We blogged yesterday about the IDF's preliminary response to the Goldstone Report, which includes a rebuttal of three specific allegations of war crimes. A commenter raised a fair point: Since we wrote extensively about Goldstone's allegations, we should do the same with the IDF's rebuttal.
So, after the jump, a little detail on each of its three responses.
The Namer wells complex
The accusation: The Goldstone Report says "multiple air strikes" targeted the Namar wells complex, near the Jabaliyah refugee camp, causing more than US$200,000 in damage to the wells, which serve 25,000 people.
The response: During its investigation, the IDF says it asked the Gaza water authority to provide the exact coordinates of the wells complex. It claims the complex is located inside a "closed military compound of Hamas."
This compound served as a regional command and control center and was used for military training and weapons storage. Guards manned the entry to the compound and prohibited entry by unauthorized civilians. (p. 43)
The IDF says it wasn't aware of any wells in the area, except for a well 195m from the Namar complex, which the army "took precautionary measures" to avoid. And it deemed the Namar complex a legitimate military target because of the alleged Hamas presence.
The Gaza sewage treatment plant
The accusation: Goldstone claims the IDF deliberately blasted the walls of a lagoon containing raw sewage, which sent more than 200,000 cubic meters of the stuff flowing onto nearby farmland.
The response: An IDF command investigation concluded that the lagoon wall was blown up on January 10, 2009. But it ruled out the possibility that the wall was damaged by the IDF: The site was never identified as a target for an airstrike, and the nearby terrain and the pattern of the damage meant it didn't come from artillery fire.
Taking into account all available information, the Military Advocate General could not definitively rule out the possibility that IDF activity had caused the damage to the wall of the third basin of the wastewater treatment plant (which probably occurred on 10 January). At the same time, he could also not dismiss the possibility that the damage to the basin might have resulted from a deliberate action by Hamas as part of a defensive plan to hamper the movement of IDF forces in the area.
In any event, the investigation concluded, the lagoon was not deliberately targeted, so no criminal charges were warranted.
The el-Bader flour mill bombing
The accusation: Goldstone concluded that the IDF destroyed the el-Bader flour mill, the only working flour mill in Gaza, even though it could have occupied the mill "without firing a shot."
The response: The IDF's command investigation said the mill was in a Hamas area, surrounded by military positions and booby-trapped houses. The mill was identified as a "strategic asset" because of its height.
In the course of the operation, IDF troops came under intense fire from different Hamas positions in the vicinity of the flour mill. The IDF forces fired back towards the sources of fire and threatening locations. As the IDF returned fire, the upper floor of the flour mill was hit by tank shells. A phone call warning was not made to the flour mill immediately before the strike, as the mill was not a pre-planned target.
Because of its location, the mill was deemed a legitimate military target; because it was hit by tank shells, and not "precision munitions," the IDF decided against a criminal investigation.
For updates throughout the day, follow us on 
Twitter, 
Facebook or 
RSS!
Categories: Human Rights, Israel, Israel & Palestine, Palestine, Regional News
Tags: El-Bader flour mill, Goldstone Report, Israeli Defense Forces, Namar wells complex, Operation Cast Lead, war crimes
1 Comment
The IDF is absolutely wrong about the flour plant: it was struck by an airstrike, as the Goldstone report states, and not tank shells, as the IDF claims (the UN deminers found the remains of the 500lb bomb inside the compound). So this was a precision strike, not errant shells. And we can't take the IDF intelligence or claims at face value: in Lebanon, they claimed to have destroyed an apartment building in Tyre that they claimed was the Hezbollah command, when it was actually the building of the civilian defense). We have many such cases in our 2006 HRW report, Why the Died.
Secondly, the IDF now claims to have "severely reprimanded" two senior officers over ordering artillery shells into populated areas, but their story quickly falls apart. First, they can't agree whether the officers were reprimanded over the use of white phosphorus (which the IDF continues to deny they used, despite the evidence), or over the use of 155mm shells in populated areas. Second, they claim that no civilian casualties were caused by this violation of their RoE, but both the use of WP and the use of 155mm shells in downtown Gaza city caused civilian casualties. Then, thirdly, it turns out that the "severe reprimand" is actually just a note in their files, not even a demotion or a removal from command. That, my friends, is called a slap on the wrist. An army which is unable to seriously investigate its own record is an army that supports a culture of impunity for abuses.
Post a Comment