[red rocket]

Fliers admit aborting raids on civilian targets as concern grows over the reliability of intelligence

Inigo Gilmore at Hatzor Air Base, Israel
Sunday August 6, 2006
The Observer

At least two Israeli fighter pilots have deliberately missed civilian targets in Lebanon as disquiet grows in the military about flawed intelligence, The Observer has learnt. Sources say the pilots were worried that targets had been wrongly identified as Hizbollah facilities.
Voices expressing concern over the armed forces' failures are getting louder. One Israeli cabinet minister said last week: 'We gave the army so much money. Why are we getting these results?' Last week saw Hizbollah's guerrilla force, dismissed by senior Israeli military officials as 'ragtag', inflict further casualties on one of the world's most powerful armies in southern Lebanon. At least 12 elite troops, the equivalent of Britain's SAS, have already been killed, and by yesterday afternoon Israel's military death toll had climbed to 45.

As the bodies pile up, so the Israeli media has begun to turn, accusing the military of lacking the proper equipment, training and intelligence to fight a guerrilla war in Lebanon. Israel's Defence Minister, Amir Peretz, on a tour of the front lines, was confronted by troubled reserve soldiers who told him they lacked proper equipment and training.

Israel's chief of staff, Major-General Dan Halutz, had vowed to wipe out Hizbollah's missile threat within 10 days. These claims are now being mocked as rockets rain down on Israel's north with ever greater intensity, despite an intense and highly destructive air bombardment.

As one well-connected Israeli expert put it: 'If we have such good information in Lebanon, how come we still don't know the hideout of missiles and launchers?... If we don't know the location of their weapons, why should we know which house is a Hizbollah house?'

As international outrage over civilian deaths grows, the spotlight is increasingly turning on Israeli air operations. The Observer has learnt that one senior commander who has been involved in the air attacks in Lebanon has already raised concerns that some of the air force's actions might be considered 'war crimes'.

Yonatan Shapiro, a former Blackhawk helicopter pilot dismissed from reserve duty after signing a 'refusenik' letter in 2004, said he had spoken with Israeli F-16 pilots in recent days and learnt that some had aborted missions because of concerns about the reliability of intelligence information. According to Shapiro, some pilots justified aborting missions out of 'common sense' and in the context of the Israeli Defence Force's moral code of conduct, which says every effort should be made to avoiding harming civilians.

Shapiro said: 'Some pilots told me they have shot at the side of targets because they're afraid people will be there, and they don't trust any more those who give them the coordinates and targets.'

He added: 'One pilot told me he was asked to hit a house on a hill, which was supposed to be a place from where Hizbollah was launching Katyusha missiles. But he was afraid civilians were in the house, so he shot next to the house ...

'Pilots are always being told they will be judged on results, but if the results are hundreds of dead civilians while Hizbollah is still able to fire all these rockets, then something is very wrong.'

So far none of the pilots has publicly refused to fly missions but some are wobbling, according to Shapiro. He said: 'Their target could be a house firing a cannon at Israel and it could be a house full of children, so it's a real dilemma; it's not black and white. But ... I'm calling on them to refuse, in order save our country from self-destruction.'

Meron Rappoport, a former editor at the Israeli daily Haaretz and military analyst, criticised the air force's methods for selecting targets: 'The impression is that information is sometimes lacking. One squadron leader admitted the evidence used to determine attacks on cars is sometimes circumstantial - meaning that if people are in an area after Israeli forces warned them to leave, the assumption is that those left behind must be linked to Hizbollah ... This is problematic, as aid agencies have said many people did not leave ... because they could not, or it was unsafe to travel on the roads thanks to Israel's aerial bombardment.'

These revelations raise further serious questions about the airstrike in Qana last Sunday that left dozens dead, which continues to arouse international outrage. From the outset, the Israeli military's version of events has been shrouded in ambiguity, with the army releasing a video it claims shows Katyusha rockets being fired from Qana, even though the video was dated two days earlier, and claiming that more than 150 rockets had been fired from the location.

Some IDF officials have continued to refer vaguely to Katyushas being launched 'near houses' in the village and to non-specific 'terrorist activity' inside the targeted building. In a statement on Thursday, the IDF said it the air force did not know there were civilians in what they believed was an empty building, yet paradoxically blamed Hizbollah for using those killed as 'human shields'.

Human rights groups have attacked the findings as illogical. Amnesty International described the investigation as a 'whitewash', saying Israeli intelligence must have been aware of the civilians'.

One Israeli commander from a different squadron called the Qana bombing a 'mistake' and was unable to explain the apparent contradiction in the IDF's position, although he insisted there would have been no deliberate targeting of civilians. He said he had seen the video of the attack, and admitted: 'Generally they [Hizbollah] are using human shields ... That specific building - I don't know the reason it was chosen as a target.'

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world...838437,00.html

[Y3a]

'Generally they [Hizbollah] are using human shields ...

[Ω]

If Israeli pilots are doing this then I commend them.

It should never have gotten to this.

[amsalpemkcus]

I can assure you that if a Hamas or Hizbollocks pilot was in those fighter jets they will rejoice in killing the infidels!

[Y3a]

I wonder if Israel will decide to Nuke Terhan,
which will make the cowards in Syria stop the supplies to Hez-Blow-Allah,
and at the same time slow down Irans Nuke program.

They should at least TRY!

[amsalpemkcus]

LOL! these would be way better:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4174519.stm

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by amsalpemkcus

I can assure you that if a Hamas or Hizbollocks pilot was in those fighter jets they will rejoice in killing the infidels!

What's an 'infidel'?

[amsalpemkcus]

Originally Posted by Krusty

What's an 'infidel'?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infidel

[Doofy]

What happens if the intelligence is correct? This would mean that the operation isn't being as successful as it should be because of those pilots.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy

What happens if the intelligence is correct? This would mean that the operation isn't being as successful as it should be because of those pilots.

BINGO! I believe a sensitivity training is in order. They should be much more sensitive to what their officers are telling them to do. Making their own decisions in an emotional time is not healthy military strategy.

I'm also curious what red rocket thinks of the article he/she posted????

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Y3a

'Generally they [Hizbollah] are using human shields ...

Please clear this up for me. What's with the numerous spellings of Islamic Elements;

Hizbullah
Hezbollah
Hizbollah

Al Qaeda
Al Qaida

Quran
Qur'an
Koran

[moodymonster]

the pilots are the ones pulling the trigger, they make an assessment - there's no point attacking a target that doesn't seem viable.

Or, the pilot goes home to find he (she?) has just massacred a family, and a genuine target goes unhit because the number of targets hit is maintained.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Please clear this up for me. What's with the numerous spellings of Islamic Elements;

I imagine its the same problem as with Russian (czar, tsar). We don't share the same alphabet, so translation can be a little subjective as to what's most accurate.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by moodymonster

the pilots are the ones pulling the trigger, they make an assessment - there's no point attacking a target that doesn't seem viable.

When you're at war with an organisation which builds schools on top of ammo dumps, how does one define "viable" via outward appearances which you glimpse at 500 MPH?

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I'm also curious what red rocket thinks of the article he/she posted????

I think it's heartening that at least some IDF soldiers aren't completely blinded by the propaganda their government keeps spreading, and seem to be capable of making individual decisions.

[moodymonster]

Originally Posted by Doofy

When you're at war with an organisation which builds schools on top of ammo dumps, how does one define "viable" via outward appearances which you glimpse at 500 MPH?

they have cameras, FLIR etc - they're very precise with weapons these days. Gotta see what you're shooting in the first place.

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Please clear this up for me. What's with the numerous spellings of Islamic Elements;

Hizbullah
Hezbollah
Hizbollah

Al Qaeda
Al Qaida

Quran
Qur'an
Koran

I believe it's called transliteration.
When I studied Eygptology, different transliterations made everything confusing.
As there is really no set standard for the transliteration.
Some professor thinks his translation is gospel.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by moodymonster

they have cameras, FLIR etc - they're very precise with weapons these days. Gotta see what you're shooting in the first place.

And these cameras can tell the difference between a house built over a wine cellar and a house built over a weapons dump? From the outside?

Does a pilot know how many AK47s and rocket launchers there are in a house just by looking at the outside of it? Or are questions like that best left to the intelligence services?

[moodymonster]

intelligence can be flawed, the target may be picked someone sitting across the street, or it may be from satellites, or just a car/house/people in the wrong place - personally I don't know. But if an Israeli pilot decides the target isn't a viable one, I'd imagine they have good reason to.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by moodymonster

intelligence can be flawed, the target may be picked someone sitting across the street, or it may be from satellites, or just a car/house/people in the wrong place - personally I don't know. But if an Israeli pilot decides the target isn't a viable one, I'd imagine they have good reason to.

"Shapiro said: 'Some pilots told me they have shot at the side of targets because they're afraid people will be there, and they don't trust any more those who give them the coordinates and targets.'"

Their reason is they don't trust their commanding officers. In the article, it says they didn't shoot at targets because they were afraid civilians were present, which is very likely considering the tactics that the enemies use.