Talk:2004 Israeli operation in Rafah

Removed paragraph

I removed the following paragraph from the article,

>>>>>>>>>>>

UNRWA Ambulances used to transport terrorists [[Image:UNambulance-carry-militants01.jpg|thumb|Armed Palestinian boarding an UNRWA ambulance]]

A Reuters video footage showing armed terrorists boarding and being transported by a UNRWA ambulance. In his interview with Haaretz, Israel's Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz also said that UNRWA's ambulances were used by Palestinian militants in order to smuggle some of the remains of IDF soldiers killed in Zaitoun neigbourhood in Gaza on May 11, 2004. UNRWA confirmed the incident and offered the explanation that the terrorists forced the driver to take them.

This material belongs on the UNRWA page. One reason it is not there is that several individuals appear to be unable to accept the connection between the UNRWA and various terrorist/militant organizations. Perhaps we can convince them that this should be moved to the UNRWA page. Lance6Wins 14:06, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Reuters clip doesn't seem to work. Also, the claims of UNRWA ambulance misuse have to be reassessed and treated skeptically after Israel's embarrassing gaffe regarding the alleged Qassam rocket in the UNRWA ambulance that turned out to be a stretcher.

I agree. In any case someone should make the language more clearly about allegations. The facts are clearly in dispute.67.184.111.43 03:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

<<<<<<<<<<

Since it is not directly connected to Operation Rainbow.

You may combine this paragraph in "Prior Cause" section that will detail the reasons to the operation. Partial reasons are the two incidents in which 13 soldiers were killed in Zaitoun neigbourhood in Gaza city and in Philadelphi Route in Rafah. You may use the written-up material in Givati Brigade value which I quote here:

>>>>>>>>

On May 11 and May 12, two armored personnal carriers of Givati's Dolev engineering battalion, were desyroyed by Palestinian miltants. The two separate attacks, in Gaza City's Zeitoun neigbourhood and the Phildelphi Route near Rafah and the Egyptian border claimed the lives of 11 soldiers. Palestinian terrorists of Islamic Jihad, who captured parts of the remains mutilated the bodies and disgraced them. [1] That caused an outrage in Israel, eventually leading to a massive operation in Zeitoun's neigbourhood and Rafah. [2],[3] After international pressure and agressive Israeli operation in Zeitoun, the bodies of soldier killed in Zeitoun were returend to Israel and were properly buried.

In the Zaitoun incident, a UNRWA ambulances were used by terrorists to smuggle themselves away, and maybe even body remain of the Israeli soldiers. A Reuters video is showing armed terrorists boarding and being transported by a UNRWA ambulance. In [http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/427679.html his interview with Haaretz, Israel's Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz also said that UNRWA's ambulances were used by Palestinian militants in order to smuggle some of the remains of IDF soldiers killed in Zaitoun neigbourhood in Gaza on May 11, 2004. UNRWA confirmed the incident and offered the explanation that the terrorists forced the driver to take them.

After two more soldiers killed in Rafah while their securing their commerads who searched after the remains of Rafah's fallen, and were shot by terrorist when they assisted old Palestinian women, Israel launched Operation Rainbow in which Givati forces reinforced by Golani Brigade soldiers with IDF Achzarit HAPCs, a battlion of officers from the class-commanders school and serveral armoured Caterpillar D9 bulldozers. The aim of Operation Rainbow was to destroy the terror infrastructure of Rafah, destroy smuggling tunnels and stop illegal missile shipment.

<<<<<<<<<<<<

MathKnight 14:48, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Who ever added "factual accuracy" dispute, please reasone it and say why you add it. MathKnight 12:25, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Most of this article presents as facts the version of the IDF. Many of these "facts" are highly dubious. The overall tone of the article and its selective presentation is also highly slanted towards the IDF viewpoint. Overall, it is a crap article. --Zero 12:01, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So far you only explained the NPOV part. The article describes pretty well what happened there, and in total the number are pretty close (about 50-60 dead, about 40-60 houses demolished). MathKnight 15:10, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch analysis of Rainbow

In a recent report, the "respected" international organization Human Rights Watch analyzed Operation Rainbow and found that most of the 166 houses destroyed were razed illegally. The report includes extensive photographs, satellite images, and maps in addition to eyewitness testimonies. The report also refutes Israel's main justifications for house demolitions in Rafah, namely smuggling tunnels and protection of border patrols; instead the destruction appears to be part of a policy to create a Palestinian-free "buffer zone" along the border to solidify Israel's long-term control over the Gaza Strip.

A summary of the Rainbow analysis appears below. The full section on Operation Rainbow is available here.

Rampage in Rafah: May 2004

In May 2004, Rafah witnessed a level of destruction unprecedented in the current uprising, resulting in 298 demolished homes. After Islamic Jihad destroyed the armored personnel carrier (APC) on May 12, the IDF launched a two-day incursion to recover the soldiers’ remains. IDF tanks and helicopters also led an assault on Block O, reportedly killing fifteen Palestinians, including one fifteen-year-old. Six others were identified as combatants.11 Claiming that it came under intense fire during the entire operation, the IDF razed eighty-eight homes in Block O and neighboring Qishta area, including houses that had been separated from the buffer zone by three or four rows of homes and could not have been used to fire at the APC or the recovery teams. Towards the end of the incursion, two Israeli soldiers in Qishta were killed by Palestinian snipers.

From May 18-24, the IDF conducted a major assault called “Operation Rainbow” that penetrated deep into two areas of Rafah — Tel al-Sultan in the northwest and the Brazil and Salam neighborhoods in the east — reportedly leaving thirty-two Palestinian civilians dead, including ten people under age eighteen, as well as twelve armed men. The IDF also destroyed 166 houses. The offensive was ostensibly aimed at searching for smuggling tunnels, killing or arresting suspects, and eliminating “terrorist infrastructure.” The IDF claimed to have discovered three smuggling tunnels during the operation, though later admitted that one of these was an incomplete shaft and another was outside of Rafah and not linked to any house demolitions.

In investigating the events of May 2004 and other demolitions, Human Rights Watch documented systematic violations of international humanitarian law and gross human rights abuses by the Israeli military. During the major May incursions of May 18-24, the IDF destroyed houses, roads, and large fields extensively without evidence that the destruction was in response to absolute military needs, including in areas of Rafah far from the border. In areas of Brazil further from the border, where incursions were not expected, most of the residents were inside their homes as armored Caterpillar D9 bulldozers crashed through the walls. Bulldozers allowed residents to flee but proceeded with the destruction before they could remove their belongings. In some cases away from the border, like the Rafah zoo, the destruction took place after the IDF had secured the area, in a manner that was time-consuming, deliberate, and comprehensive, rather than in the heat of battle.

The IDF claims its forces came under attack from Palestinians using anti-tank weapons, explosives, and small arms. Based on interviews with thirty-five Rafah residents and two members of Palestinian armed groups, information provided by the IDF, public statements by Palestinian armed groups and the Israeli government, and after surveying the affected areas, Human Rights Watch believes that armed Palestinian resistance to the May 18-24 operation was light, limited, and quickly overwhelmed within the initial hours of each incursion. Both sides made tactical choices to maximize their respective advantages: the IDF limited their operations mostly to Brazil and Tel al-Sultan, where they were not expected and Palestinian armed groups laid ambushes in the densely populated heart of the original camp, where they would be more likely to engage the IDF at close quarters. The main two streets in Tel al-Sultan and Brazil are relatively wide and arranged in grid-like patterns. The Israeli government designed them in this way during the 1970s to facilitate the movement of its forces and limit cover for Palestinian gunmen. As a result, throughout the operation there was minimal direct engagement between the IDF and Palestinian armed groups. This contrasts sharply with the fierce multi-day battle in the densely populated heart of Jenin refugee camp in April 2002, which resulted in the death of fifty-two Palestinians, including twenty-seven confirmed civilians and thirteen IDF soldiers.

During the incursions into Tel al-Sultan and Brazil, the IDF employed armored Caterpillar D9 bulldozers in a manner that was indiscriminate and excessive, resulting in widespread destruction of homes, roads, and agriculture that could have been avoided:

• Houses. In Brazil, Caterpillar D9 bulldozers cleared “tank paths” inside the camp by plowing through blocks of houses as a general precaution against possible attacks with RPGs or roadside bombs, irrespective of the specific threats that international law requires. The IDF also used D9s to destroy homes near suspected smuggling tunnels and in other areas on a preventive basis, not in response to specific threats. Other house demolitions had no discernible reason.

• Road destruction. In both Tel al-Sultan and Brazil, the IDF used Caterpillar D9s to indiscriminately tear up roads, destroying water and sewage networks, and creating a significant public health risk in an already vulnerable community. In some areas, water shortages forced residents to leave their homes in search of water, putting them at risk of being shot by IDF snipers for breaking curfew. In total, the IDF destroyed fifty-one percent of Rafah’s roads, usually by dragging a blade known as the “ripper” from the back of the D9 down the middle of the road. The IDF gave various explanations for this tactic, including the need to clear paths of potential bombs (improvised explosive devices, or IEDs), to sever wires that could be used to detonate explosive devices and to prevent suicide car attacks on Israeli forces. If the IDF was truly concerned about wires and IEDs, it would have used a front mounted device. Instead they used rear-mounted rippers that afforded no protection for the D9 bulldozers or their drivers from explosive devices in the road. In addition, as a photograph in Chapter 6 taken from another incursion shows, the ripper creates a path of debris down the middle of the road, leaving side lanes intact for use by suicide car attacks. Tearing up paved roads also creates loose debris that facilitates the concealment of explosives and booby-traps.

• Razing Agricultural Land. The IDF razed two large tracts of agricultural land outside the Tel al-Sultan housing project away from the border. Such destruction after the IDF had secured the area was disproportionate to any potential military gain and had a harmful impact on an area where agricultural production plays an important role. The IDF told Human Rights Watch that military vehicles destroyed agricultural land because they had to avoid booby-traps on roads, but this does not explain why bulldozers spent more than two days systematically destroying two large fields of greenhouses.

While research focused on the extensive destruction in the Rafah camp, Human Rights Watch also documented other abuses during the incursions into Tel al-Sultan and Brazil, including unlawful killings of civilians and IDF troops coercing civilians to serve as “human shields.” Most egregiously, on March 19, an Israeli tank and helicopter opened fire on a demonstration, killing nine, including three children under age eighteen. The IDF did not claim that its troops had come under fire, only that gunmen were in the crowd; eyewitness accounts and video evidence contradict this. In response to an inquiry from Human Rights Watch, the IDF said that one those killed had been listed in its records as a “Hamas activist” but did not substantiate or even reaffirm the claim that he had been armed at the time.

Yes, HRW. I find HRW very difficult to understand. As of October 26, 2004 their page in Israel and Palestinian Authority contains 20 items total: 4 items headlined "Israel: Budget Discriminates Against Children of Arab Citizens", each a letter to a different person in the Government of Israel; 2 items regarding `Abd al-Latif Gheith, ("Israel: Release Rights Activist Immediately" and "Arrest of Palestinian Human Rights Defender"); an item entitled The United States' "Disappeared": The CIA's Long-Term "Ghost Detainees" (misplaced perhaps?); and finally a single item "Egypt/Israel: Attacks on Civilians Are Unjustifiable Crimes". The pattern is not uncommon with HRW.

I do not understand why the deaths of 32 people merit only single article whereas the arrest of one merits two articles. Perhaps HRW feels that appeals to Israel or comdemnations of Israel may result in a change whereas appeals to Arabs states and groups will not have any effect. Perhaps HRW feels that Israel should be held to a higher standard of behavior that its neighbors.

Actually, the reason why there are two documents for the arrest of Gheith is because one is a press release about the incident and the other is an accompanying letter sent to Sharon, not because it's twice as important as the Taba bombing. Also, HRW's last major report on Israel/Palestine was on suicide bombings and is one of the longest reports they've done on the conflict.

HRW describes road destruction by dragging a blade known as the “ripper” from the back of the D9 claiming If the IDF was truly concerned about wires and IEDs, it would have used a front mounted device....this ignores the differences between anti-personnel mines and anti-tank mines (aka anti-vehicular mines. Anti-personnel mines pose no danger to the D9. Therefore a front mounted blade is not required to protect the D9 while destroying them. A front mounted blade on the first D9 in a column is sufficient. The following D9's can use rippers to further and deeper destroy any anti-personnel mines. they need to be destroyed lest they detonate against walking/running troops. Manufactured mines are designed not to detonate due to vehicle pressure levels, but only due to the lighter pressure of a person. Indeed some will not detonate is the pressure is too light, giving rise to | anti-personnel mine boots]. It appears that HRW is ignorant of the differences between anti-personnel mines and anti-tank mines. Lance6Wins 13:57, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Four problems with this argument: First, in its multiple meetings and correspondence with HRW, the IDF never claims that the destruction of roads was meant to clear out anti-personnel mines but insisted repeatedly that the perceived threat was from IEDs aimed at vehicles, i.e. to avoid a repeat of the Zaitoun incident. Second, any A-P mine threat on main roads is taken care of the fact that standard IDF procedure is for soldiers not to walk on roads anyway but to always ride around in armored vehicles that take them straight to the doors of buildings. Third, the ripper tears a single line down the middle of the road; so in order for use of the ripper to make sense, you have to assume that Palestinians are burying A-P mines in the middle of major roads and then paving over them, which is one of the least ideal places to put A-P mines (as opposed to curbside areas). And finally, it is still indicriminate to destroy an entire road based on an unsupported suspicion that there may be a mine somewhere on that road, which was the IDF admits was its operational assumption.

I simply do not understand HRW. At least in the report above they once again reconfirm the abscence of any evidence of a massacre in Jenin. Lance6Wins 14:26, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

HRW's mandate wasn't simply to determine whether or not there was a 'massacre' (for which there is no legal definition anyway) in Jenin. What's important is that it did find evidence of multiple war crimes, including execution of wounded fighters and willful killings of unarmed civilians, as well as indiscriminate use of rocket fire and widespread destruction in the camp.

HRW just bought every junk that Palestinian terrorists sold them, without trying to validiate the truth (basing their report on PHRC, which I exposed for deliberate lie and the habit of reporting on terrorists killed as civilians). Many of their descriptions are not true, and therefore their conclusions are wrong. MathKnight 12:29, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"mobiled"

what does this word mean?

courious

I found it funny (not to say sad) how this article calls palestinian aggressions "massacres" and israeli ones "operations", while the latter sounds cleaner and more professional, both lead in the end and equally to tragedies among civilian lives, private and public assets. I strongly suggest the use of the same word : either operation, massacre, attack, or whatever

Casualties

Why isnt there a list of KIA israeli soldiers? its says clearly that soldiers have been killed.DUH!. user Homan05

if you have a proper source for this, we could insert it. please don't insert soldiers which were killed before the operation (i.e. a reason for launching the operation) into the operation death toll. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UNambulance-carry-militants01.jpg

Image:UNambulance-carry-militants01.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Body mutilation.

Quote:

Palestinian Islamic Jihad guerrillas took parts of the remains, mutilating the bodies and abusing them.

NOW,

What happened wast that these light APC, with minimal mine protection and survivability were attacked by sizable IED's / roadside bomb's also the soldiers were combat engineers, and were carrying major loads of explosives to demolish palestinian houses, now giving the poor protection of the vehicles, size of the explosives used to attack them and secondary explosions caused by the soldiers own explosives carried inside the vehicles results in instant human potatosmash, no "mutilation" needed cause all what was left was shreds of human flesh and few clear flown heads, like from suicide bombers...

So stick to the facts, and dont spread propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.138.236 (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Zeitoun incident

All sources only link to one Palestinian attack and destruction of an Israeli invading vehicle in connection with Operation Rainbow. No Zeitoun incident is linked to Operation Rainbow. Only dead links are given for allegations about use of UNRWA ambulances and about bodily remains (also in connection with Zeitoun, not with Operation Rainbow). --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

User:MathKnight reverted my edits on the Results section to obscure the Casualities part. The key reference http://www.hrw.org/node/11963/section/11 (Razing Rafah - Chapt. VI: A violent season, 18 October 2004) was for convenience deleted.

While HRW gives IDF claims as of 18 October, the probably not so independent IMRA gives a figure, written when the operation still was not ended. It calls all killed people terrorists. If you want to give other IDF claims, please give a source as of a date some time after 24 May 2004, not in Hebrew.

Because the other edits are also dubieus, I revert all.--Wickey-nl (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The IDF data is 41 terrorists killed and 12 civilians killed. There are two sources for that: IMRA in english and ynet in hebrew. You can easily use Google Translate to verify it. Its removal and replacing in it with unsourced wrong numbers as IDF claim is vandalism. MathKnight 21:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Operation Autumn Clouds which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)