IDF Fires on UN HQ in Gaza

Pages

IDF Fires on UN HQ in Gaza

Israel received fire from the area & returned fire

By Flavia

Middle East • October 2012 • Views: 1,354

Page also carried an update

“Israel’s prime minister says the Israeli military fired artillery shells at a U.N. compound in Gaza after militants opened fire from the location.

Ehud Olmert says Israeli forces ‘were attacked from there and the response was harsh.’

U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon expressed ‘outrage’ over the Israeli shelling of the compound Thursday.

At a meeting between the two, Olmert called the shelling a ‘sad incident’ but said militants were responsible. The U.N. denies the Israeli allegation.”

Recent Pages by Flavia:
Police Refuse To Arrest Teen Who Raped Underage Girls Taliban attacks US consulate in Afghanistan Hawking Confirms He is Boycotting Israel Victims in Delhi rape case to blame, says lawyer Come to Australia!

Jump to bottom

12 comments

Flavia Thu, Oct 4, 2012 12:05:22am

The title of the article leads one to believe that it was the one in New York!!

But my first thought was of the war in Lebanon, where a UN official (worker? I forget what position he held) was texting (e-mailing?) his superiors that the PLO had put some of their weapons right next to their position, & that the Israelis were therefore forced to fire on them. Sadly ironic, I think his last message was to the effect that the Israelis were right to do so. The brave, honest soul revived my faith in the UN - for awhile.

researchok Thu, Oct 4, 2012 1:12:24am

re: #1 Flavia

Unfortunately, terrorists have a long record of firing from civilian, medical, educational, and religious settings.

ckkatz Thu, Oct 4, 2012 11:07:53am

Did I miss something?

Date of article: Thursday, January 15, 2009.

From the Wiki blurb,
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
The Israelis believed that they were receiving fire including antitank missile from the vicinity so fired smoke/white phosphorus shells at it. This can set things on fire.

ckkatz Thu, Oct 4, 2012 11:19:48am

Sorry, dropped the wiki quote:

"The Israeli position on this incident is that the incident "took place during intense fighting, which involved Hamas’ deployment of anti-tank units equipped with advanced anti-tank missiles north of the UNRWA compound", which posed threat to IDF forces in the area. IDF implemented an effective smokescreen as a protective measure in response, anticipating only "limited risk to civilians in relation to this operational advantage"."

Eclectic Infidel Thu, Oct 4, 2012 1:01:55pm

This is the sort of title one would expect to read on a news blurb from Al Awda, Code Pink, or International ANSWER. Just sayin'. No disrespect meant to the messenger.

Dark_Falcon Thu, Oct 4, 2012 7:54:52pm

re: #3 ckkatz

Did I miss something?

Date of article: Thursday, January 15, 2009.

From the Wiki blurb,
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
The Israelis believed that they were receiving fire including antitank missile from the vicinity so fired smoke/white phosphorus shells at it. This can set things on fire.

I can field that: IDF doctrine for dealing with infantry deployed Anti-Tank Guided Missiles (ATGMs) since the Yom Kippur War of 1973 has been to use smoke/WP shells to blind the launcher operators. The newer ATGM types Hamas has used (which have included the advanced AT-14 Kornet) pose a deadly threat to infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) from any aspect and can even 'mission-kill' Merkava Main Battle Tanks (MBTs) if they hit the side or rear. Faced with such a threat already aimed at its vehicles, the IDF will simply fire off its smoke screen and worry about the people in the impact area later. Some decisions have to be made and implemented immediately, there being no time to make a moral calculation. As Gen Sherman so well said it "War is cruelty, you cannot refine it."

Timmeh Thu, Oct 4, 2012 9:46:25pm

Thanks for this timely news!

ckkatz Thu, Oct 4, 2012 10:23:03pm

re: #6 Dark_Falcon

My understanding matches your very well done description of the tactics and combat decision making associated with armor against atgm's.

I was, unfortunately, very unclear, for which I apologize. My comment about 'missing something' was referring to the date of the article and of the incident.

Dark_Falcon Thu, Oct 4, 2012 10:42:26pm

re: #8 ckkatz

My understanding matches your very well done description of the tactics and combat decision making associated with armor against atgm's.

I was, unfortunately, very unclear, for which I apologize. My comment about 'missing something' was referring to the date of the article and of the incident.

Not a problem. Thanks.

Sophia77 Thu, Oct 4, 2012 11:36:35pm

What is the point of this outdated post?

Dark_Falcon Fri, Oct 5, 2012 7:14:27am

re: #10 Sophia77