Israeli Newspaper: Is the army capable of admitting to the massacre it committed against the aid convoy in Rafah?

Rogel Alpher

On the night of March 23, a Palestinian convoy, including an ambulance and fire engines, approached an army force in Rafah. The soldiers opened fire, killing 15 aid workers, including paramedics. Several days later, the bodies and mangled vehicles were found buried in the sand. These are the facts everyone agrees on.

The soldiers claimed that the vehicles were moving suspiciously, that they felt threatened, that the dead, for the most part, were linked to Hamas, that they were collected and buried temporarily to prevent dogs and hyenas from eating their bodies, and that Hamas systematically uses rescue vehicles to transport militants. In contrast, Palestinian eyewitnesses claim that the emergency vehicles were marked by their flashing lights, as is customary, and that the victims were executed by shooting at close range, with some bodies found with their limbs bound.

Recently, media outlets in the United States and Britain published information and testimonies supporting the Palestinian account. The New York Times published a video clip found on a mobile phone in the possession of one of the paramedics, which clearly shows that the convoy clearly identified itself: the emergency lights were on when the forces opened fire. The clip shows the sound of gunfire gradually approaching over a period of five minutes, and at one point, soldiers are heard passing by the paramedics, while the paramedic who filmed the video prays for his life. He was later found shot in the head. Apparently, the testimonies raise allegations of a massacre of aid workers, a war crime, but the Israeli military continues to deny it. In this context, it is worth noting that the force that opened fire was from the Golani Brigade, and on the eve of re-entering the Gaza Strip, a Golani battalion commander told his soldiers: "Everyone we encounter is an enemy. We identify someone, and we eliminate him." Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir ordered an investigation. But can the IDF admit that it committed a massacre against aid workers? Can the IDF spokesperson appear on television and say, in Hebrew and English, that the army apologizes for the killing of 15 innocent aid workers? Can he admit that some of them were tied up and executed at point-blank range? Can he admit that the soldiers lied? Such a public admission, including a commitment to the international community to stop treating Palestinian rescue and aid teams as Hamas operatives, would make it much more difficult for the new Chief of Staff to act in the Gaza Strip as he did on the night of March 18, when he ordered a massive airstrike that ended in the indiscriminate killing of hundreds of innocent Palestinian children, women, and men. This would force not only the army, but all of Israeli society, to recognize that not everyone encountered is an enemy, and that it is not permissible to exterminate everyone we see. But Israeli society is incapable of acknowledging this, and a reaction similar to the Elor Azaria affair [the soldier accused of shooting a wounded Palestinian man in the head as he lay on the ground] would erupt: Public opinion and the government would cry out that restricting the army's actions for legal reasons endangers soldiers' lives. According to the Israeli view, all residents of Gaza are "monsters," even those who work for aid organizations, even their own children. Everyone deserves a bullet to the head at point-blank range, or a missile in the living room. Since the army claims that Hamas uses rescue vehicles to transport militants, every rescue vehicle is automatically considered a target to be destroyed, whether its emergency lights are on or not. There is no sympathy for the Gazans. Even for the Gazan who actually works for a relief organization, whose legs were shackled and who was shot in the head at point-blank range while praying for life. The deep problem, which no investigation can fix, is that Israeli society views the massacre not as a war crime, but as an act of self-defense.