers and Palestinian firefighters, some wearing bulletproof jackets, struggled to douse the flames and pull bags of food from the debris after the Israeli attack, which was another blow to efforts to ease the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip. Dense smoke billowed from the compound.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who is in the region to end the devastating offensive against Gaza's Hamas rulers, demanded a "full explanation" and said the Israeli defense minister told him there had been a "grave mistake."
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the military fired artillery shells at the U.N. compound after Hamas militants opened fire from the location. Three people were wounded.
"It is absolutely true that we were attacked from that place, but the consequences are very sad and we apologize for it," he said. "I don't think it should have happened and I'm very sorry."
A senior Israeli military officer had also said Israeli troops shelled the compound after coming under fire from Palestinian militants there — an account dismissed by a U.N. official there at the time as "nonsense."
Even as a top Israeli envoy went to Egypt to discuss a cease-fire proposal, the military pushed farther into Gaza in an apparent effort to step up pressure on Hamas. Ground forces thrust deep into a crowded neighborhood for the first time, sending terrified residents fleeing for cover. Shells also struck a hospital, five high-rise apartment buildings and a building housing media outlets in Gaza City, injuring several journalists.
Bullets also entered another building housing The Associated Press offices, entering a room where two staffers were working but wounding no one. The Foreign Press Association, representing journalists covering Israel and the Palestinian territories, demanded a halt to attacks on press buildings.
The army had collected the locations of media organizations at the outset of fighting to avoid such attacks.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Skip Williamson
Philly Shadow
Izzy J.
Dave Edgar
Patrick D Hahn
Beth Mann
Salon.com
Comments
"Grave mistake." That's the part that just about killed me. Just when you think they can't possibly get any bolder or less humane...
Jan 20th cannot possibly come soon enough.
The IDF hates the UN particularly. It sounds like decision are being made in the field.
And, Thomas, the US has used white phosporus as have the Israeli's in Lebanon.
I guess my question is why apologize now, and about this? They've been shelling targets with civilians in them for weeks now. What exactly makes this something they feel the need to apologize for?
It can't be because it was a 'non-militant' target because this follows the same song and dance as the UN schools: 'Yes, we know there were civilians there, but we were fired upon.'
If I read the article right they were fired upon in this case as well.
So really, why the apology?
Is it because this effects refugees?
Isn't the entire country full of refugees at this point? They are still being fired upon.
I mean really, it doesn't make any sense to me.
It seems that with the way this thing has played out that they've turned a blind eye to the innocents being effected so far, to feel bad about it now just doesn't make any sense.
It's terrible, and it's horrible, but the way I see it at this point it's par for the course.
Innocent people are the same, whether they're placed in front of a militant or running from a bomb.
Like I said, I'm no expert. I just don't like what's going on.
Thank you for posting this Leigh. You fanatic ;)
Rated.
This is like arguing about JFK or 9/11 -- it's not a matter of piling up facts and waiting for the obvious to be recognized. It's willful ignornace, head-in-the-sand. An aid to Senator Boxer had a familiar and unreceptive tone to her voice when I called the Washington DC office to voice my disapproval at Israel having shelled the UN building in Gaza with phosphorous-bearing weapons.
The US ought to cut Israel off without another penny, another bullet, without one more UN veto to protect Israel. What would be better would be a US aircraft carrier anchored right off Gaza enforcing a "no-fly" zone over Gaza.
We really ought to pull out heads out of our butts and recognize that Israel is NOT a nice nation. That's putting it really mildly.
My hope is that we will be using our support of Israel under an Obama administration to put some serious pressure on the state (and I mean deadly serious), in exchange for a unified, concerted effort to halt weapons smuggling into Gaza.
Thanks for the post, Leigh. Rated.
Factual piece Leigh, either way you look at it. It is, what it is (and I hate that cliche'), but it's true. There's no denying the Israeli Defense Minister has mastered the clusterfuck in handling this situation. I don't want ANY more children or civilians dying on either side of the strip. That's not taking sides, that's having a heart.
Well done,
(rated)
Greg
"There's no such thing as the United Nations," John Bolton declared in 1994. ''If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.''
However.
I am fed up with hearing about how Israel is "intentionally targeting civilians." These are irresponsible comments, which stand in the face of proof to the contrary, and they dilute the importance of taking a stand against the intentional targeting of civilians which is currently happening in many other - worse - conflicts around the world.
1,000 dead is 1,000 too many dead. But that doesn't change the fact that this is a remarkably low number of casualties for a combat zone defined by airstrikes in an urban area. Given that approximately (there are no accurate figures) half of those were combatants, it may actually be a record for the least amount of civilians killed compared to ordnance used.
I suggest people look at other casualty statistics from previous battles in similar situations. In Fallujah, US forces may have killed 6,000 civilians. Do you think they were intentionally targeted?
Yes, intentional or not, those civilians are dead. It is equally tragic for them. But for us, we who live and observe this conflict, we have the responsibility to evaluate these events according to facts and truth. Legally, it absolutely, completely, totally matters whether civilians were targeted or not. International law can not be undermined on this topic.
But crying wolf on war crimes is equally damaging as not reporting them at all when they happen. Justice is based on truth, not accusation. So I suggest you discuss proof and evidence, not just anger.
Dropping a bomb on an orphanage isn't the only way to purposefully kill civilians.
Question: if you were faced with overwhelming forces against you who said that their "god" had ordered them to die in the act of killing you, what would you do?
Negotiate?
BANG! You're dead.
Thought provoking, emotionally heated, powerful post. From my point of view, there are no clear cut sides to be taken on this conflict. Only the dire need for humanitarian efforts to be in place where innocent civilians are squarely in harms way. Historic, religious fanaticism in its most dangerous proportions, is in play throughout the middle east. It is beyond my comprehension that solutions cannot be reached. Our new president will have his greatest challenges both at home and overseas, however, this conflict will tap his every resource and energies in making decisions that will define our country's position in this region for years to come. God help him. We here, have no idea just how volatile this war is and that it may soon involve the US and our allies in a larger war of disasterous proportions. God help us.
Is it really so difficult to believe that Israel is deliberately hitting targets that will have the greatest adverse effect on civilians?
Well, yes, for me it is. Why? Because of a large amount of proof to the contrary. Israel is sending film crews in with its soldiers specifically to document its own actions and show what they are and are not doing. Israel has continually dropped leaflets and called homes warning civilians about attacks (something they have often done). Israel has avoided targeting the main hospital in Gaza city, where Hamas' leadership is based.
These are not the actions of someone trying to hit targets with the greatest adverse effect on civilians. They're certainly more than we expect of any country to do in a conflict. Perhaps you don't think that this is actually occurring?
I'm sure you're smart enough to know that Hamas scores precisely the opposite in all of these categories. Why would they put their command bunker under a hospital anyway?
Israel's actions are not excusable. But from the available evidence, their intentions do not appear to be what you believe they are. In terms of international law, that matters.
And by the way, I can't and don't excuse Hamas either. What they're doing is equally reprehensible and had they the ability to act on the same scale as the Israelis, there's not a shred of doubt in my mind that they'd do just that.