By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a recent incident, an Israeli strike on a water collection point in the Nuseirat refugee camp resulted in the deaths of 10 Palestinians, including six children, with 17 others wounded. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) stated that the intended target was an Islamic Jihad militant, but a technical error caused the munition to fall short of its intended target. The IDF has launched a review of the incident and expressed regret for any harm to uninvolved civilians. These latest strikes occurred amidst faltering ceasefire negotiations in Doha, with disagreements over withdrawal terms, humanitarian aid, and a permanent end to the war.
Read the original article here
IDF blames “technical error” after Gaza officials say children collecting water killed in strike. The news, as it often does, is jarring. It’s a story that repeats itself with a grim regularity, and it’s hard not to feel a deep sense of weariness when yet another incident of this kind surfaces. The official response, the “technical error” explanation, feels particularly hollow when the accusations involve the deaths of children.
It seems impossible to overlook the pattern here. The frequency with which these “technical errors” are reported, particularly in the context of a conflict, raises serious questions. How can such mistakes keep happening, especially with the advanced surveillance capabilities that are supposedly available? The use of live HD video feeds from drones should, in theory, offer a level of precision that would drastically reduce the likelihood of these kinds of tragedies. The constant repetition of these events starts to erode any trust in the explanations provided.
This repetitive cycle fosters a sense of outrage among those who witness the events. The fact that children are the victims makes the situation even worse. It becomes difficult to maintain respect for those who support the war when they appear to dismiss the human cost so casually. This is a stark reminder that any conflict is a complex endeavor, with many different aspects and variables at play.
The argument that “it’s just an error” is a convenient, but ultimately inadequate, excuse. Military errors can have devastating real-world consequences, as highlighted by the tragic events in Gaza. While everyone agrees that any war has a significant human cost, the claim that it’s all “an error” seems like a significant underestimation of the complexity and the ethical implications of the event, as well as a dismissal of the pain felt by so many. It’s worth noting that, as the conflict continues, the pattern of these alleged “errors” can start to seem deliberate, rather than accidental.
The history of this conflict is long, and it contains many instances that mirror these events. The bombing of the Bahr El-Baqar primary school in Egypt in 1970 serves as a grim reminder of the past, and a sad parallel to the present. The Defense Minister’s statement at the time is a chilling echo of the kind of explanations offered today. The fact that similar incidents continue to occur is a source of pain for everyone, even if one agrees that military actions are sometimes necessary.
The repeated use of the “technical error” defense also gives rise to questions about accountability and consequences. In many instances, such errors would be unacceptable in civilian contexts, with repercussions that are often very serious. However, the very nature of the conflict means that nobody is held to account. The world is filled with a multitude of issues, from internal politics to global conflicts, so the attention of the world can be short-lived, and there are many people in the world who have been affected by tragic events.
The claim of “technical error” is made even more suspect when considering that military campaigns rely on extreme precision. Many military operations use complex and precise tactics, with teams of people working together to achieve their goal. The fact that, in the midst of those maneuvers, there are continuous errors that result in the loss of innocent lives suggests that the level of training and precision are not up to par. The truth is, when such a high number of “errors” are reported, it seems like a convenient way to cover up for a lack of care.
The arguments surrounding the war often fall into a pattern of blame, with those on both sides accusing the other of being the primary problem. The argument that one side is hiding weapons in civilian infrastructure highlights the complicated nature of urban warfare, where the lines between combatants and civilians become dangerously blurred. The suggestion that a conflict can only end when one side has capitulated ignores the complexities of political realities, and it also suggests that this is a war that may continue for a while.
It’s easy to see how this pattern of events could lead to desensitization. The sheer volume of news about the conflict, and the ongoing repetition of the tragic events, can cause those watching to lose their ability to care about the suffering of others. The statement, “Bad look after bad look, this is happening weekly if not every couple days at this point,” suggests a general acceptance of the terrible consequences, and that the world has come to expect these events to happen.
The only real solution is to end the war, but the war cannot end until the underlying issues that caused it are addressed. The idea that one side must completely surrender is not a viable solution, since it only encourages the other side to continue fighting. However, the hostages have to be released. If the war is going to end, both sides are going to have to come to terms, and the sooner that happens, the better. It is the only way to stop the conflict, even if it means a less-than-ideal resolution.
The overall pattern of responses to these events, the lack of consequences, and the repeated use of the “technical error” excuse makes one thing very clear. It is time for everyone involved to recognize that it’s time to come to terms and end this conflict.