Both Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the head of the IDF Herzi Halevi have both apologized for what was a “tragic error.” Halevi said that “I want to be very clear—the strike was not carried out with the intention of harming World Central Kitchen (WCK) aid workers. It was a mistake that followed a misidentification —at night during a war in very complex conditions. It shouldn’t have happened.” That is the first time I have heard that the convoy was hit at night, which helps explain that “misidentification” (did the attack drones recognize the WCK symbols affixed to the roofs of the vehicles?). Most media accounts have left out that important fact.
Israel does not deliberately attack civilians, much less those foreigners who are helping to bring humanitarian aid. The charge is preposterous, given Israel’s colossal efforts in Gaza to minimize harm to civilians, by warning them away from places and buildings about to be targeted. by the IDF. The hypocrisy of world leaders piling onto the Jewish state, pretending to believe that Israel deliberately attacked the World Central Kitchen convoy, and ignoring its leaders’ clear statements taking responsibility, and offering an apology, for what IDF chief Halevi explained was the result of a “misidentification at night during a war in very complex conditions,” is staggering.
A friend of mine with decades of experience in delivering humanitarian aid and saving lives in the Middle East has just sent me the following:
“It was about 10 years ago that four young American women working with IRC [International Rescue Committee] and their driver were gunned down by the Taliban in their car near Kandahar. One was a friend. IRC has lost several humanitarian workers over the years and in several countries. The same is true for most INGOs, including the ICRC, IRC, Save the Children etc. Working in a conflict zone is like that. It’s dangerous. I nearly died during an Israeli air strike on Beirut, and was rescued by Beirutis who risked their own lives for me. The hydrofoil I took from Cyprus to Jounieh was shelled as I took four children home from Switzerland to their parents in Lebanon after surgery in Geneva. We were lucky. I’ve had staff kidnapped and held for ransom, raped, and tortured. Every time I flew into Baghdad I risked my life, like hundreds of other people working in humanitarian aid. One of the people I used to fund there, a lovely British woman called Margaret Hassan, married to an Iraqi, and working with Save the Children, was kidnapped, raped, and decapitated, on camera. A Dutch guy, Fritz, who I hired for Lebanon, was tortured and murdered in his flat in Beirut during the civil war. Two colleagues were gunned down by snipers as they tried to cross the Green Line between east and west Beirut. I have had NGO friends die in plane hijacks and crashes caused by terrorists. Tragic losses all, as were these terrible World Central Kitchen deaths in Gaza. But never have I seen a media storm like this one. Suddenly, and only in Gaza, humanitarians matter. I wonder why.”
Taffy says
Shit happens during wartime! Lots of incidents of friendly fire and bombing the wrong target. Those food relief workers knew that they were in a war zone and accepted the risk. Israel is being as careful as they can, but shit still happens. I wish that. Let’s Go Brandon would STFU and tell Israel to bombing away and get the war wrapped up by the end of summer.
Norm says
Right on, man. Knowing you are in a war zone is your own responsibility. One who works in these treacherous war zones must have high insurance policies, maybe!
Hugh Fitzgerald says
One more fact I learned after writing the above: the WCK identifying mark, circular in shape and about the size of a dinner plate, was on the roof of only one of the three cars. Perhaps the Israeli pilot, thousands of feet above the convoy, first hit a car without the sign. Then the smoke and flames that immediately resulted would have made it even harder — likely impossible — to see such a small sign on one of the other cars before hey too were mistakenly hit..
Kosh's Shadow says
The drones could not detect the identifying mark in infrared.
They need to be more visible
gravenimage says
Thanks for that additional information, Hugh.
Dick Tracy says
Did anyone check the website of WCK? No? Check it out! Look at the huge red sea-going tug boat, prominently displaying the name of this organisation. And what do sea-going tug boats do? They tug boats. What boats? Guess where: the Mediterrnean, guess what: mohamedan migrants…
In other words, WCK is actively shaping EU immigration policy: come on in, guys!
And so, when did I ever get to vote for WCK? And so, why do the autorities allow them (not) to do what should be done by the authorities: i.e. stop immigration?
Meanwhile, word is that the mass immigration can not be stopped.
Man, are we being bamboozled!
And it gets worse if you read Mr. Spencer’s article on this site debunking the lie that there is a famine in gaza.
Jeffrey Fixler says
Thanks for your contributions as always Hugh. I must say my thinking regarding the accidental killing of these aid workers, and about aid in general to the Palestinian population has evolved quite a bit over the past few days. I’ve been listening to Mark Pellegrino at the Ayn Rand Centre UK who takes a very dim and rather harsh view of aid being given to the Palestinians. We know the genocidal ideology that permeates the Palestinian “culture” , and that 80% of the population supports Hamas . The well known “son of Hamas” , Mosab Yousef, has himself stated clearly that Hamas and the Palestinian people are one and the same. He certainly knows of what he speaks. As harsh as it may sound, these people believe that the Palestinian people should not be given food, water, fuel, or any other sustenance until such time as they accept defeat and reject the ideology that motivates their behavior, and that by providing them with aid only delays such time as they realize that at least their behavior , if not the core ideology of Islam, has done nothing but brought ruination and suffering, That Palestinian suffering is a good and moral outcome of the war that is the only chance for any change. Conversely, they also believe that aid workers are acting immorally by preventing the suffering to the extent that is needed in order to bring change in Palestinian thinking.
Just wanted to know what your thinking on this is?
Best Regards,
Jeffrey Fixler
somehistory says
Hypocrites see the *error* or mistakes of others they wish to condemn, and neglect their own errors.
Like Jesus said, “First remove the rafter from your own eye.”
there is a huge difference in killing in error and in killing….murdering….on purpose as the taliban, iran. hezbollah, hamas, etc. do.
Mark Conley says
I GUESS THE STATEMENT THAT YOU WONDER WHY THE FUROR THIS TIME is a rhetorical flourish. Its obvious why they are piling on the IDF, possibly the most humane military force in the WORLD. They’r piling on because the wrongdoers were Israeli and the vistims were helping Palestinians, today’s cause celebre and the medi has no desire to miss a firestorm.
Mike 2 says
The IDF have admitted they failed to follow their rules of engagement. Now, does anyone have a copy of the hamas rules of engagement?
࿗Infidel࿘ says
I am not sympathetic to the WCK crowd. First of all, if there is indeed any starvation in Gaza – something clearly refuted by all the footage from the area over the last few months – why do they need to get gourmet treatment? Also, yesterday, I saw a video of some major chef denouncing Israel and refusing to accept their apology. I don’t doubt for a moment that the only reason he was sending his team to Gaza was that he endorsed Hamas and the anti-Semitic movement. Hence the denouciation
I do hope this sends all those sanctimonious do-gooders a clear message that they’d face the same fate as a Rachel Corrie if they keep this up. The last thing these thugs on the Left – be it the “Free-Palestine” movement, Antifa, BLM or anybody – want is to be actually killed for the cause they ostensibly believe in
somehistory says
mozlums pretend they want to die for their fake god and prophet who may not have ever existed, but in reality, they all want to murder everyone else. hamas members are better at hiding than they are standing and fighting vis-a-vis. with a risk of being killed.
All of the groups you mentioned want attention for their rioting, looting, killing, but none have a real spine or courage of conviction.
John1 says
Maybe World Central Kitchen could move operations to Central America. Lots of malnourished people there, but no, they’re mostly Christians who are never victims. Only Muslims………
Kosh's Shadow says
The IDF timeline involves someone shooting in the air (a frequent Hamas action to notify other Hamas members in the area) and the vehicles going through a hangar so the IDF could not tell if the ones that came out were the same as those that went in.
Plus, neither the IDF nor WCK could contact the aid workers. The IDF fried and asked WCK. Both failed.
This has all the indications of a Hamas propaganda event – make the convoy look suspicious and then blame Israel when they react.
And finally, how many organizations and countries would ask ANY OTHER COUNTRY THAN ISRAEL to send aid in to their enemies? If the answer is none, this fits the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, or my preferred term, Jew-hatred.
tgusa says
Humanitarian aid organizations have they themselves given me serious doubt about their humanitarian intentions.
gravenimage says
Israel, That WCK Convoy, and the Big Piling-On
…………………………..
Israel *never* targets civilans, let alone aid workers. Not so Hamas.
But Israel is the bad guy. Perverse.
LegalGuy says
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_friendly_fire_incidents
Unfortunately, these things happen in wartime.
Here’s the thing: in the UK, it is a statutory duty for an employer to carry out a “suitable and sufficient” risk assessment for all of their employees. (This statutory duty is laid down in the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.)
Carrying out a risk assessment means looking at the likelihood of any employee being exposed to a hazard (anything that might harm an employee) and the consequences if that employee were to be exposed to that hazard.
The “initial risk” is then plotted on a risk assessment matrix.
Any “controls” are them factored in. Here, an employer is supposed to use the “hierarchy of controls” –
First is elimination of the risk. (Remove the hazard from the workplace.)
Second is substitution. (Replace that which causes the hazard with something else.)
Third is engineering controls. (Do nothing about the hazard, but use mechanical measures to reduce the likelihood of exposure, and/or the consequences of exposure.)
Fourth is administrative controls. (Change how people work, train employees, use labels and warnings etc.)
Fifth is PPE (personal protective equipment.)
Note that these get less effective as you go down the hierarchy of controls.
Once these controls have been factored in, the “residual risk” is them plotted on a risk assessment matrix.
In this case, these employees seem to have been relying on the fourth level of controls – administrative controls (markings on their vehicles) while their workplace is a war zone.
Given the fact that the consequences of being exposed to the hazard under consideration (gunfire or missile fire or explosions of one sort or another) would be “very high” on any risk assessment matrix, and given the fact that the control measures being used were only the fourth level of effectiveness (administrative controls – markings on their vehicles) which meant that the likelihood of something happening was not being reduced as much as it would have been if any of the first three levels of control had been used – the “residual risk” on any risk assessment matrix would, it would appear, remain at “very high”
It should also be pointed out that allegedly, only one of the three vehicles was actually implementing those control measures!
Imagine a situation in the workplace where an employer had carried out a risk assessment and out of three employees, only one of them implemented the recommended control measures!
The other two employees would in fact be acting unlawfully – Section 7 of the HSWA states that “It shall be the duty of every employee while at work—
(a)to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work.
If the actions of one of those negligent employees resulted in their being exposed to a hazard in the workplace, and that incident initiated a “domino effect” which resulted in multiple employees being exposed to that hazard – who would be at fault?
As a matter of law – the employees who had chosen not to implement the recommended control measures would be in breach of their legal duty as laid down in Section 7 of the HSWA (Health and Safety at Work Act 1974) and those employees could be sued on that basis.
All this to say – if you drive around in an unmarked vehicle in the middle of a war zone, when actual combatants in that war zone (the Ham as terrorists) have been known to use civilian vehicles as cover for their nefarious activities, then you’re engaging in an activity that would be designated as “very high risk” on any risk assessment matrix.
In fact, by refusing to implement the control measures available to you (putting markings on your car) you would in fact have chosen to operate under the level of “initial risk” – with all that entails!
In the UK, you would not only be putting yourself at an unnecessary level of risk, you would be putting the people around you at risk too – therefore, you would be acting unlawfully (see Section 7 of the HSWA).
The use of administrative measures (such as markings on vehicles) may only be the fourth level of control measures & therefore less effective than say, simply not driving a vehicle around in a war zone to begin with, but the failure of several of these employees to implement those control measures (if that is indeed the case) is, from a British legal perspective, reckless behaviour, and as noted previously, it is unlawful.
One might say here that is the responsibility of the employer to provide vehicles with appropriate markings – however, under Section 7 of the HSWA, an employee has a legal obligation to “take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions” and so, they should refuse to drive an unmarked vehicle in a war zone.
If it is true that only one of the vehicles was implementing these control measures, and the other employees had chosen to act in a way that would be considered unlawful in the UK, and by doing so put everyone else at risk, then that would be a significant fact in any proper investigation of this incident.