The UN accepts trash report to trash Israel. [Archive]

boyntonstu

16th October 2009, 06:18 AM

The UN accepts trash report to trash Israel.

UN votes to endorse Gaza report

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8310754.stm

The UN human rights body has endorsed a report into Israel's offensive in Gaza which accuses both Israel and Palestinian militants of war crimes.
The report by Richard Goldstone calls for credible investigations by Israel and Hamas, and international war crimes prosecutions if they fail to do that. ….

Compared to:

Double Standard Watch: Goldstone backs away from report: The two faces of an international poseur

http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/dershowi...ay_from_report

With so much (though not all) of the civilized world justly condemning (or ignoring) the Goldstone Report for its distortion of the facts and its one-sided condemnation of Israel, Richard Goldstone himself now seems to be backing away from the report's conclusions - at least when he speaks to his Jewish audiences.

In an interview with The Jewish Daily Forward, Goldstone denied that his group had conducted "an investigation." Instead, it was what he called a "fact-finding mission" based largely on the limited "material we had." Since this "material" was cherry-picked by Hamas guides and spokesmen, Goldstone acknowledged that "if this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven." He emphasized to the Forward that the report was no more than "a road map" for real investigators and that it contained no actual "evidence," of wrongdoing by Israel.

If I had submitted this report in college, I doubt that it would rate a high as a “D”.

Oliver

16th October 2009, 06:23 AM

Dramaqueens

Cleon

16th October 2009, 06:23 AM

The UN human rights body has endorsed a report into Israel's offensive in Gaza which accuses both Israel and Palestinian militants of war crimes.

*snip*

With so much (though not all) of the civilized world justly condemning (or ignoring) the Goldstone Report for its distortion of the facts and its one-sided condemnation of Israel,

Sounds like you need to make up your mind.

boyntonstu

16th October 2009, 06:29 AM

Oliver

16th October 2009, 06:43 AM

Still Dramaqueens.

16th October 2009, 07:06 AM

Sounds like you need to make up your mind.

wanted to point out the same contradiction.

pointing fingers on both sides = onesided antisemitic propaganda.

16th October 2009, 07:09 AM

The report by Richard Goldstone calls for credible investigations

indeeed dramaqueens

quixotecoyote

16th October 2009, 07:12 AM

Sounds like you need to make up your mind.

I haven't read it, but I can easily see accusations against both sides being one-sided, depending on the nature and severity of the accusations, as well as the underlying reality of the situiaton.

Oliver

16th October 2009, 07:17 AM

indeeed dramaqueens

No no, I was referring to all the whining and pathetic begging as if the report is more threatening to Israel than Iran's imaginary Nukes. :p

E.J.Armstrong

16th October 2009, 07:40 AM

'...The UN Human Rights Council has backed a report into the Israeli offensive in Gaza that accuses both Israel and Palestinian militants of war crimes.
The report by Richard Goldstone calls for credible investigations by Israel and Hamas, and suggests international war crimes prosecutions if they do not. ...'

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8310754.stm

Is the accused declaring themselves to be innocent what is meant by a 'credible' investigation?

Here's to truly 'credible' investigations and if none are forthcoming to trials before the International Criminal Court for all the guilty people - whatever position they held at the time of the Gaza offensive.

Fishstick

16th October 2009, 08:08 AM

Countdown to "anti-semitic/anti-semite".

WildCat

16th October 2009, 08:27 AM

I haven't read it, but I can easily see accusations against both sides being one-sided, depending on the nature and severity of the accusations, as well as the underlying reality of the situiaton.
Exactly. It condemns Hamas only for launching rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, while saying nothing of their using schools, mosques, and other civilian buildings as fighting positions and weapons stores. Instead, it condemns Israel for attacking those places which Hamas turned into legitimate military targets.

Goldstone et al never even asked the Hamas members if they were using those places for fighting positions and weapons stores, but rather simply accepted their claims at face value without any follow-up. Even though at the time Hamas bragged about how they were using civilians as shields, a clear violation of the Laws of Armed Conflict.

The Goldstone report is a sham.

Marc39

16th October 2009, 08:30 AM

The US will block the Security Council from taking any real actions against Israel.

Further, Mahmoud Abbas has agreed to, essentially, dismiss the report as a precondition for statehood negotiations with Israel.

Goldstone, under widespread criticism, is now back-pedaling on his report, conceding it is a deeply flawed document with no proof of Israeli human rights violations.

Cleon

16th October 2009, 08:32 AM

I haven't read it, but I can easily see accusations against both sides being one-sided, depending on the nature and severity of the accusations, as well as the underlying reality of the situiaton.

Doesn't make sense. If it attacks both sides, it cannot be one-sided. By definition.

It seems to me that the criticism is that people want the report to be one-sided; one-sided in its condemnation of Hamas, but no condemnation of Israel.

It's ass-backwards.

16th October 2009, 08:33 AM

quixotecoyote

16th October 2009, 08:37 AM

Marc39

16th October 2009, 08:37 AM

Doesn't make sense. If it attacks both sides, it cannot be one-sided. By definition.

It seems to me that the criticism is that people want the report to be one-sided; one-sided in its condemnation of Hamas, but no condemnation of Israel.

It's ass-backwards.

Goldstone is now admitting the report is one-sided. Most of the criticism, unfounded, is directed against Israel.

Indeed, the original mandate of the commission was to investigate Israel only.

Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland and a critic of Israel, turned down the original offer to head up the commission, declaring it a political mission, not a humanitarian one. She has been proven prescient.

WildCat

16th October 2009, 08:42 AM

Doesn't make sense. If it attacks both sides, it cannot be one-sided. By definition.

It seems to me that the criticism is that people want the report to be one-sided; one-sided in its condemnation of Hamas, but no condemnation of Israel.

It's ass-backwards.
It certainly can be. By your reasoning the Giants-Raiders game last week, won by the Giants 44-7, wasn't one-sided because the Raiders scored a touchdown.

IOW, it can be one-sided even though it condemns Hamas in one instance.

In fact, Goldstone et al only interviewed Hamas and reported their claims as fact, without any sort of follow-up questions. To paraphrase:

Goldstone: Did Israeli mortar shells land next to a school?

Hamas: Yes, yes they did, those zionist bastards!

Goldstone: OMGWTF, war crime!1!!!!!!11!!!

Never mind that Hamas was fighting from the school.

One-sided.

bigjelmapro

16th October 2009, 08:46 AM

Lol. Iran's 'imaginary nukes'. Seems someone is being totally oblivious to Iran's current and past actions/programs when it comes to nuclear technology.

Basic primer on the issues with the Goldstone report:

House of Cards: NGOs and the Goldstone Report (http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/_house_of_cards_ngos_and_the_goldstone_report)

Its pretty straightforward. And as I've stated in the other threads where this is the main topic, even B'tselem has said the report is false.

Goldstone has no weight to throw around, and more importantly, neither does the HRW, which, as I've listened to one of their meetings, calls the genocide in Sudan an 'irregularity'.

quixotecoyote

16th October 2009, 08:53 AM

Heck, I'll dismiss it because the link's broken. :p

Well well mr quickfingers, you seem to have fixed it.

16th October 2009, 08:53 AM

Darat

16th October 2009, 08:56 AM

Merged duplicate threads - hopefully it won't cause too much confusion.

Marc39

16th October 2009, 08:58 AM

LOL

yeah we dont need no evidence of Iran's Nukes
but we need evidence when it comes to pointing out Israels wrong doing.

There is infinitely greater evidence--incontrovertible evidence--of Hamas wrongdoing.

I recommend you study the facts.

Pardalis

16th October 2009, 09:12 AM

So basically the report is asking Israel and Hamas to make independent investigations on themselves?

Does Hamas keep records of its activities? Who is going to investigate Hamas?

16th October 2009, 09:17 AM

So basically the report is asking Israel and Hamas to make independent investigations on themselves?

Does Hamas keep records of its activities? Who is going to investigate Hamas?

and who is going to investigate the IDF?

Pardalis

16th October 2009, 09:19 AM

and who is going to investigate the IDF?

I don't know, I'm sure there are plenty of organizations who could do it, at least it seems far more feasible than to investigate Hamas.

Marc39

16th October 2009, 09:20 AM

So basically the report is asking Israel and Hamas to make independent investigations on themselves?

Correct.

Does Hamas keep records of its activities? Who is going to investigate Hamas?

Hamas are terrorists who, as documented by the Palestinian Centre For Human Rights, are complicit in the beating, torture and murder of Palestinians.

They couldn't care less.

16th October 2009, 09:21 AM

I don't know, I'm sure there are plenty of organizations who could do it, at least it seems far more feasible than to investigate Hamas.

well , cannot disagree with that :)

Darth Rotor

16th October 2009, 10:45 AM

The report by Richard Goldstone calls for credible investigations by Israel and Hamas, and suggests international war crimes prosecutions if they do not.

On the one hand that sounds like a reasonable call for the two parties to act responsibly, on the other hand, it sounds like a witch hunt.

"We know someone did it, now going and do an investigation that proves us right ... "

Don't know enough about Mr Goldstone to know if he's got any agenda here.

Be interested in seeing Hamas and Israeli responses to this.

DR

Doctor Evil

16th October 2009, 11:19 AM

Marc39

16th October 2009, 11:28 AM

By the way, this latest UN Human rights council resolution only talks about Israel's violations.

Which is why Mary Robinson rejected the original assignment that was given Goldstone. She remarked it was politically driven. Goldstone convinced the UN to broaden the mandate to include Hamas, however, in the end, Hamas, nevertheless, received short shrift.

Tin Foil Timothy

16th October 2009, 11:42 AM

Marc39

16th October 2009, 11:45 AM

Indeed, and who is going to investigate Israel? Israel can't do it as that would be much use as a chocolate fireguard

Who investigates the US military?

Tin Foil Timothy

16th October 2009, 11:51 AM

Have to disagree here.

There is a question of the degree of criticism labeled at the sides. Even if both sides deserve criticism, if one gets more than it deserves while the other less, the report should still considered one-sided.

By the way, this latest UN Human rights council resolution only talks about Israel's violations.

Well I agree the report is one sided. And so it should be the genocide and war crimes committed by Israel is so a huge magnitude in comparison to Hamas. Only 13 Israelis were killed and IIRC 7 of those was friendly fire. So Hamas killed about 6 Israelis. And unlike Israel shooting dead old ladies and children who were holding up white flags I don't believe any of those 6 people Hamas killed were holding up white flags.

So yes damn right it was one sided and so it should have been. It looks like a fair report to me and the UN huiman rights Council was right to back it.

Here's the run down on the countries that did or did not participate in the vote ....

For: Argentina, Brazil, China, Russia and 21 others

Against: US, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovakia and Ukraine

Abstentions: Belgium, Bosnia, Burkina-Faso, Cameroon, Gabon, Japan, Mexico, Norway, South Korea, Slovenia and Uruguay

No vote: UK, France and 3 others

It's hardly surprising the US, being Israel's lapdog voted against isn't it.

A short extract from the BBC article:

In contrast, the Israeli government had lobbied intensively against the resolution, saying the Goldstone report was biased against Israel and removed the right of nations to defend themselves against terrorists.

What a load of horse feces!! 'Defend themselves against terrorists'. Israel deliberately destroyed the previous ceasefire in November 2008 in order to mount this disgusting genocidal attack on people it considers to be racially inferior.

This UN vote is clearly showing the world is not buying Israel's pathetic lies of being a victim anymore.

Hurrah for the UN!!!

WildCat

16th October 2009, 01:48 PM

It's mind boggling you claim that it isn't a breaking of the ceasefire. Israel deliberately entering Gaza to cause trouble and ended up killing Palestinians.
So they should have left the tunnel intact?

MikeMangum

16th October 2009, 02:08 PM

Captain.Sassy

16th October 2009, 02:24 PM

{transpose}
Never mind that Hamas was fighting from the school.
{transpose}

Goldstone: Did Israeli mortar shells land next to a school?

Hamas: Yes, yes they did, those zionist bastards!

Goldstone: OMGWTF, war crime!1!!!!!!11!!!

LOL

What, did they miss?

Israel: so good all the time that even when they shell Hamas soldiers in a school they still don't shell the school.

WildCat

16th October 2009, 02:25 PM

LOL

What, did they miss?

Israel: so good all the time that even when they shell Hamas soldiers in a school they still don't shell the school.
:p

Marc39

16th October 2009, 02:31 PM

LOL

What, did they miss?

Israel: so good all the time that even when they shell Hamas soldiers in a school they still don't shell the school.

What was Hamas doing in the school, in the first place? Last time I checked, that constituted a flagrant violation of international law.

MikeMangum

16th October 2009, 02:40 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/world/middleeast/05mideast.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=%2Bisrael+%2Btunnel&st=nyt

This is "destroying the cease-fire" according to Tin Foil Timothy.

Mind-boggling. :boggled:

I'm not sure I understand how this whole "cease-fire" thingy works. It appears to me that Hamas lobbing rockets into Israel doesn't violate a "cease-fire", only Israel can do that. Hamas can reduce its attacks against Israel and not break a cease-fire. If Israel responds to rocket and mortar attacks by firing at the launch sites of the attacks, that "breaks" the cease fire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rock_mort_gaza_2008.JPG

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but a cease-fire seems to mean "Hamas can shoot at Israel, but Israel can't shoot back".

Captain.Sassy

16th October 2009, 02:41 PM

Marc39

16th October 2009, 02:47 PM

@Marc39

I dunno, fighting a war? Were there kids in the school at the time? Is it always a war crime to fight from a school building?

Hamas's junkyard tactics of violating key rules of war are well-known...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WssrKJ3Iqcw

MikeMangum

16th October 2009, 03:05 PM

@Marc39

I dunno, fighting a war? Were there kids in the school at the time? Is it always a war crime to fight from a school building?

"In mid-May, American forces entered and occupied the district center, displacing the insurgents. They set up a makeshift camp among the devastated buildings – one pockmarked structure, ravaged by frequent mortar fire, is an abandoned school, while another is an empty office. A small contingent of Afghan police and Army took up residence in the other buildings."

http://anandgopal.com/us-troops-in-afghanistan-face-tough-battle-making-clear-hold-build-work/

There is allowance for "military necessity" - a hospital that happens to dominate the approaches to a bridge, for instance. The red cross marking it as a protected place must be removed and theoretically all patients must be removed as well. I don't know if schools themselves are specifically prohibited from use (hospitals, places of worship, and cultural treasures like museums being specifically prohibited), but there is a large distinction between using a prohibited place as a necessity and using it by choice specifically because it is a protected place. It is the exact same distinction between civilian casualties that happen by accident (assuming care is taken to minimize them) and purposefully inflicting civilian casualties.

For example, Soldier A from belligerant A grabs a civilian and holds that civilian in front of them as a human shield. Soldier B from belligerant B throws a grenade, killing Soldier A and the civilian. Soldier A is the one who committed the war crime.

Tin Foil Timothy

16th October 2009, 03:30 PM

I'm not sure I understand how this whole "cease-fire" thingy works. It appears to me that Hamas lobbing rockets into Israel doesn't violate a "cease-fire", only Israel can do that. Hamas can reduce its attacks against Israel and not break a cease-fire. If Israel responds to rocket and mortar attacks by firing at the launch sites of the attacks, that "breaks" the cease fire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rock_mort_gaza_2008.JPG

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but a cease-fire seems to mean "Hamas can shoot at Israel, but Israel can't shoot back".

Well if you look at the data of Hamas rockets fired into Israel you posted you'll see that following the 'agreement' the number of Hamas rockets went down to a negligable amount. And you'll see that only after Israel's actions in november they started to rise again.

Yes there were a few Hamas rockets fired between June and November but over all it a great positive step. A decent approach to peace would be to recognise that great reduction to almost zero rockets and work with it. Unfortunately Israel didn't want peace and stirred things up again in order it could implement it's already planned genocide attack on Gaza.

Israel claims it's offensive was to stop Hams rockets. Of course in reality all it's done is wreck any chances of peace and made things worse. but then that's what Israel wanted.

Israel never kept to the ceasefire agreement in the first place by not keeping to promise to lift the blockade of goods

Marc39

16th October 2009, 03:40 PM

Israel never kept to the ceasefire agreement in the first place by not keeping to promise to lift the blockade of goods

Stop excusing and enabling terrorists. Hamas is now terrorizing Palestinians given the hudna with Israel.

One is known by the friends he keeps.

Thunder

16th October 2009, 04:34 PM

is Hamas a disgusting terror group? yes.

is Hamas right to resist the inhumane and criminal embargo against Gaza? yes.

its quite a pickle over there. that's why I am glad I am right....here.

:)

WildCat

16th October 2009, 05:30 PM

Marc39

16th October 2009, 05:38 PM

Thunder

16th October 2009, 05:58 PM

There is no honor among Muslim psychopaths.

There is honor in using tanks and fighter planes against boys with rocks and hand guns?

if there was any honor in the Middle East, the Palestinians and Israelis would just meet on the Plains of Sharon and settle this like men.

mortimer

16th October 2009, 06:16 PM

is Hamas a disgusting terror group? yes.

is Hamas right to resist the inhumane and criminal embargo against Gaza? yes.

its quite a pickle over there. that's why I am glad I am right....here.

:)
It is completely within Hamas' power to have the embargo lifted. All they need to do is relinquish power to a party that hasn't called for the genocide of Jews.

Doctor Evil

16th October 2009, 06:24 PM

It is completely within Hamas' power to have the embargo lifted. All they need to do is relinquish power to a party that hasn't called for the genocide of Jews.

Not even that. They could reject violence as a political tool, recognize Israel, support the two states solution, and accept previous agreements.

Of course, there is no chance for any of that.

MikeMangum

16th October 2009, 06:25 PM

It is completely within Hamas' power to have the embargo lifted. All they need to do is relinquish power to a party that hasn't called for the genocide of Jews.

Hell, they wouldn't even have to relinquish power. All they would have to do is officially state that Israel has a right to exist, officially recognize the Israeli government as the legitimate government of Israel, and agree to final status negotiations.

Marc39

16th October 2009, 06:29 PM

Hell, they wouldn't even have to relinquish power. All they would have to do is officially state that Israel has a right to exist, officially recognize the Israeli government as the legitimate government of Israel, and agree to final status negotiations.

Easier said than done. With hundreds of commandments in Islamic law ordering the killing of Jews, no Muslim leader in the Middle East can declare peace with Israel.

It's simply against Islamic doctrine to permit a non-Muslim state to exist, particularly, in proximity to 25 Arab Muslim countries.

Thunder

16th October 2009, 06:38 PM

Easier said than done. With hundreds of commandments in Islamic law ordering the killing of Jews, no Muslim leader in the Middle East can declare peace with Israel. .

#1. there are not "hundreds" of commandments in Islamic law ordering the killing of Jews. this is a bigoted lie.

#2. King Hussein and his father have made peace with Israel. Egypt has made peace with Israel. And if Israel did the right thing, many more Muslim states would make peace with Israel even BEFORE a final peace treaty with the Palestinians.

Thunder

16th October 2009, 06:41 PM

It is completely within Hamas' power to have the embargo lifted. All they need to do is relinquish power to a party that hasn't called for the genocide of Jews.

oh, wait, so the embargo is not to protect Israelis? the embargo is in place to force the Palestinian people to suffer until they rebel against Hamas.

I see.

You know, I have to say, if the true aim of the inhumane and debilitating Israeli embargo upon Gaza is to force a political goal, then this is the first act of true terrorism I have witnessed from Israel.

Terrorism is the use of violence, intimidation, or passive violence, in order to achieve a military or political goal. Hence, the embargo upon Gaza is a terrorist act.

WildCat

16th October 2009, 06:45 PM

oh, wait, so the embargo is not to protect Israelis? the embargo is in place to force the Palestinian people to suffer until they rebel against Hamas.

I see.

You know, I have to say, if the true aim of the inhumane and debilitating Israeli embargo upon Gaza is to force a political goal, then this is the first act of true terrorism I have witnessed from Israel.

Terrorism is the use of violence, intimidation, or passive violence, in order to achieve a military or political goal. Hence, the embargo upon Gaza is a terrorist act.
No, the embargo is there because the rulers of Gaza have declared they are at war with Israel. Frankly, Israel would be well within its rights to blockade Gaza completely.

MikeMangum

16th October 2009, 06:53 PM

oh, wait, so the embargo is not to protect Israelis? the embargo is in place to force the Palestinian people to suffer until they rebel against Hamas.

I see.

You know, I have to say, if the true aim of the inhumane and debilitating Israeli embargo upon Gaza is to force a political goal, then this is the first act of true terrorism I have witnessed from Israel.

Terrorism is the use of violence, intimidation, or passive violence, in order to achieve a military or political goal. Hence, the embargo upon Gaza is a terrorist act.

Wow. It's been a long time since I've seen that level of sophistry. If Hamas renounced violence against Israel and recognized the right of Israel to exist, Israel would have a significantly reduced need to keep weapons out of the hands of Hamas via blockade. So yes, the goal of the embargo is to "protect Israelis".

Thunder

16th October 2009, 06:57 PM

No, the embargo is there because the rulers of Gaza have declared they are at war with Israel. Frankly, Israel would be well within its rights to blockade Gaza completely.

From my reading of the timeline of the situation, it appears that both Israel and Egypt imposed the blockade after Hamas won the elections.

Hence, the catalyst for the blockade was political and NOT due to an attack from Gaza.

And now we all know that the purpose of the continued blockade is to starve the Palestinian people into rebelling against Hamas, or living in utter misery and malnurishment.

Thunder

16th October 2009, 06:59 PM

If Hamas renounced violence against Israel and recognized the right of Israel to exist, Israel would have a significantly reduced need to keep weapons out of the hands of Hamas via blockade. ".

Ah, so, Israel is blockading Hamas from getting weapons from Syrians, Iranians, and Lebanese, who seek to import weapons into Gaza THROUGH ISRAEL.

that makes a whole lot of sense.

furthermore, if the goal of the embargo is simply to protect Israelis and prevent Hamas from getting weapons, why is Israel not allowing in canned food, blankets, many toys, and other militarily irrelevent items???

I call BS.

As I said before, the goal of the embargo is NOT to protect Israelis, but to starve the Palestinians into rebelling against Hamas.

So now the Palestinians have a choice: they can kneal to Israeli demands and attempt to push out Hamas, or they can remain defiant but live in misery.

Some say it is better to Live Free or Die. Some say it is better to die on your feet then live on your knees. I just don't know.

Marc39

16th October 2009, 07:01 PM

Wow. It's been a long time since I've seen that level of sophistry. If Hamas renounced violence against Israel and recognized the right of Israel to exist, Israel would have a significantly reduced need to keep weapons out of the hands of Hamas via blockade. So yes, the goal of the embargo is to "protect Israelis".

Thomas Friedman, who has covered the Middle East extensively for the NY Times and who also tends to lean in support of the Palestinians, remarked during the Gaza war that upon Israel's evacuation of Gaza, Palestinians had the opportunity to create their own Singapore, but, instead, they chose to create their own Somalia.

WildCat

16th October 2009, 07:09 PM

From my reading of the timeline of the situation, it appears that both Israel and Egypt imposed the blockade after Hamas won the elections.
And Hamas is at war with Israel.

Tin Foil Timothy

16th October 2009, 07:15 PM

And Hamas is at war with Israel.

Well wouldn't you be at war with someone who had driven you and friends and family from your land, bulldozed you homes to make way for homes for people of a 'superior DNA' and then ghettoized you in a small enclave and then denied you basic goods. Oh and not to mention the odd genocide and destruction.

Thunder

16th October 2009, 07:19 PM

Sporanox

16th October 2009, 07:19 PM

Marc39

16th October 2009, 07:27 PM

You are clearly clueless and parky is right the blockade/embargo is to starve and humiliate the Palestinians. And IMO it's becuase they are in Gaza and Gaza is in the way of Israel's colonialist agenda of Palestine.

The hysterics and the drama wear off after a while.

Before the suicide bombings, Israel had been the largest employer of Palestinians and the largest trading partner of Pal businesses. Today, there's a considerable amount of trade between Pals and Israel, so your allegations are really weird and inaccurate.

Israeli investors have approached Hamas with plans to invest billions in turning Gaza into a great resort, only to be turned away. It is Hamas that wants to remain in the Middle Ages.

If Pals dropped their guns, there would be peace.
If Israelis dropped their guns, there would be genocide.

Tin Foil Timothy

16th October 2009, 10:36 PM

If Israel really wanted to occupy all of Palestine, they could easily do it.

They already do apart from the ghetto of Gaza. I would advise getting upto speed with modern geo-politics. Things have changed since 1967!! :D

WildCat

16th October 2009, 10:53 PM

Well wouldn't you be at war with someone who had driven you and friends and family from your land, bulldozed you homes to make way for homes for people of a 'superior DNA' and then ghettoized you in a small enclave and then denied you basic goods. Oh and not to mention the odd genocide and destruction.
Gaza is Jew-free. At that point you'd think Hamas would try to make things better for their people. Instead they choose war, and then Hamas cries and whines and stamps their feet that the people they declared war on won't give them more than the bare necessities. And their useful idiots in the West cry and whine and stamp their little feet over the injustice wrought on those poor innocent Hamas folks who aren't getting candy from the country they have vowed to destroy.

Boo freaking hoo.

Act like a civilized and responsible state and the problems disappear.

bigjelmapro

17th October 2009, 03:15 AM

@Marc39

I dunno, fighting a war? Were there kids in the school at the time? Is it always a war crime to fight from a school building?
I advise you to investigate the issue about the mortar fire from Hamas using a school for cover.

bigjelmapro

17th October 2009, 03:16 AM

So has nobody yet read the link about the errors and bias regarding the Goldstone report? Or we conveniently glossing over this?

Tricky

19th October 2009, 08:00 AM

A number of posts have been moved to AAH for bickering. Because there is so much history and so many MA violations resulting from this kind of thread, I've set the bar pretty low for bickering. Don't say anything about other members or you risk moderation. Discuss the topic only.

Whiplash

19th October 2009, 08:19 AM

There is honor in using tanks and fighter planes against boys with rocks and hand guns?

What, are they supposed to attack in kind? Sending in kids with rocks and handguns?

Parky, you don't think these things through very deeply, do you? What is your opinion of the honorable response?

bigjelmapro

19th October 2009, 10:03 AM

And since this was 'requested' by Parky in regards to Goldstone stating that his report (the one that was accepted by the HRW) is flawed and one-sided:

Le Temps (http://relay.netatlantic.com/t/28644168/69400705/9238/0/)

"This draft resolution saddens me as it includes only allegations against Israel . . . There is not a single phrase condemning Hamas as we have done in the report. I hope that the council can modify the text."

Response?

Thunder

19th October 2009, 11:57 AM

And since this was 'requested' by Parky in regards to Goldstone stating that his report (the one that was accepted by the HRW) is flawed and one-sided:

Le Temps (http://relay.netatlantic.com/t/28644168/69400705/9238/0/)

Response?

hmmm.......that does change things a bit. i did assume that since both Israel and Hamas have been accused of war crimes by HRW and AI, the UN vote would also lay blaim evenly.

if ONLY Israel is accused in this report, and Hamas' firing of unguided missiles into Israeli civilian areas is completely disregarded, then the UN vote is indeed crap.

however, the Goldstone report is still highly praiseworthy.

bigjelmapro

20th October 2009, 01:05 AM

a_unique_person

20th October 2009, 05:32 AM

The Goldstone report is not a report in itself. There's many problems to it even before it was started. Its highly selective and gives credence to a number of cut and paste sources and sources directly connected to Hamas. So not highly praiseworthy.

*EDIT* Lol, just noticed Parky's suspended. Why?

He did ask for help.

Israel's decision not to cooperate with the Goldstone Mission, and, in many respects, to actively hamper its work, was calamitous. In revealing correspondence pointedly reproduced in the report, Justice Goldstone all but gets down on hands and knees to beg Israel to allow it to balance the report with on-site visits to rocket-torn Sderot, extensive direct testimony from victims of Qassam attacks, and first-person accounts and explanations of soldiers accused of violations of international law. Israel says no. Benjamin Netanyahu won't even go so far as to answer Goldstone's letter.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1121054.html

Part of a pattern, perhaps. Manage the facts, don't face up to them.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1122006.html

The Ministry of Education has taken the unusual step of collecting all copies of the history textbook, "Nationalism: Building a State in the Middle East" which was published about two months ago by the Zalman Shazar Center. They will be returned to the shelves only after corrections are made to the text, particularly with reference to the War of Independence.

The book had already been approved by the ministry.

"Collecting the books from the shops is an unnecessary [form of] censorship," said Dr. Tsafrir Goldberg, who wrote the controversial chapter on the war. "The process of approving the text was completed in serious fashion from both the pedagogic and the historic points of view. The fact that the education minister changed does not mean that it is possible to bypass this procedure."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gif

On September 22, Haaretz reported that the textbook, which is meant for 11th and 12th-grades, for the first time presented the Palestinian claim that there had been ethnic cleansing in 1948.

Darth Rotor

20th October 2009, 05:42 AM

I don't know if schools themselves are specifically prohibited from use (hospitals, places of worship, and cultural treasures like museums being specifically prohibited),
No, the buildings are not a special structure. (A school here and there may be marked as special historical heritage site of whatever, but that isn't the question at hand). The general provision is that warring parties should try to get non combatants out of an area when they set up a fighting position. This general provision applies to that and any other mundane civic building. Hospitals and their special protected status are voided if you set up a fighting position in a hospital.

However, if Hamas does not feel bound by the conventions, they won't train their people to act accordingly when fighting in and around non combatants. No surprise, as they are not a professional fighting force.

DR

Darth Rotor

20th October 2009, 05:46 AM

From my reading of the timeline of the situation, it appears that both Israel and Egypt imposed the blockade after Hamas won the elections.

Hence, the catalyst for the blockade was political and NOT due to an attack from Gaza.

He didn't say attack, he said declaration of war. Even the UN recognizes a blockade as a device used between co-belligerents.
No, the embargo is there because the rulers of Gaza have declared they are at war with Israel.
That is what Wildcat said. The actions of Hamas, in firing rockets into Israeli territory (whether you feel that a justified moritvation or not) combined with some of their rhetoric is probably sufficient to indicate that a state of belligerency exists, or existed during that period.

Would I have said "Hamas declared war" on Israel? Probably not, as most folks don't bother with that legal nicety any more. Seems to have become colloquialism in spite of itself.

DR

WildCat

20th October 2009, 06:18 AM

However, if Hamas does not feel bound by the conventions, they won't train their people to act accordingly when fighting in and around non combatants. No surprise, as they are not a professional fighting force.

DR
Quite the opposite, they do in fact train their militias, except they train them to use civilians and civilian infrastructure as shields. IIRC they used the basement of a hospital as their headquarters during Operation Cast Lead.

That wasn't a coincidence.

Darth Rotor

20th October 2009, 08:13 AM

Quite the opposite, they do in fact train their militias, except they train them to use civilians and civilian infrastructure as shields. IIRC they used the basement of a hospital as their headquarters during Operation Cast Lead.

That wasn't a coincidence.
Being trained is not the same as being a professional, but I wasn't being as precise as I might have been. A profession is a particular vocation that includes having a higher calling of service to others. Don't want to derail beyond that, but there is a non-trivial difference between the professional military forces of, say, Japan, Netherlands, Israel, Russia, US, and Thailand, and Hamas.

There are actually formal rules and general habits of adherence to both domestic and international law, and custom, imbedded in the former. That does not follow in the latter.

DR

WildCat

20th October 2009, 09:19 AM

Being trained is not the same as being a professional, but I wasn't being as precise as I might have been. A profession is a particular vocation that includes having a higher calling of service to others. Don't want to derail beyond that, but there is a non-trivial difference between the professional military forces of, say, Japan, Netherlands, Israel, Russia, US, and Thailand, and Hamas.

There are actually formal rules and general habits of adherence to both domestic and international law, and custom, imbedded in the former. That does not follow in the latter.

DR
Exactly.

But guess who gets called out by the UN?

IDB87

20th October 2009, 09:47 AM

Exactly.

But guess who gets called out by the UN?

Would that be because the U.N. is more about keeping a leash on countries like the U.S. and Israel instead of groups like Hamas? I mean, there is very little the U.N. can do about terrorist groups outside of condemnation (as we've all seen in their military ineptitude), but it has jurisdiction with countries that adhere to its principals, or at least agree in part with what it stands for.

You can't be a member of the U.N. without being the focus point of negative attention now and again. That's kind of the whole point.

Eyeron

20th October 2009, 09:50 AM

Darth Rotor

20th October 2009, 12:51 PM

You can't be a member of the U.N. without being the focus point of negative attention now and again. That's kind of the whole point.
Yes, so what is the UN to do about Hamas? Condone it's actions? How about UN use the blue helmet and blue hull approach, as was used against those bickering bastidges in Yugoslavia as it broke up -- implement a UN supported economic sanctions/embargo against the illegal aggression of Hamas? (I am not sure if Hamas is a legit government or not, but I am pretty sure it qualifies as such, given elections and all that).

Gee, there's a novel thought. :cool: Why stick the Israelis and Egyptians with all of the bad publicity? ;)

DR

WildCat

20th October 2009, 01:08 PM

Col. Richard Kemp on the U.N. Goldstone Report:

NX6vyT8RzMo

Must be a Zionist shill. ;)

IDB87

20th October 2009, 01:35 PM

Yes, so what is the UN to do about Hamas? Condone it's actions?

Certainly not. But, is it the job of the U.N. to bemoan every terrorist group that sprouts up?

How about UN use the blue helmet and blue hull approach, as was used against those bickering bastidges in Yugoslavia as it broke up

I'm not completly familair with that conflict - but it seems all the U.N. did was peacekeeping efforts as the country stablizied (not disparaging their efforts). Is that what is needed in Israel/Palestine?

-- implement a UN supported economic sanctions/embargo against the illegal aggression of Hamas?

Since there is already a blockade against Gaza by the IDF, this would seem redundant. But, perhaps the U.N. could get behind Israel, if they haven't already, since it is a legal action.

(I am not sure if Hamas is a legit government or not, but I am pretty sure it qualifies as such, given elections and all that).

As far as the U.N. is concerned, I don't think so - Hamas is not a member, and the PLO represenative was changed to 'Palestine' back in I think the 90s, and that is only as an 'observer'.

A big shrug from me anyway.

*edit*

PLO status in the U.N. changed to 'Palestine (observer)' in the 70s, not the 90s. :X

a_unique_person

20th October 2009, 03:52 PM

He didn't say attack, he said declaration of war. Even the UN recognizes a blockade as a device used between co-belligerents.

That is what Wildcat said. The actions of Hamas, in firing rockets into Israeli territory (whether you feel that a justified moritvation or not) combined with some of their rhetoric is probably sufficient to indicate that a state of belligerency exists, or existed during that period.

Would I have said "Hamas declared war" on Israel? Probably not, as most folks don't bother with that legal nicety any more. Seems to have become colloquialism in spite of itself.

DR

There has been an ongoing, low level war for for about 40 years now, at various levels. An adverse military occupation is an act of war in itself. Why do we keep hoping peace talks will get some results?

The Fool

20th October 2009, 04:38 PM

It just seems to me that when Israel gets shelled for months causing millions of dollars in damage and many casualties and a few fatalities for months and months then when Israel acts to defend itself then all of a sudden war crimes.

How telling. And saddening.
well, that really depends on what "defending itself" refers to. All notions are entitled to defend themselves but no nation is entitled to do whatever they wish to "defend themself". Its all a matter of opinion as to what actions are appropriate, what are not appropriate, what are legitimate and what are war crimes. Thats what this report is all about.

Taking military action against people attacking you is one thing.....but if you take it to a silly extreme then spreading sarin all over Gaza would stop the rocketing but obviously that would be a warcrime.....there does have to be a limit doesn't there? Thats what this report is all about.

WildCat

20th October 2009, 10:23 PM

An Op-Ed piece (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1256086895-3oVi3/uybrcqWFkZkog+jg) by 20-year HRW chairman Robert L. Bernstein:
Israel, with a population of 7.4 million, is home to at least 80 human rights organizations, a vibrant free press, a democratically elected government, a judiciary that frequently rules against the government, a politically active academia, multiple political parties and, judging by the amount of news coverage, probably more journalists per capita than any other country in the world — many of whom are there expressly to cover the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Meanwhile, the Arab and Iranian regimes rule over some 350 million people, and most remain brutal, closed and autocratic, permitting little or no internal dissent. The plight of their citizens who would most benefit from the kind of attention a large and well-financed international human rights organization can provide is being ignored as Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division prepares report after report on Israel.

Human Rights Watch has lost critical perspective on a conflict in which Israel has been repeatedly attacked by Hamas and Hezbollah, organizations that go after Israeli citizens and use their own people as human shields. These groups are supported by the government of Iran, which has openly declared its intention not just to destroy Israel but to murder Jews everywhere. This incitement to genocide is a violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Pretty damning, read the whole thing.

The Fool

21st October 2009, 01:16 AM

An Op-Ed piece (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1256086895-3oVi3/uybrcqWFkZkog+jg) by 20-year HRW chairman Robert L. Bernstein:

Pretty damning, read the whole thing.
from your link...

"That is why we sought to draw a sharp line between the democratic and nondemocratic worlds"

where would you draw the line?

a_unique_person

21st October 2009, 01:21 AM

bigjelmapro

21st October 2009, 05:17 AM

He did ask for help.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1121054.html

Not quite. This commission made accusations and already pointed the finger of guilt at Israel before they stepped foot in the region. This was the reason why Israel, and number of human rights experts (not necessarily Israeli ones before that accusation is made), refused to endorse this commission to investigate the war between Israel and Hamas:

Double Standard Watch: Goldstone investigation undercuts human rights (http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/dershowitz/entry/goldstone_investigation_undercuts_human_rights)

One member of the group is an Hamas lackey who before being appointed as an "objective" judge had already reached the conclusion - without conducting any investigation or hearing any evidence - that Israel's military actions "amount to aggression, not self defense" and that "the manner and scale of its operations in Gaza amount to an act of aggression and is contrary to international law."

So much for objectivity.

Many human rights experts urged her to recuse herself because of her prejudgment, but she was on a mission on behalf of her "client" - Hamas. And she did a good job as an advocate. But as a judge, she employed an Alice-In-Wonderland conception of justice: verdict first, trial to support the verdict.

Other members were accompanied on their investigations in Gaza by actual Hamas activists who showed them only what Hamas wanted them to see. The group was eager to find or manufacture "evidence" to support what the Human Rights Council itself had directed them to find, namely that Israel committed "grave violations of human rights in the occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly due to the recent Israeli military attacks against the occupied Gaza Strip."

This conclusion, too, was reached prior to any investigation.

No wonder so many prominent human rights experts, including Mary Robinson, refused to participate in this mockery of human rights, declaring that it was "guided not by human rights, but by politics." No wonder so many nations that are dedicated to human rights - such as Switzerland, Canada, Japan, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands - refused to go along with the politically motivated witch hunt. They should also refuse to accept the politically motivated, entirely pre-ordained conclusions of the biased report.

But nice attempt at framing this incorrectly, once again. A matter of convenience and your part.

Part of a pattern, perhaps. Manage the facts, don't face up to them.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1122006.html
This has been discussed in a number of threads. No use bringing up the same failed argument in another thread. No need to deflect or falsely compare. I was hoping this tactic died with Parky's account, but apparently not.

Anything else?

bigjelmapro

21st October 2009, 05:22 AM

well, that really depends on what "defending itself" refers to. All notions are entitled to defend themselves but no nation is entitled to do whatever they wish to "defend themself".

Israel didn't.

Its all a matter of opinion as to what actions are appropriate, what are not appropriate, what are legitimate and what are war crimes. Thats what this report is all about.

Nope. There's a reason there are a number of international rules of engagement, Geneva conventions, Roman statutes and so forth created for this very reason.

This report failed to address the actual issues and relies heavily, if not only, on eyewitness reports and mis-sourcing NGO statements, e.g. B'tselem, which a number are quite erroneous to begin with. Hence the rehashing in this report and its sheer failure.

Taking military action against people attacking you is one thing.....but if you take it to a silly extreme then spreading sarin all over Gaza would stop the rocketing but obviously that would be a warcrime.....there does have to be a limit doesn't there? Thats what this report is all about.
Sarin? This is a new accusation. Did you get this from a state-run Iranian news outlet? Or is this more sarcasm?

Darth Rotor

21st October 2009, 05:26 AM

There has been an ongoing, low level war for for about 40 years now, at various levels. An adverse military occupation is an act of war in itself. Why do we keep hoping peace talks will get some results?
That occupation is the result of a war, it is not by itself an act of war. The war that began that is over. (It only took six days). The 1973 war changed somewhat the nature of the territory from war 1967. The response to the remaining occupation is political, which now and again flashes to war, see Intafadas one and two. Gaza is NOT occupied. Gaza is indeed a victory for some of the Pals, politically, and possibly as a result of the flashing now and again to war. Do you consider the Pals in Gaza and Israel to be at war now? The Pals in the West Bank? Are they at war with Israel?

I find your attempts to call something what it isn't pretty disappointing.

No sale.

But maybe you'll be able to show me where Israel and the Pals are at war more clearly. The embargo off of the Gazan coast. If you call that war, was the UN not at war with Iraq for 12 years, from 1991-2003? Are the trade sanctioning nations dealing with Iran now at war with Iran? Was NATO at war with all of Former Yugoslavia during Operations Maritime Guard, Sharp Fence, and Sharp Guard in the Adriatic?

Your "sounds like moral relativism" response to Wildcat made no sense to me. Can you elaborate on that?
These groups are supported by the government of Iran, which has openly declared its intention not just to destroy Israel but to murder Jews everywhere.
Raising skeptical flag here.
That bolded part.
Can you or the author of that piece point to that open declaration of the intent to murder Jews everywhere?

Put another way: is the Jewish couple living a couple of blocks from me in need of my assistance from the attacks by agents of the Iranian government? They are friends of mine, and I don't take kindly to furriners going after my friends.

DR

WildCat

21st October 2009, 06:46 AM

Raising skeptical flag here.
That bolded part.
Can you or the author of that piece point to that open declaration of the intent to murder Jews everywhere?

Put another way: is the Jewish couple living a couple of blocks from me in need of my assistance from the attacks by agents of the Iranian government? They are friends of mine, and I don't take kindly to furriners going after my friends.

DR
Iran and their Hezbollah proxies are the top suspects in the 1994 Jewish cultural center bombing in Argentina which killed 85 people and injured 300.

One of the Iranian suspects, Ahmad Vahidi, is now Ahmadinejad's Minister of Defense.

a_unique_person

21st October 2009, 07:42 AM

Not quite. This commission made accusations and already pointed the finger of guilt at Israel before they stepped foot in the region. This was the reason why Israel, and number of human rights experts (not necessarily Israeli ones before that accusation is made), refused to endorse this commission to investigate the war between Israel and Hamas:

Double Standard Watch: Goldstone investigation undercuts human rights (http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/dershowitz/entry/goldstone_investigation_undercuts_human_rights)

But nice attempt at framing this incorrectly, once again. A matter of convenience and your part.

This has been discussed in a number of threads. No use bringing up the same failed argument in another thread. No need to deflect or falsely compare. I was hoping this tactic died with Parky's account, but apparently not.

Anything else?

Parky is suspended. Israel does find it difficult to face up to it's own history. Censoring school books is a bad look. Saying that it's not as bad as someone else is only moral relativism.

Darth Rotor

21st October 2009, 08:22 AM

Iran and their Hezbollah proxies are the top suspects in the 1994 Jewish cultural center bombing in Argentina which killed 85 people and injured 300.

One of the Iranian suspects, Ahmad Vahidi, is now Ahmadinejad's Minister of Defense.
Got all that, it isn't news, but I am curious as to this open declaration that was being asserted. Being a top suspect, maybe a suspicion of merit, is not the same as Iran's government so openly declaring its intent to murder jews everywhere.

That is why I am asking. Is there more than hyperbole going on here? Likewise, is there sufficient anti Semitic/Judeophobic sentiment in Argentina that local assistance for that attack can't be ruled out? :confused:

Don't know jack about Argentine social norms and attitudes in that regard, maybe somebody does.

DR

Darth Rotor

21st October 2009, 08:24 AM

Parky is suspended. Israel does find it difficult to face up to it's own history. Censoring school books is a bad look. Saying that it's not as bad as someone else is only moral relativism.
Let me see if I get where you are coming from: moral equivalence demands that school book censorship must be as dire a problem as suicide bombers on bus lines, in shopping malls, and random rocket attacks into civilian occupied and peaceful villages.

AUP, are you sure you want to go there? Is that what you were driving at? Or are you a selective moral absolutist?

DR

WildCat

21st October 2009, 08:33 AM

Let me see if I get where you are coming from: moral equivalence demands that school book censorship must be as dire a problem as suicide bombers on bus lines, in shopping malls, and random rocket attacks into civilian occupied and peaceful villages.

AUP, are you sure you want to go there? Is that what you were driving at? Or are you a selective moral absolutist?

DR
That's exactly where he has been all these years here.

We can't condemn Hamas torturing political opponents to death, teaching kids to be suicide bombers, their covenant calling for the genocide of Jews, their rocket and mortar and bomb attacks on Israeli civilians, Iran funding and arming them, etc etc until everything in Israel is to his satisfaction. Including school books apparently.

Until then, Israel is exactly the same as Hamas, morally speaking. :rolleyes:

bigjelmapro

21st October 2009, 09:39 AM

Parky is suspended. Israel does find it difficult to face up to it's own history. Censoring school books is a bad look. Saying that it's not as bad as someone else is only moral relativism.
So you skim over the rest of the point and continue with the deflection and stick to your comfort zone of rhetoric.

Discuss this in the other threads which discuss this issue.

The Fool

21st October 2009, 06:45 PM

Nope. There's a reason there are a number of international rules of engagement, Geneva conventions, Roman statutes and so forth created for this very reason.

I didn't mean what is a warcrime is a matter of opinion but if what happened matched or didn't match that definition

This report failed to address the actual issues and relies heavily, if not only, on eyewitness reports and mis-sourcing NGO statements, e.g. B'tselem, which a number are quite erroneous to begin with. Hence the rehashing in this report and its sheer failure.

and what is your basis of your conclusion that nothing happened? what basis besides the official statements of the Israeli government?

Sarin? This is a new accusation. Did you get this from a state-run Iranian news outlet? Or is this more sarcasm?
I clearly said this as an example of a "silly extreme" When you make a blanket statement that "any nation is entitled to defend itself" I obviously agree but was pointing out there are still limits to what is acceptable acts.

The Fool

21st October 2009, 06:56 PM

That's exactly where he has been all these years here.

We can't condemn Hamas torturing political opponents to death, teaching kids to be suicide bombers, their covenant calling for the genocide of Jews, their rocket and mortar and bomb attacks on Israeli civilians, Iran funding and arming them, etc etc until everything in Israel is to his satisfaction. Including school books apparently.

Until then, Israel is exactly the same as Hamas, morally speaking. :rolleyes:
absolute rubbish...
please find a single example where AUP or anyone else here has said that we can't condemn torture and a whole string of other things?

Want to know something?? The reason these things don't get roundly condemned on this forum as much as you would like is because there are no apologists for them. If someone was on here pointing out that Hamas is not really all that bad because attilla the hun is much worse then you would see the same levels of skeptics pulling apart these sort of silly proposals.
However with Israel....the attilla defence is quite common on this forum. Don't whine about the reactions it gets.

Eyeron

21st October 2009, 07:11 PM

.there does have to be a limit doesn't there? Thats what this report is all about.

So, does that mean proportionate response? Why must Israel respond proportionately to attacks on its citizens? Do other countries practice proportionate responses in war or military actions? If not, then why must Israel alone practice proportionate response to a people who are dedicated to killing off their entire civilian population?

As far as I know, no other countryh in the world is required to use proportionate response in warfare, and as far as I know no other country is required to use proportionate response. And, as far as I know there is no court and no actual legislation to impose rules of proportionate warfare.

This is a good example of one of the ways things are lop-sided against Israel.

The Fool

21st October 2009, 09:24 PM

.

So, does that mean proportionate response? Why must Israel respond proportionately to attacks on its citizens? Do other countries practice proportionate responses in war or military actions? If not, then why must Israel alone practice proportionate response to a people who are dedicated to killing off their entire civilian population?

As far as I know, no other countryh in the world is required to use proportionate response in warfare, and as far as I know no other country is required to use proportionate response. And, as far as I know there is no court and no actual legislation to impose rules of proportionate warfare.

This is a good example of one of the ways things are lop-sided against Israel.

I think first you should get it clear what proportionate response means in terms of these conventions etc.

It doesn't mean comparing your response to the attack you recieve, it deals with comparing your response to the force reasonably required to counter that attack.

for example..

you don't consider if the invasion of afghanistan was disporportionate to the 911 attack. Thats not what it means...... It means was the invasion of afghanistan disproportionate to what would have been reasonably required to eliminate the terrorist groups ability to attack the US.

Eyeron

21st October 2009, 09:42 PM

The Fool

21st October 2009, 09:49 PM

Well, for me, it seems to me that proportionate response means use of equal force. For example, if a single rocket is fired a single rocket should be fired back.

And I'm very curious about your claims of the use of Sarin gas as well. Can you back that up with a reputable news source?

well you are wrong, sorry...it doesn't mean one rocket for one rocket...

and give me a break about the sarin gas eh? Go back and read the posts.

a_unique_person

21st October 2009, 09:56 PM

bigjelmapro

22nd October 2009, 12:31 AM

and what is your basis of your conclusion that nothing happened? what basis besides the official statements of the Israeli government?

Guess you missed the previous statements and links provided. Difficult to press those eh? They tend to move around quite a bit when you put your cursor on it.

I clearly said this as an example of a "silly extreme" When you make a blanket statement that "any nation is entitled to defend itself" I obviously agree but was pointing out there are still limits to what is acceptable acts.
What blanket statement? I made none.

You have pointed out any limitations to what is acceptable or not. You've generalized up to this point here, and in other threads.

bigjelmapro

22nd October 2009, 12:40 AM

No.
I'll be as lazy as you are.

Yes.

bigjelmapro

22nd October 2009, 12:59 AM

I think first you should get it clear what proportionate response means in terms of these conventions etc.

It doesn't mean comparing your response to the attack you recieve, it deals with comparing your response to the force reasonably required to counter that attack.

This is a sheer misconception of what the law of proportionality and that of distinction as entailed in both Protocol I of the Geneva conventions, inter alia international law, and the Roman statutes. Neither does this law only encompass that of a response to an attack, previous deaths in other attacks, the death ratio overall or comparison of weapons used by both sides:

Proportionality (law) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_proportionality)

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[1] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv). Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).

More specifically:
The NGO Front in the Gaza War: Exploitation of International Law (http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/the_ngo_front_exploitation_of_international_law)

While every civilian death is regrettable, casualty ratios are not relevant to the standard for evaluating proportionality. Pursuant to article 2(b)(iv) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, an attack is "disproportionate" if it causes damage or loss of civilian life "which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated" and as Israel's former UN Ambassador, Dore Gold notes, Israel "is not required to calibrate its use of force precisely according to the size and range of the weaponry used against it." "Just war" theorist Michael Walzer has also remarked that the concept of proportionality cannot be applied "speculatively." He points out that the test of proportionality is in relation to the future expected military advantage, not in relation to past events or civilian deaths from previous attacks. In his view, those leveling the charge of "disproportionate" do so only when it is "simply violence they don't like, or it is violence committed by people they don't like." Therefore, "Israel's Gaza war was called 'disproportionate' on day one, before anyone knew very much about how many people had been killed or who they were."

Above article covers much of the wide-swept allegations used in the Gaza war and that in relation to the exploitation of international law applied to this war.

a_unique_person

22nd October 2009, 02:12 AM

I'll be as lazy as you are.

Yes.

He made an assetion based on no evidence. I don't have to say any more than that. I have not equated Hamas and Israel. They are each guilty of their own transgressions.

Darth Rotor

22nd October 2009, 07:17 AM

An adverse military occupation is an act of war in itself.
You keep saying something false. Repetition does not make it true.

I agree with you that the political struggle, of which war is a subset, has been going on and off for forty years at varying levels. Occupation of the Golan Heights is not an act of war, for example, it is the result of a war. Thta political bickering still goes on in that regard does not make the political disagreement a war.

Prussian occupation of Alsace Lorraine was a result of a war, in 1871, not an act of war. That French and Prussians were better able to come to an armistice agreement than Israel and Syria is commendable, but doesn't change how the lines on the map got redrawn: blood and iron.

DR

WildCat

22nd October 2009, 07:20 AM

No.
And yet you brought up Israeli school books in this thread...

a_unique_person

22nd October 2009, 02:37 PM

Let me see if I get where you are coming from: moral equivalence demands that school book censorship must be as dire a problem as suicide bombers on bus lines, in shopping malls, and random rocket attacks into civilian occupied and peaceful villages.

AUP, are you sure you want to go there? Is that what you were driving at? Or are you a selective moral absolutist?

DR

No. I am saying that Israel does not want to face up to it's moral issues. The school books case, (and this is a new one that only came up in the last week), is part of a pattern of refusing to do that. Read some Bradley Burson columns in Haaretz. It is one of his themes.

Eyeron

22nd October 2009, 02:44 PM

And what moral issues are those, exactly, that Israel has to face up to?

a_unique_person

22nd October 2009, 04:05 PM

And what moral issues are those, exactly, that Israel has to face up to?

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Robert-Manne/Israel-and-the-nightmare-of-occupation/2004/12/05/1102182152001.html

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1122104.html

quixotecoyote

22nd October 2009, 05:30 PM

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Robert-Manne/Israel-and-the-nightmare-of-occupation/2004/12/05/1102182152001.html

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1122104.html

That's the best you can do?

Really?

a_unique_person

22nd October 2009, 08:13 PM

That's the best you can do?

Really?

What did you want?

The Fool

22nd October 2009, 08:34 PM

What did you want?
I want a new Motorcycle.

bigjelmapro

23rd October 2009, 01:18 AM

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Robert-Manne/Israel-and-the-nightmare-of-occupation/2004/12/05/1102182152001.html

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1122104.html

How many deflections are you going to bunch up together? Is this the ongoing trend here? Make an accusation, you are asked to back up why you say such and such, then you go on and make another accusation in this never-ending spiral of accusations and baseless rhetoric.

Stick with one, discuss it. Otherwise fold...

a_unique_person

23rd October 2009, 02:45 AM

How many deflections are you going to bunch up together? Is this the ongoing trend here? Make an accusation, you are asked to back up why you say such and such, then you go on and make another accusation in this never-ending spiral of accusations and baseless rhetoric.

Stick with one, discuss it. Otherwise fold...

Israel not facing up to the situation it has helped create. This topic is just another example. Anything to avoid the facts.

Oliver

23rd October 2009, 03:55 AM

Seriously, what's the fuss about anyway? - I mean what could be the negative outcome of the report for Israel?

WildCat

23rd October 2009, 06:54 AM

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Robert-Manne/Israel-and-the-nightmare-of-occupation/2004/12/05/1102182152001.html

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1122104.html

Will you be offering any opinions of your own, or are we to look up the author of your article to discuss with him? Or do you just want to have a thread of nothing but links?

WildCat

23rd October 2009, 06:55 AM

Seriously, what's the fuss about anyway? - I mean what could be the negative outcome of the report for Israel?
Yeah, what's wrong with a UN kangaroo court? :rolleyes:

Oliver

23rd October 2009, 07:26 AM

Yeah, what's wrong with a UN kangaroo court? :rolleyes:

What's a kangaroo court? :confused:

Again: What's the fuss about anyway? - I mean what could be the negative outcome of the report for Israel?

mortimer

23rd October 2009, 07:38 AM

What's a kangaroo court? :confused:

Again: What's the fuss about anyway? - I mean what could be the negative outcome of the report for Israel?

Kangaroo Court (http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=kangaroo+court&l=1)

I can think of one negative outcome: higher recruitment of Palestinian terrorists.

a_unique_person

23rd October 2009, 03:34 PM

Will you be offering any opinions of your own, or are we to look up the author of your article to discuss with him? Or do you just want to have a thread of nothing but links?

They put it better than I could.

Skeptic Ginger

24th October 2009, 12:34 AM

bigjelmapro

24th October 2009, 12:43 AM

Israel not facing up to the situation it has helped create. This topic is just another example. Anything to avoid the facts.
So more rhetoric. State these 'facts'. List some examples from the report. And don't bring in subjects from the other ops which you've conveniently abandoned, including the deflection listed above...

a_unique_person

24th October 2009, 03:10 AM

So more rhetoric. State these 'facts'. List some examples from the report. And don't bring in subjects from the other ops which you've conveniently abandoned, including the deflection listed above...

I haven't abandoned anything. It's like arguing with a global warming denier. All you can do is state your case, there's no convincing them.

The Fool

24th October 2009, 05:25 AM

boyntonstu

24th October 2009, 07:07 AM

""Our main recommendation is to urge both sides to look at themselves. To have their own internal investigations to judge what each did. To have a criminal investigation and to prosecute and punish the people responsible." "

"To have a criminal investigation and to prosecute and punish the people responsible."

He has made a judgment prior to an investigation that a crime was committed.

He has already stated that what he found would NOT convict anyone in a Court of Law.

A little premature elucidation?

WildCat

24th October 2009, 08:53 AM

I haven't abandoned anything. It's like arguing with a global warming denier. All you can do is state your case, there's no convincing them.
So far "the case" has been accusations from Hamas without any corroborating evidence.

Oh yeah, and new "war crimes" invented just for Israel.

WildCat

24th October 2009, 08:58 AM

I'm staying out of this thread because it is a waste of time to discuss Israel's actions with people who just can't see the problem. However, I thought I'd share a link on this one for anyone interested. Bill Moyers interviewed Justice Richard Goldstone who was involved in this UN report tonight. (The Justice BTW, is a Jew.) It was an excellent interview. Moyers asked tough questions all of which the judge had very thorough and very well reasoned responses to.

You can watch the whole interview on Moyer's website plus there is a blog (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2009/10/were_war_crimes_committed_in_g.html) and a discussion about the report on the site:

Bill Moyers talks with Justice Richard Goldstone, (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html)
Yes, very enlightening. Goldstones first sentence:
These attacks amounted to reprisals and collective punishment, and constitute war crimes.
There you go, brand new "war crimes" invented just for Israel!

No other country, ever, was expected to allow the flow of goods into territory controlled by the enemy. But Israel alone is expected to, and I'm sure this has nothing whatsoever to do with latent anti-semitism.

Oliver

24th October 2009, 09:01 AM

What's a kangaroo court? :confused:

Again: What's the fuss about anyway? - I mean what could be the negative outcome of the report for Israel?

I assume that the negative outcome would be that Israel would have to punish IDF-personnel in case of human rights violations, thus opposed to the administrations promise that the IDF is untouchable. And besides Goldstone, other Human Rights organizations had this to say about the "trashy trash case" in question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Co nflict#Non-governmental_organizations
Amnesty International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty_International) stated that Goldstone's findings are consistent with those of Amnesty’s own field investigation, and called on the UN to act promptly to implement the report's recommendations.[91] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Co nflict#cite_note-90) Human Rights Watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch) called the report a significant step toward justice and redress for the victims on both sides, and called on the Security Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_Council) to implement the report's recommendations.[92] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Co nflict#cite_note-91)

WildCat

24th October 2009, 09:05 AM

Please, someone in this thread who supports the Goldstone report: Explain why Israel alone is expected to allow the flow of goods into territory controlled by their enemy.

If you disagree with the premise feel free to show examples of this happening in other wars.

a_unique_person

24th October 2009, 03:31 PM

So far "the case" has been accusations from Hamas without any corroborating evidence.

Oh yeah, and new "war crimes" invented just for Israel.

Are all residents of Gaza are all "hamas". Is everything that Hamas says a lie?

The Fool

24th October 2009, 04:36 PM

So far "the case" has been accusations from Hamas without any corroborating evidence.

Oh yeah, and new "war crimes" invented just for Israel.
please provide examples of the "new" war crimes?

The Fool

24th October 2009, 04:48 PM

Yes, very enlightening. Goldstones first sentence:

There you go, brand new "war crimes" invented just for Israel!

No other country, ever, was expected to allow the flow of goods into territory controlled by the enemy. But Israel alone is expected to, and I'm sure this has nothing whatsoever to do with latent anti-semitism.

Oh dear....tell you what. When you have finished the frenzy of flapping and slogan chanting and throwing around accusations of anti-semitism you may join the rest of the world in dealing with what happened. The Israeli apologists need to participate. Not just be dismissed as a slogan chanting conga line.

I think one of the things that impressed me most about Goldstone is how he has risen above this sort of grubby reaction his report has generated.

In the end wildcat. You have to ask yourself how long you are going to try to hang on to the party line that you are provided with to believe. The amount of destruction to civilian infrastructure in Gaza actually happened, Goldstone didn't imagine it. Human rights groups didn't fabricate it. Anti-semites didn't make it up......It happened, you need to deal with this reality and deal with your automatic self imposed requirement to stand to attention and salute it.

WildCat

24th October 2009, 05:28 PM

Oh dear....tell you what. When you have finished the frenzy of flapping and slogan chanting and throwing around accusations of anti-semitism you may join the rest of the world in dealing with what happened. The Israeli apologists need to participate. Not just be dismissed as a slogan chanting conga line.

I think one of the things that impressed me most about Goldstone is how he has risen above this sort of grubby reaction his report has generated.
So you're impressed that a one-sided investigation which started with a pre-determined conclusion actually found that their pre-determined conclusion was correct? You must have been very impresed by the show trials the Soviets used to have!

In the end wildcat. You have to ask yourself how long you are going to try to hang on to the party line that you are provided with to believe. The amount of destruction to civilian infrastructure in Gaza actually happened, Goldstone didn't imagine it. Human rights groups didn't fabricate it. Anti-semites didn't make it up......It happened, you need to deal with this reality and deal with your automatic self imposed requirement to stand to attention and salute it.
You say that as if "destruction to civilian infrastructure" is in and of itself evidence of war crimes.

Or maybe it is... when it's Israel. :rolleyes:

WildCat

24th October 2009, 05:30 PM

WildCat

24th October 2009, 05:34 PM

Are all residents of Gaza are all "hamas". Is everything that Hamas says a lie?
Relevance?

IOW, show where this has been a consideration in other wars. You know, like "well not every German was a Nazi, so we'll let these ships through to Hamburg".

Or does this rule only apply to Israel?

a_unique_person

24th October 2009, 07:04 PM

Relevance?

IOW, show where this has been a consideration in other wars. You know, like "well not every German was a Nazi, so we'll let these ships through to Hamburg".

Or does this rule only apply to Israel?

Are citizens of gaza allowed to present their evidence as people, or is everyone a liar?

Skeptic Ginger

24th October 2009, 09:09 PM

Yes, very enlightening. Goldstones first sentence:

There you go, brand new "war crimes" invented just for Israel!

No other country, ever, was expected to allow the flow of goods into territory controlled by the enemy. But Israel alone is expected to, and I'm sure this has nothing whatsoever to do with latent anti-semitism.The problem here is you cannot accept the conclusions drawn after carefully collecting the evidence. Goldstone's first sentence was a summary of the findings. If you would listen to his interview with Moyers you'd at least hear what led Goldstone and his team to those conclusions. Not that I think you would actually think about the validity of them. But you really should make an attempt to see the problem from other perspectives. It's exactly because a significant portion of the Israeli population cannot see anyone's point of view other than their own that no progress has been made in the situation in over half a century.

Pardalis

25th October 2009, 08:19 AM

It's exactly because a significant portion of the Israeli population cannot see anyone's point of view other than their own that no progress has been made in the situation in over half a century.

And the Arab world and its half a century of not accepting the state of Israel and constantly threatening it has nothing to do with the ongoing problem?

No, it's all Israel's population's fault... :rolleyes:

Pardalis

25th October 2009, 08:21 AM

Are all residents of Gaza are all "hamas".

Gazans elected them.

Is everything that Hamas says a lie?Their charter is filth. Have you read it?

Pardalis

25th October 2009, 08:22 AM

BTW, has it been determined who is going to investigate Hamas, and how they plan on doing it?

How does a terrorist organization investigate itself without incriminating itself as being a terrorist organization? :boggled:

Praktik

25th October 2009, 08:26 AM

I'm staying out of this thread because it is a waste of time to discuss Israel's actions with people who just can't see the problem. However, I thought I'd share a link on this one for anyone interested. Bill Moyers interviewed Justice Richard Goldstone who was involved in this UN report tonight. (The Justice BTW, is a Jew.) It was an excellent interview. Moyers asked tough questions all of which the judge had very thorough and very well reasoned responses to.

You can watch the whole interview on Moyer's website plus there is a blog (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2009/10/were_war_crimes_committed_in_g.html) and a discussion about the report on the site:

Bill Moyers talks with Justice Richard Goldstone, (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html)

I watched this yesterday and I thought it was valuable to humanize Goldstone and put a real face to the man.

I think he's been taken to abstraction so this will ground him and his perspective more fully.

TO detractors of the report I fully suggest you watch the whole thing. Goldstone doesn't come across as having an axe to grind.

To attribute differences of perception to irrational bias or sometimes malice I think is a common failing, and certainly that applies to discussions of Israel quite often.

Praktik

25th October 2009, 08:38 AM

a_unique_person

25th October 2009, 02:37 PM

Gazans elected them.

Gazans are all liars?

Their charter is filth. Have you read it?

So everything Hamas says is a lie?

a_unique_person

25th October 2009, 02:39 PM

Pardalis

25th October 2009, 03:35 PM

I thought he covered the infractions by Hamas in the report?

But who is going to investigate them? Does Hamas keep records of their attacks? If Hamas investigates itself, it will have no choice but to show the world it is a terrorist organization, since there is no other term to describe their activities than "terrorism". Somehow I doubt they will do it.

a_unique_person

25th October 2009, 06:53 PM

But who is going to investigate them? Does Hamas keep records of their attacks? If Hamas investigates itself, it will have no choice but to show the world it is a terrorist organization, since there is no other term to describe their activities than "terrorism". Somehow I doubt they will do it.

Did he investigate he mention Hamas in his report or not?

The Fool

25th October 2009, 08:31 PM

You say that as if "destruction to civilian infrastructure" is in and of itself evidence of war crimes.

Or maybe it is... when it's Israel. :rolleyes:
it is and it isn't, it can be and it may not be...depends on the scale and circumstances. These things need to be investigated and determined.....except.....when its Israel?

The Fool

25th October 2009, 08:43 PM

So you're impressed that a one-sided investigation which started with a pre-determined conclusion actually found that their pre-determined conclusion was correct? You must have been very impresed by the show trials the Soviets used to have!

I'd be much more impressed if you had something to back up your slogan chanting. Can you provide evidence that Goldstone had a pre-determined conclusion, or would go along with one? Doesn't seem that sort of guy. Its a pretty cheap slander to a guy with a long and distinguished judicial record.

Skeptic Ginger

25th October 2009, 08:48 PM

And the Arab world and its half a century of not accepting the state of Israel and constantly threatening it has nothing to do with the ongoing problem?

No, it's all Israel's population's fault... :rolleyes:MY guess, Pard, is you have no interest in Goldstone's actual report. You decided you know what's in it without even listening to the interview, or, you think any actions Israel takes are justified, regardless of the nature of the action.

WildCat

25th October 2009, 09:03 PM

it is and it isn't, it can be and it may not be...depends on the scale and circumstances. These things need to be investigated and determined.....except.....when its Israel?
Yes, they must be investigated! I remember well the UN investigation into Russia's actions in Chechnya, or Sri Lanka's campaign against the Tamil Tigers, and the Algerian civil war..., oh wait, the UN didn't even so much as write a harshly worded letter about those incidents which killed far more civilians than Operation Cast Lead.

But I'm sure the singling out of Israel has nothing at all to do with anti-semitism, no not at all!

WildCat

25th October 2009, 09:10 PM

The problem here is you cannot accept the conclusions drawn after carefully collecting the evidence.
Can you detail this "carefully collecting the evidence" bit? How long did it take, who did they talk to, where did it take place, etc? Show me what I'm missing.

Goldstone's first sentence was a summary of the findings. If you would listen to his interview with Moyers you'd at least hear what led Goldstone and his team to those conclusions.
So we have conclusions, and not yet a trial? I can't imagine why the Israelis don't want to send anyone to this court...

Not that I think you would actually think about the validity of them. But you really should make an attempt to see the problem from other perspectives. It's exactly because a significant portion of the Israeli population cannot see anyone's point of view other than their own that no progress has been made in the situation in over half a century.
What point of view? That of the people who attacked them with the intent of completely destroying Israel as a country? Long before any "occupation"? And much of this "point of view" being nothing more than old-fashioned anti-semitism?

WildCat

25th October 2009, 09:17 PM

Are citizens of gaza allowed to present their evidence as people, or is everyone a liar?
Sure they can.

Still waiting for your examples...

WildCat

25th October 2009, 09:20 PM

Skeptic Ginger

25th October 2009, 09:44 PM

Can you detail this "carefully collecting the evidence" bit? How long did it take, who did they talk to, where did it take place, etc? Show me what I'm missing.Puhleese. Watch the Moyers-Goldstone interview. Goldstone details the evidence quite clearly and rationally.

The Fool

25th October 2009, 09:44 PM

Yes, they must be investigated! I remember well the UN investigation into Russia's actions in Chechnya, or Sri Lanka's campaign against the Tamil Tigers, and the Algerian civil war..., oh wait, the UN didn't even so much as write a harshly worded letter about those incidents which killed far more civilians than Operation Cast Lead.

But I'm sure the singling out of Israel has nothing at all to do with anti-semitism, no not at all!
So is that It? What about chechnia and this must be be anti-semitism is your total contribution? I was wondering if you had any luck finding evidence for your claim that Goldstone is corrupt....has or is going along with a predetermined conclusion.....

any luck?

bigjelmapro

26th October 2009, 12:24 AM

Puhleese. Watch the Moyers-Goldstone interview. Goldstone details the evidence quite clearly and rationally.
From the transcript:

[/url]

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: These attacks amounted to reprisals and collective punishment, and constitute war crimes.
...
Well, humanitarian law, really fundamentally is what's known as the "principle of distinction." It requires all people involved, commanders, troops, all people involved in making war, it requires them to distinguish between civilians and combatants. And then there's a question-
...
-and combatants. And then there's a question of proportionality. One can, in war, target a military target. And there can be what's euphemistically referred to as â€˜collateral damage,' but the â€˜collateral damage' must be proportionate to the military aim. If you can take out a munitions factory in an urban area with a loss of 100 lives, or you can use a bomb twice as large and take out the same factory and kill 2000 people, the latter would be a war crime, the former wouldn't.

These allegations have already been answered in post #91 and elsewhere, where collective punishment and proportionality has been addressed (no rebuttal provided) here and in other threads.

Neither does Goldstone apply any of these international conventions, laws and statutes properly (besides paying lip-service to them) and neither can one fully apply this when fighting an enemy who uses asymmetrical warfare tactics, i.e. acts of perfidy (never mentioned in this report).

Basic understanding is lacking on the Goldstone report:

i.e., directly from the Goldstone report

In the framing of Israeli military objectives with regard to the Gaza operations, the concept of Hamas’ “supporting infrastructure” is particularly worrying as it appears to transform civilians
and civilian objects into legitimate targets.

That's exactly what the Roman statutes and the Geneva conventions state (Fourth Geneva conventions). That civilian structures used by the enemy are legitimate military targets and that the presence of civilians does not render an area or target immune from attack.

Fourth Geneva conventions, Part III, art 27

Art. 28. The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

Issues of mis-framing the actual origins of what led up to this war, i.e.:

109. Noting that some of the Palestinian armed groups, along them Hamas, have publicly expressed an intention to target civilians as reprisals for the fatalities of civilians in Gaza as a result of Israeli military operations, the Mission is of the view that reprisals against civilians in armed hostilities are contrary to international humanitarian law.

This isn't an issue of 'reprisals' by Hamas, but their main intention/goal/aim, to kill and maim as many Israelis as possible, devoid of any IDF operations in and around Gaza to 'justify' such attacks and framing these Hamas attacks as reprisals.

i.e. destroying Hamas tunnels towards/under military and non-military targets in Israel and missile launching platforms.

167. Participants in the hearings were identified in the course of the Mission’s investigations, and had either first-hand experience or information or specialized knowledge of the issues under
investigation and analysis. In keeping with the objectives of the hearings, the Mission gave priority to the participation of victims and people from the affected communities.
The brunt of these 'hearings' were hack jobs from other NGO testimonies and much of the 'hearings' taken by this commission was taken in the presence of Hamas representatives who toured Gaza with this Goldstone team. This is the same method used by Hezbollah in Lebanon, 2006.

'Specialized knowledge' included taking statements of residents in Gaza whether there were Hamas militants in their area (how they would know this is beyond me), direction and ordinance used against particular targets, and so forth. So asking specialized information from civilians without specialized knowledge.

Additionally, Israeli 'hearings' were in most cases shortened or completely omitted as a case to justify Israel's right to self-defense, a concept supported by Goldstone.

What I do find laughable is Goldstone's response to acts of war during WWII by the allies:

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, times have changed, the law has changed.

The laws and conventions have pretty much stayed the same in their views and application, from biblical application to the Hague Convention of 1899 and 1907. (i.e [url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp]IV — The Laws and Customs of War on Land (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10232009/transcript1.html))

So laughable.

This hack job report uses borrowed faulty testimony from a number of NGO's, assuming that NGO's are automatically true in their allegations and hence are seen to be protected by a 'halo effect'.

The interview with Goldstone might give the impression that its rational, but it in no means is judging by the number of logic fallacies it presents and misrepresenting legal terms, as commented on previously.

We can go on through the 575 pages of wide-swept and unsubstantiated allegations if you guys wish.

This is merely to get the ball rolling, once again.

bigjelmapro

26th October 2009, 12:38 AM

I was wondering if you had any luck finding evidence for your claim that Goldstone is corrupt....has or is going along with a predetermined conclusion.....

any luck?
You missed the 'predetermined conclusion' of this commission before it even started bit?

The Goldstone show-trial (http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5322971/the-goldstone-showtrial.thtml)

The degree of objectivity on this Commission can be gauged from the mandate it was given by the UNHRC, which announced it was dispatching

an urgent, independent international fact-finding mission, to be appointed by the President of the Council, to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression, and calls upon Israel not to obstruct the process of investigation and to fully cooperate with the mission.

So this 'objective' inquiry had been told before it was even established that the guilty party in Gaza was Israel, designated by the UN as the ‘occupying power’; that it was guilty of ‘aggression’ and ‘violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law’; and that the Palestinians of Gaza were the victims of this Israeli aggression.

So again, predetermined guilt. Lip-service to legal terms when inapplicable. Hence showboating.

Convenient omissions on your part again? Or are you just holding on to this report for dear life as Hamas and Fatah are doing?

a_unique_person

26th October 2009, 12:46 AM

Sure they can.

Still waiting for your examples...

http://www.hrw.org/en/features/israel-gaza

Of course, as with the Goldstone report, it would be easier to gather more evidence if people were allowed entry. As I said before, and others I have quoted have noted, Israel seems to determined to block the flow of information. No access to areas it controls, no co-operation, condemnation of those who disagree, rewriting history.

The Fool

26th October 2009, 03:09 AM

You missed the 'predetermined conclusion' of this commission before it even started bit?

So let me get this straight...His refusal to go along with terms of reference you rightly point out predetermine the event.....is....wait for it....evidence that he colluded with or formed his own predetermined view? Do you realize the very great slur it is don't you? To accuse a judge of lacking impartiality?

Better have some good evidence..... So far you seem to be relying on something he refused to accept as being his position. Damned cunning these anti-semitic jews eh?

I think he has and is doing a good job of rising above the muck throwing. Never mind, in a few months...maybe a year.....you can choose to remember that all the specific allegations on the Israeli side were debunked rather than denied.

Personally I think Obama is going to require you to at least go through the motions of an investigation.

Darth Rotor

26th October 2009, 06:38 AM

No. I am saying that Israel does not want to face up to it's moral issues. The school books case, (and this is a new one that only came up in the last week), is part of a pattern of refusing to do that. Read some Bradley Burson columns in Haaretz. It is one of his themes.
I see. Some people in Israel look at the issues one way, others don't. That means "Israel" won't. Maybe "Israel" has divided opinions on this matter, as the Israel based Haaretz seems to be reporting.

You are shooting your declaration in the foot a bit here.

Pardalis

26th October 2009, 06:42 AM

Still no word on how on earth Hamas will investigate itself?

Darth Rotor

26th October 2009, 06:43 AM

What struck me as the turning point in the interview, where Goldstone provided evidence that convinced me that Israel applied collective punishment: the 10 000 chickens killed in the operation.

Now this may seem a trivial point, but I can really see no rationale to attacking the food stockpile and delivery infrastructure except to punish the Gazan civilian population.
Let me get this right. The sole purpose of one particular attack was to slaughter chickens? The chickens were the target? Got some details? This sounds like a Monty Python sketch.
Add to that the 200 or so factories destroyed, and you have a pretty compelling argument.
What you just claimed is that a nation that launches rockets into your country can do so without fear of its territory being attacked. That is the position you just supported.

Are you sure that is how you feel?

These attacks amounted to reprisals and collective punishment, and constitute war crimes.
How Liars Construct Arguments 101. Goldstone may or may not be aware of what he's doing here.

Amounted to attempts by wordplay, rather than fact, take things somewhat similar and render then identical,

He then follows on from that flawed assumption
into a conclusion,
constitutes war crimes.

Rather blatant case of intellectual sloppiness, at best.

Now, I can't believe that the Israel intelligence doesn't enable them to do it to, certainly to a higher degree. I'm not suggesting that there can be any infallibility. But, I'll give you an example. We spoke to the owner of a home in Gaza CityNice: argument from incredulity, weasel words in sentence following, and then appeal to anecdote rather than evidence.

Are there any skeptics here to help out? Mr Goldstone may need some assistance.

What's sickening is this: there may have been actual war crimes committed by the IDF. IDF are human, and can err. Goldstone is throwing up a smoke screen of badly presented argument. In the larger information and propaganda war, what he's doing damages the credibility of various chages against the IDF, even where the charges are credible and well founded.

DR

WildCat

26th October 2009, 07:12 AM

Puhleese. Watch the Moyers-Goldstone interview. Goldstone details the evidence quite clearly and rationally.
No, he doesn't. The transcript is here: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10232009/transcript3.html

And it's clear that no real investigation took place.

Example:
BILL MOYERS: Was it possible, among the casualties in Gaza, to distinguish between militants and civilians?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Now, I can't believe that the Israel intelligence doesn't enable them to do it to, certainly to a higher degree. I'm not suggesting that there can be any infallibility. But, I'll give you an example. We spoke to the owner of a home in Gaza City. He said he looked out of his window and he saw some militants, whether Hamas or other Palestinian groups, setting up their mortar launchers in his yard. He ran out and said, "Get out of here. I don't want you doing this here. You're going to endanger my family, because they going to bomb. Get out." And in fact, they left. Whether that was typical or atypical, I don't know, we didn't, obviously, cover the field. But assuming they had disobeyed them, assuming they had launched the rockets from over the objections of the household owner, and his family, they launched the rockets and disappeared. It would be a war crime, as I understand it, for Israel to have bombed the home of that innocent household, who didn't want this to happen.
So, according to Goldstone, Israel commits a war crime by attacking Hamas fighters in or around a private home if the residents of that home don't want them there.

Idiotic. There is no way to tell what the residents want in that situation, or does Goldstone think the Israelis are psychic? The militants are a legitimate military target, it is not the responsibility of the Israelis to determine the wants, thoughts, and motives of any civilians in the area.

More:
BILL MOYERS: What did you see with your own eyes when you went there?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well, I saw the destruction of the only flour-producing factory in Gaza. I saw fields plowed up by Israeli tank bulldozers. I saw chicken farms, for egg production, completely destroyed. Tens of thousands of chickens killed. I met with families who lost their loved ones in homes in which they were seeking shelter from the Israeli ground forces. I had to have the very emotional and difficult interviews with fathers whose little daughters were killed, whose family were killed. One family, over 21 members, killed by Israeli mortars. So, it was a very difficult investigation, which will give me nightmares for the rest of my life.
No mention of Goldstone as to why the Israelis bulldozed the field. Were there tunnels under the field?

Were there fighters in or around the house which was mortared?

Were there fighters at the chicken farm, or did Israelis run out of legitimate targets and just deside to raze a farm for fun to satisfy their Zionist bloodlust?

I'm not seeing Goldstone doing anything resembling an investigation, simply taking the words of Hamas at face value.

WildCat

26th October 2009, 07:16 AM

So is that It? What about chechnia and this must be be anti-semitism is your total contribution? I was wondering if you had any luck finding evidence for your claim that Goldstone is corrupt....has or is going along with a predetermined conclusion.....

any luck?
I see you're reduced to just making stuff up now, or maybe I posted drunk and don't remember. Could you quote my post where I said Goldstone was corrupt?

BTW, still waiting for someone to find the examples I asked for. So far, it seems many of these things are war crimes only when done by Jews Zionists Israelis.

bigjelmapro

26th October 2009, 07:20 AM

Of course, as with the Goldstone report, it would be easier to gather more evidence if people were allowed entry. As I said before, and others I have quoted have noted, Israel seems to determined to block the flow of information. No access to areas it controls, no co-operation, condemnation of those who disagree, rewriting history.
And yet again, you refuse to reply to where this has already been addressed.

The fact finding mission was refused entry into Gaza via Israel due to its predetermined guilt of Israel, already laying baseless accusations against Israel before the mission team even set foot in the region. As previously stated.

This is the reason people like Mary Robinson refused to partake in this mission and why Irwin Cotler and others criticized the mandate and this mission from the get-go. As previously stated.

Witness testimony from Israelis directly affected by this war wasn't given serious consideration or glossed over entirely. And testimonies were submitted and given to the commission, both in Geneva in front of the commission and to call for submissions prior to this.

Goldstone’s Gaza fact-finding mission hears from Israeli victims (http://blog.unwatch.org/?p=411)

So in the end, what do we have?

We have a report filled with rehashed testimonies from other NGO's, overwhelmingly taking in those testimonies from the Gazans, none of which can actually be verified, just taken at face value and more importantly, true.

We have Bt'selem (left-wing group) critisizing the report as 'biased' and politically motivated.

We have the attacks against Israelis by Hamas presented as 'reprisals' for IDF operations, which didn't exist for the timeline of 8 years prior to the IDF incursion.

We have legal jargon, from proportionality, collective punishment, warcrimes, distinction, used without actual justification and legal basis.

And at the end, we have Goldstone stating that the Goldstone report is biased and doesn't accuse Hamas of their warcrimes actually committed, which in fact can be verified beyond witness testimony.

Lastly, I think Australian Major General Jim Molan put it best:

UN's bias binds Gaza (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26152548-7583,00.html)

Australian Major General Jim Molan (retired), who served as chief of operations of the Iraq multinational force in 2004–05, stated that "The Goldstone report is an opinion by one group of people putting forward their judgments, with limited access to the facts, and reflecting their own prejudices. The difference in tone and attitude in the report when discussing Israeli and Hamas actions is surprising." ... "as a soldier who has run a war against an opponent not dissimilar to Hamas, facing problems perhaps similar to those faced by Israeli commanders, my sympathies tend to lie with the Israelis." ... "But having stated my prejudice, I think I may be more honest than Goldstone, who seems to pass off his prejudices in a report that cannot be based on fact, and uses judicial language and credibility to do so. It comes down to equality of scepticism: if you refuse to believe anything the Israelis say, then you have no right to unquestioningly accept what Hamas says."

WildCat

26th October 2009, 07:21 AM

http://www.hrw.org/en/features/israel-gaza

Of course, as with the Goldstone report, it would be easier to gather more evidence if people were allowed entry. As I said before, and others I have quoted have noted, Israel seems to determined to block the flow of information. No access to areas it controls, no co-operation, condemnation of those who disagree, rewriting history.
How on earth does that qualify as an example?

Once again, show me one other case where a warring party was expected to allow the flow of goods into territory controlled by the enemy.

Praktik

26th October 2009, 07:22 AM

Let me get this right. The sole purpose of one particular attack was to slaughter chickens? The chickens were the target? Got some details? This sounds like a Monty Python sketch.

What you just claimed is that an that launches rockets into your country can do so without fear of its territory being attacked. That is the position you just supported.

Are you sure that is how you feel?

Am I reading this right? Was the takeaway from my post that I am somehow opposed to Israel's right to self-defense?

Praktik

26th October 2009, 07:24 AM

From the transcript: (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10232009/transcript1.html)

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Right. Well, I'd start with the bulldozing of agricultural fields, apparently pretty random. It wasn't as though these farms were owned by Hamas militants. That's, I haven't seen that allegation made. The bombing of some 200 industrial factories. As I mentioned, the only flour-producing factory, the water supply facilities of Gaza, the sanitation facilities, which caused an overflow of filth and muck into well over a square kilometer of land.

BILL MOYERS: Do you know if these were targeted, or were they the consequence of actions aimed at militants?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: Well clearly, there can be no question of militants running 200 factories. There can be no, we know, from our investigation, that the owner of the flour factory, in fact, had one of the rare documents the Israelis give which allowed the owner to go into Israel, he dealt with Israeli counterparts. He received, and it's an interesting case, he received a warning to evacuate. He evacuated his staff. Nothing happened. They went back, and he made inquiries through a friend in Israel, who contacted the Israel Defense Force and said, "Don't worry. They're not going to bomb your factory." They went back. A few days later, he gets another telephone call saying, "Evacuate." Doesn't come to him, it comes to their switchboard. He again makes inquiries. "Don't worry. We're not going to bomb." So they go back. Nothing happens. Third warning to evacuate. They evacuate and they bomb the factory. Now if there was any militants involved, firstly, the Israelis know who they're dealing with, they'd given him a document allowing him to go into Israel. It's that sort of conduct which indicates to us an intent to punish civilians in Gaza for what their leaders were complicit in doing.

BILL MOYERS: It's difficult for us, in this country, to understand this intimacy of self-destruction, you know, that you just described. A Gazan factory owner calls a friend in Israel, who calls the military, and then he calls back to the factory. I mean, that, just right across an invisible border, right?

RICHARD GOLDSTONE: It's the sort of evidence which has some credibility to it. It's not the sort of evidence that this man is going to concoct.

Darth Rotor

26th October 2009, 07:26 AM

Am I reading this right? Was the takeaway from my post that I am somehow opposed to Israel's right to self-defense?
Why did you choose those words for this response? :confused: I don't think you meant to move the goal posts, so let me rephrase my comment.

What was implied in your post was an a priori safe haven for factories in Gaza, a co belligerent in a shooting war, and by the way the aggressor. Who cast the first stone? :p

Why did you support that position? Did you mean to?

Note what Goldstone is doing: he makes an a priori presumption of innocence for factories in Gaza -- thus attacking them is a war crime -- notwithstanding that in Lebanon, a couple of years back, basements of 'innocent' buildings were used for military purposes by Hezbollah. I don't know which and what building were used for what in Gaza as cover and concealment for various operations. I am certain, from Goldstone's commentary, that he doesn't either, and that he also doesn't care. (I may be guessing a bit on that last). Given warfare in the year 2008, and the nature of Hamas' available forces and means, the max use of cover and concealment is (from Hamas' point of view) both a tactical and strategic imperative. Tactical in avoiding attack by avoiding deteciton from the air, and strategic in attempting to induce attack on seemingly "innocent" sites as a political weapon in the overarching info and propaganda war.

The latter aim may have been achieved. Goldstone may not realize this, but he's playing the role of useful idiot. I am not convinced of malicious intention on his part, but he's being sloppy. What I am leaning toward is altruism, and over-identification with "the underdog" regardless of that dog being rabid or not.

In war, you have an aggregate activity. When you take your people to war, as Hamas chose to in December of last year, you are taking risks with them. It strikes me as bizarre to demand that one's enemy be held accountable for one attacking them. We attacked you, but your response is, by default, a war crime at the discretion of my declaration. That the same problem is true for the Isrealis is no mystery. Their government took them to war in Lebanon in 2006 (a decision that still puzzles me) and in so doing brought the risks of war onto their nation, both kinetic and political.

Is Mr Goldstone still pursuing war crimes charges, at the UN, against Hezbollah for their rocket attacks on civilian buildings in Northern Israel? If so, I'll be a bit more understanding of his position. What I am seeing from him is nothing more than a reflex "root for the underdog" argument, with weasel words tossed in to take the edge off of the focus of his complaint.

DR

Praktik

26th October 2009, 07:32 AM

So, there were militants hiding in all 200 factories? Where is the evidence to support that?

I think it would be a bit absurd to say that the bombing of any factory at any time is a form of collective punishment, after all, there could very well be antagonists taking shelter in a few of them.

But I think its equally absurd to suggest that there were militants hiding in all 200 factories, and especially the flour factory where Israel knew who it was dealing with.

The issue is not that they bombed a factory, or a few factories, or even 20 factories.

The issue is that they bombed 200 factories.

I'm not certain why this is so controversial. It is pretty clear to most that Israel was engaging in forms of collective punishment, and this is one of the data points that demonstrates this most clearly.

bigjelmapro

26th October 2009, 07:37 AM

So let me get this straight...His refusal to go along with terms of reference you rightly point out predetermine the event.....is....wait for it....evidence that he colluded with or formed his own predetermined view? Do you realize the very great slur it is don't you? To accuse a judge of lacking impartiality?

What 'terms of reference'?

So this whole concept of 'predetermined guilt', for which statements, i.e. Mary Robinson, Irwin Cotler, etc. were provided, has once again, simply gone over your head?

A judge heading a mission with members handpicked by the HRW for their anti-Israel bias, and statements of Israel's 'predetermined guilt' still allows one to be 'impartial'? Good stuff. Thanks for clearing that one up.

Better have some good evidence..... So far you seem to be relying on something he refused to accept as being his position. Damned cunning these anti-semitic jews eh?

Presented. And not going to respond to your nth attempt at trolling...

I think he has and is doing a good job of rising above the muck throwing. Never mind, in a few months...maybe a year.....you can choose to remember that all the specific allegations on the Israeli side were debunked rather than denied.

Nah, he's been sinking in the muck. Hehe, you using the term debunked? Thanks for the laugh.

Personally I think Obama is going to require you to at least go through the motions of an investigation.
Israel has already.

The US is going to require Israel to investigate a war fought with an enemy of Israel which has directly and repeatedly attacked Israel.

Imagine if the US had enemies like Hamas, would make wars involving the US a bit more justified. No Gulf of Tonkin or fabrication of the threats of WMD's necessary! :D

Thanks for another laugh again though.

bigjelmapro

26th October 2009, 07:39 AM

So, there were militants hiding in all 200 factories? Where is the evidence to support that?
Would like to see this evidence of the existence of 200 factories in the first place. I don't see it anywhere in the report either.

Unless one means these pseudo-factories in the basements of homes used predominantly for rocket and bomb making. Doubt these are protected civilian buildings.

Praktik

26th October 2009, 07:40 AM

You could do a bit better than that last excrement-as-post I'm sure bigjelmapro - unless you like proudly sporting your bias on your sleeve?

Darth Rotor

26th October 2009, 07:50 AM

So, there were militants hiding in all 200 factories? Where is the evidence to support that?
Nonsense. That isn't what I said. You seem to be falling into the "must have perfect knowledge" trap for one side, but not for the underdog. That is Goldstone's position, and you are buying it.

Do a battlefield analysis. Go back to the tactical and strategic imperatives that Hamas has to operate under, since they have no air power, and Israel has local air superiority and general air supremacy, both. There are a myriad of uses for factories as cover. Another use is the old shell game trick Saddam used for protecting his Scuds during the '91 war. Which shells are the peas under, Praktik?
I think it would be a bit absurd to say that the bombing of any factory at any time is a form of collective punishment, after all, there could very well be antagonists taking shelter in a few of them.
It isn't just cover for people with guns in their hands. Consider the function of temporary and permanent depots. Armaments storage and manufacture. Logistic support sites. Dispersed, a bit here and there, which is a SMART lay down if you are Hamas. You must operate in a dispersed manner, to deny Israel the chance to deal you a crushing blow with one strike, or a few.

ALL of what it takes to wage a war, of which only a portion is a man, to include C & C nodes, benefits from cover and concealment. Stop with the Hollywood depiction of war. There is a lot of tail for each tooth.
But I think its equally absurd to suggest that there were militants hiding in all 200 factories, and especially the flour factory where Israel knew who it was dealing with.
Since I didn't, it is absurd for you to do so for me. See above.
The issue is not that they bombed a factory, or a few factories, or even 20 factories. The issue is that they bombed 200 factories.
So you are back to your nation going to war, and your factories being granted protection from bombing due to ... what was that again, exactly? What makes you so special?
I'm not certain why this is so controversial. It is pretty clear to most that Israel was engaging in forms of collective punishment, and this is one of the data points that demonstrates this most clearly.
Since you have preemptively convinced yourself, I'm wasting my time. It is not obvious that reprisals are the aim. Reprisals are the chosen interpretation. (That reprisal may have been an aim in some strikes may be true, but a valid tactical reason is both denial and the cat and mouse game of hitting dispersed fighting capacity).

Sigh: I am wasting time in yet another ****** Israel and their friends next door thread.

Sorry to have bothered.

DR

Praktik

26th October 2009, 08:12 AM

probably best we keep the good vibes we've cultivated lately DR and leave this thread to the principal contributors..;)

Darth Rotor

26th October 2009, 08:15 AM

probably best we keep the good vibes we've cultivated lately DR and leave this thread to the principal contributors..;)

Agreed. I am posting in a hurry, only giving you the tip of the iceberg, and not giving you full value.

See you in another thread. :)

DR

Oliver

26th October 2009, 08:20 AM

(http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1123558.html)Shahar Ilan: (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1123558.html)
Investigating the IDF would be the real war crime (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1123558.html)

Uhuh

The Fool

26th October 2009, 06:02 PM

I see you're reduced to just making stuff up now, or maybe I posted drunk and don't remember. Could you quote my post where I said Goldstone was corrupt?

BTW, still waiting for someone to find the examples I asked for. So far, it seems many of these things are war crimes only when done by Jews Zionists Israelis.
you said it here..

"So you're impressed that a one-sided investigation which started with a pre-determined conclusion actually found that their pre-determined conclusion was correct? You must have been very impresed by the show trials the Soviets used to have!"

you accuse this judge of conducting a one sided investigation and endorsing a pre-determined result. You compare his investigation with Soviet show trials This is a direct accusation of corrupt behavior.

so again....where is your evidence of this or is unsubstantiated slander just about the sum total?

as for the examples you seek from me? You want to be an apologist for Israels blockade of ghaza so you want me to give you examples of other nations conducting blockades and not being critisized for doing this? Well.....tell me what blockading actions you want to compare the blockading of Gaza with and we will move forward from there eh?

Thunder

26th October 2009, 06:07 PM

um...does anyone have any evidence that the Goldstone report is anything but fare and balanced?

does Israel have something to hide..or are they just arrogant as hell?

mortimer

26th October 2009, 06:13 PM

um...does anyone have any evidence that the Goldstone report is anything but fare and balanced?
Did you miss, or did you just ignore, the link provided earlier?
The Goldstone show-trial (http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5322971/the-goldstone-showtrial.thtml)

a_unique_person

26th October 2009, 06:19 PM

Did you miss, or did you just ignore, the link provided earlier?

Phillips has jumped the shark after her rounding on Obama.

The Fool

26th October 2009, 06:25 PM

Thanks for another laugh again though.
no problems son, always glad to give you a good laugh....

are you still relying on this mission statement...

"an urgent, independent international fact-finding mission, to be appointed by the President of the Council, to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression, and calls upon Israel not to obstruct the process of investigation and to fully cooperate with the mission."

as evidence that goldstone had a predetermined conclusion????

generally you flap around a lot then start claiming you have debunked something somewhere in the past.....just want to get it clear on what basis you accuse a judge of the worse thing a judge could do.

Thunder

26th October 2009, 06:27 PM

"Nor did it (Israel) commit any violations of international law and human rights" says who????

"There are even suggestions swirling today that it is to be published tomorrow – on the Jewish sabbath, when neither Israel nor the Jewish world can properly respond"

"One of the most influential of these NGOs, Human Rights Watch, has a long history of making misleading or false accusations against Israel"

"it looks like we are about to witness the next blood libel against Israel wrapped in the spurious mantle of legal and UN authority."

yeah, this article in The Spectator is really unbiased.

And The Spectator itself, truly a fare and balanced journal.

http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs250.snc1/9722_1181014619558_1653977305_447044_8140998_n.jpg

mortimer

26th October 2009, 07:08 PM

Phillips has jumped the shark after her rounding on Obama.
So instead of debunking the evidence, you decide to attack the messenger?

No response to the evidence provided that a member of the Commission had already declared, prior to the Commission being formed, that Israel had committed war crimes?

Thunder

26th October 2009, 07:10 PM

So instead of debunking the evidence, you decide to attack the messenger?

No response to the evidence provided that a member of the Commission had already declared, prior to the Commission being formed, that Israel had committed war crimes?

The writer for the Spectator article seems to have decided that Israel has NOT committed war crimes. Does she simply take Israel's word for it?

I must say, based on Israel defense of its actions in Gaza, their repudiation of the Goldstone report, their refusal to even entertain the idea of an independent investigation, and their insistence that Israeli soldiers DO NOT commit war crimes, I really can't see why Israel's initial look at these allegations should be seen as anything but schmutz.

mortimer

26th October 2009, 07:12 PM

"Nor did it (Israel) commit any violations of international law and human rights" says who????
Says the author. Gotta problem with that?

"There are even suggestions swirling today that it is to be published tomorrow – on the Jewish sabbath, when neither Israel nor the Jewish world can properly respond"

"One of the most influential of these NGOs, Human Rights Watch, has a long history of making misleading or false accusations against Israel"

"it looks like we are about to witness the next blood libel against Israel wrapped in the spurious mantle of legal and UN authority."

yeah, this article in The Spectator is really unbiased.

And The Spectator itself, truly a fare and balanced journal.
Nobody claimed it was unbiased. But it did present evidence of bias in the Goldstone report, which people here are claiming is unbiased. Care to address that evidence?

p.s. "fair", not "fare". "fare" is something you pay to ride the bus.

Thunder

26th October 2009, 07:21 PM

Says the author. Gotta problem with that?

Nobody claimed it was unbiased. But it did present evidence of bias in the Goldstone report, which people here are claiming is unbiased. Care to address that evidence? .

how/why does the author say that no human rights abuses or war crimes were committed by Israel in Gaza? does she just pull this out of her butt or does she have a legit. reason to say this?

from what I have read, the Goldstone report condemns Hamas for its indiscriminate use of rockets against purely civilian targets, and considers these actions to be a war crime.

how is that not a good thing? would you only support this report if it ONLY condemns Hamas and says Israel acted like angels and fuzzy bunnies?

none will admit to it...but it appears that some Israelis and their supporters feel that the IDF is simply incapable of doing wrong, and ANY suggestion of such is simply anti-Semitism and a blood-libel.

Skeptic Ginger

26th October 2009, 07:32 PM

:popcorn1

mortimer

26th October 2009, 07:43 PM

how/why does the author say that no human rights abuses or war crimes were committed by Israel in Gaza? does she just pull this out of her butt or does she have a legit. reason to say this?
Don't know and don't care. That was obviously an opinion piece, but presented some facts. Why do you want to dismiss the facts because they are presented in an opinion piece?

from what I have read, the Goldstone report condemns Hamas for its indiscriminate use of rockets against purely civilian targets, and considers these actions to be a war crime.

how is that not a good thing? would you only support this report if it ONLY condemns Hamas and says Israel acted like angels and fuzzy bunnies?
I would support this report if it were unbiased. It quite obviously isn't; a member of the Commission had already declared that Israel had committed war crimes before the Commission's investigation even began!
none will admit to it...but it appears that some Israelis and their supporters feel that the IDF is simply incapable of doing wrong, and ANY suggestion of such is simply anti-Semitism and a blood-libel.
While others accept any criticism of Israel and the IDF as absolute truth, even in the absence of any evidence.

Thunder

26th October 2009, 07:47 PM

Don't know and don't care.

clearly not

While others accept any criticism of Israel and the IDF as absolute truth, even in the absence of any evidence.

like who?

mortimer

26th October 2009, 07:56 PM

clearly not
Yep, I skipped right over the opinion portions and got to the evidence.
like who?
Well, there was TFT, for one.

I notice you are still ignoring the evidence that the Goldstone report is biased. Why is that?

WildCat

26th October 2009, 08:13 PM

you said it here..

"So you're impressed that a one-sided investigation which started with a pre-determined conclusion actually found that their pre-determined conclusion was correct? You must have been very impresed by the show trials the Soviets used to have!"

you accuse this judge of conducting a one sided investigation and endorsing a pre-determined result. You compare his investigation with Soviet show trials This is a direct accusation of corrupt behavior.
I don't know what his problem is. He may be corrupt, but more likely he's a dupe or a dope IMHO.

so again....where is your evidence of this or is unsubstantiated slander just about the sum total?
Hey, Goldstone makes the claims. He's supposed to provide the evidence.

as for the examples you seek from me? You want to be an apologist for Israels blockade of ghaza so you want me to give you examples of other nations conducting blockades and not being critisized for doing this? Well.....tell me what blockading actions you want to compare the blockading of Gaza with and we will move forward from there eh?
More noise from you. Your challenge was to show where a party in any other war was expected to allow the free flow of goods into territory held by the enemy. Can you do so?

You know, find an example and it blows my whole "war crimes invented just for Israel" argument, at least as far as the "collective punishment" via the semi-blockade goes.

WildCat

26th October 2009, 08:17 PM

The writer for the Spectator article seems to have decided that Israel has NOT committed war crimes.
The writer of the Spectator article doesn't have the power (such as it is) of an international legal body behind him. The subject is the Goldstone report, remember?

mortimer

26th October 2009, 08:25 PM

Parky,

Since you seem inclined to reject facts if they are presented in an opinion piece (presumably because you reject the opinion), here are the exact same facts presented in a straight news story by a respected news organization.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1251804563198&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Now, do you want to discuss the fact that one of the Commission members had already come to the conclusion that Israel had committed war crimes before the mission had even begun?

Thunder

26th October 2009, 08:26 PM

I notice you are still ignoring the evidence that the Goldstone report is biased. Why is that?

#1. the source of the purported evidence is highly biased in favor of Israel being angelic and sent by God.

#2. the purported evidence isn't really evidence. someone having previously worked for HRW does not mean they are automatically biased against Israel. unless you believe that human rights and Israel are mutually exclusive.

.....seems to be a lot of Jewish folks at HRW. but I guess they are just "self-hating Jews".

a_unique_person

26th October 2009, 09:58 PM

The Fool

27th October 2009, 03:55 AM

I don't know what his problem is. He may be corrupt, but more likely he's a dupe or a dope IMHO.

OK, not slandering just asking questions....How about you have a think about it, decide which you think is the most likely... if you think he is corrupt, a dupe or a dope and then decide what evidence you have. If you are going to slander someone could you at least pick one particular slander?

Hey, Goldstone makes the claims. He's supposed to provide the evidence.

His evidence is in his report. You reject it out of hand but I'm not sure how familiar you are with it....haven't prejudged it have you?

More noise from you. Your challenge was to show where a party in any other war was expected to allow the free flow of goods into territory held by the enemy. Can you do so?

No....I can't. Why do you think thats in some way significant? Who is requiring Israel to allow the free flow of goods into territory held by the enemy? Nobody would have any problems with Israel restricting the flow of war materials.... You are arguing that Israel should not be required to meet a standard that nobody expects it to meet. I agree. Lets celebrate our united front.

You know, find an example and it blows my whole "war crimes invented just for Israel" argument, at least as far as the "collective punishment" via the semi-blockade goes.
you would be better claiming I have to produce a unicorn. That would make your claim even safer.

Just curious about one thing. The definition of these crimes is unfair? Made just to catch Israel out? Does this mean you think that Israel has violated these laws and it is just the laws that are unfair?

If it is your claim that Israel has not violated any of these laws why does it matter to you if the laws are fair?

Or is it that Israel has breached these laws but hey....look over there, someone else is a lot worse?

The Fool

27th October 2009, 04:02 AM

The writer of the Spectator article doesn't have the power (such as it is) of an international legal body behind him. The subject is the Goldstone report, remember?

Ahhh Yes....The fact that the Goldstone report was produced by an internationally respected judge with an international legal body behind him, with access to the scene does weaken its credibility....compared to a spectator article typing over a donut in an office on the other side of the world.

I'll go with the journalist every time....

mortimer

27th October 2009, 06:43 AM

#1. the source of the purported evidence is highly biased in favor of Israel being angelic and sent by God.
That she presented the evidence in her opinion piece does not make her the source of the evidence. Please see the other link I provided from JPost.

#2. the purported evidence isn't really evidence. someone having previously worked for HRW does not mean they are automatically biased against Israel. unless you believe that human rights and Israel are mutually exclusive.

.....seems to be a lot of Jewish folks at HRW. but I guess they are just "self-hating Jews".
You are misrepresenting the evidence. The evidence was not that someone previously worked for HRW. The evidence of bias is that the mission member had already come to the conclusion that Israel committed war crimes before the fact finding mission even began. But I suspect you knew that.

WildCat

27th October 2009, 06:59 AM

OK, not slandering just asking questions....How about you have a think about it, decide which you think is the most likely... if you think he is corrupt, a dupe or a dope and then decide what evidence you have. If you are going to slander someone could you at least pick one particular slander?
Already done, have you read this thread? He provides no evidence for what he charges, and takes the word of Hamas at face value.

His evidence is in his report. You reject it out of hand but I'm not sure how familiar you are with it....haven't prejudged it have you?
Can you detail some of the "evidence" in the report?

No....I can't. Why do you think thats in some way significant? Who is requiring Israel to allow the free flow of goods into territory held by the enemy? Nobody would have any problems with Israel restricting the flow of war materials.... You are arguing that Israel should not be required to meet a standard that nobody expects it to meet. I agree. Lets celebrate our united front.
Are you serious? Isn't this the basis of the whole "collective punishment (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22collective+punishment%22+gaza&aq=f&oq=&aqi=)" argument?

you would be better claiming I have to produce a unicorn. That would make your claim even safer.

Just curious about one thing. The definition of these crimes is unfair? Made just to catch Israel out? Does this mean you think that Israel has violated these laws and it is just the laws that are unfair?

If it is your claim that Israel has not violated any of these laws why does it matter to you if the laws are fair?

Or is it that Israel has breached these laws but hey....look over there, someone else is a lot worse?
Amazing. You admit that you could more easily produce a unicorn than show any other country expected to fight a war the way Israel is expected to, and then in the very next breath complain about Israel violating laws which don't seem to exist for anyone else?

Doesn't this support my claim that these are "war crimes" made up just for Israel?

bigjelmapro

27th October 2009, 08:46 AM

You could do a bit better than that last excrement-as-post I'm sure bigjelmapro - unless you like proudly sporting your bias on your sleeve?
As per your reply? Would love to see something beyond handful of sentences from you that state pretty much nothing.

And what does this have to do with bias? Its a fair assumption, unless you're new to this subject of bomb-making factories, then I suggest you do a bit of reading before hitting that reply button.

bigjelmapro

27th October 2009, 08:50 AM

are you still relying on this mission statement...

"an urgent...cooperate with the mission."

as evidence that goldstone had a predetermined conclusion????

generally you flap around a lot then start claiming you have debunked something somewhere in the past.....just want to get it clear on what basis you accuse a judge of the worse thing a judge could do.
In case you did manage to quote a bit of what was written, how about reading the rest now and coming to an actual conclusion.

Goldstone also had a problem with the stated mandate of this mission, which states nothing along the lines of Hamas's involvement. Do you? Perhaps you could point it out. :D

Darth Rotor

27th October 2009, 09:20 AM

how/why does the author say that no human rights abuses or war crimes were committed by Israel in Gaza?
Good question, as arguing about non presence is rarely a worthwhile tactic.

First, whomever claims that war crimes were committed has to demonstrate/prove/support that claim with evidence and show how that evidence fits into what a war crime is, rather than use the term 'war crime' as a rhetorical device to demean and degrade somebody.

It is quite possible that there were war crimes committed there, and IMO Israel ought to be the first party concerned with that, given their general mode of maintaining a professional and disciplined army.

DR

The Fool

27th October 2009, 07:41 PM

Amazing. You admit that you could more easily produce a unicorn than show any other country expected to fight a war the way Israel is expected to, and then in the very next breath complain about Israel violating laws which don't seem to exist for anyone else?

sigh...You are simply misrepresenting what Israel is "expected to do". You claim Israel is expected to allow the free flow of goods into gaza. This is bollocks. You are asking me to provide examples of other countries that are expected to do what Israel is not expected to do.....you are correct, I can't provide an example.

Doesn't this support my claim that these are "war crimes" made up just for Israel?

no.

and you are still avoiding the question of if you think Israel has breached these laws and the laws are unfair or Israel has not breached these laws. Can you decide?

The Fool

27th October 2009, 07:50 PM

Already done, have you read this thread? He provides no evidence for what he charges, and takes the word of Hamas at face value.

just keep saying it and it must be true? you have not established either of these claims or provided any evidence in support of them. You just keep saying its the case.

Can you detail some of the "evidence" in the report?

I refer you to his report. You can read?

Are you serious? Isn't this the basis of the whole "collective punishment (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22collective+punishment%22+gaza&aq=f&oq=&aqi=)" argument?

no its not.....I'll patiently say it again. Nobody is expecting Israel to allow the free flow of goods no matter how many times you chant the slogan. Nobody has any problems with israel restricting flow of war materials.

Doesn't this support my claim that these are "war crimes" made up just for Israel?
no..

The Fool

27th October 2009, 08:03 PM

Goldstone also had a problem with the stated mandate of this mission, which states nothing along the lines of Hamas's involvement. Do you? Perhaps you could point it out. :D
yes, he had a problem with it, this apparently is evidence of predetermination?

He refused to accept a one sided mandate......this is apparently evidence he is one sided?

travelingoz

27th October 2009, 11:36 PM

bigjelmapro

28th October 2009, 03:39 AM

yes, he had a problem with it, this apparently is evidence of predetermination?

He refused to accept a one sided mandate......this is apparently evidence he is one sided?
So you're just going to continue replying and asking questions which have already been answered in full prior to this?

Go back, read my reply in full, then come back with a proper reply. Simple.

bigjelmapro

28th October 2009, 03:46 AM

Trying to pick through the hyperbole and insults in this thread sure is hard work. And here was me thinking that it might be a sensible discusion of the Goldstone report. Anyway...

Difficult, I know, especially with the trolling here.

So it's quite clear that the author and his team had also already made up their minds that Hamas were also responsible for war crimes.

Hamas has been doing this for 8 years prior to the incursion. The UN already confirmed this prior to the incursion.

This is not unreasonable. Anyone who watched the Aljazeera broadcasts from inside Gaza during the conflict would have seen Hammas fighters launching rockets and using civilian areas for cover. They also would have seen Israel indiscriminately using white phosphorus and shooting PRC workers as they attempted to assist the wounded.

Post hoc with WP. There's been an investigation into this 'indiscriminate' charge when it came to WP that confirmed that the IDF wasn't firing WP indiscriminately in the first place.

The PRC incident wasn't attributed to the IDF either.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Both sides have undoubtly committed many atrocities. Whether these qualify as war crimes under the strict definition of the law or not, they should be condemned UNCONDITIONALLY by everyone.
Difference between the IDF and Hamas when it comes to intention. You're assuming that one should equally and unconditionally condemn both sides, regarding of their actual intentions. I condemn that line of reasoning and assuming the veracity of allegations at face value :p

The Fool

28th October 2009, 05:56 AM

So you're just going to continue replying and asking questions which have already been answered in full prior to this?

Go back, read my reply in full, then come back with a proper reply. Simple.
No, I'm asking you on what you base your claim that the conclusions of Goldstone were predetermined. so far you have backed it up by repeating the claim and also posting an article from Dershowitz where he says he thinks the same thing.

after a period of failing to back something up you now wave somewhere back in the thread and say you have answered it.....whatever.

After all the flapping around and outrage and slander....whats the plan? I've listened to Goldstone and I've listened to his detractors....know which one sounds like a considered conclusion? Know which one sounds like a tantrum? I'll let you guess.

Darth Rotor

28th October 2009, 06:15 AM

Trying to pick through the hyperbole and insults in this thread sure is hard work. And here was me thinking that it might be a sensible discusion of the Goldstone report. Anyway...

From the JPost article linked by an earlier thread:

"The letter in question also condemned the firing of rockets by Hamas into Israel and suicide bombings, which it said were also war crimes," he noted in an interview with The Jerusalem Post"

So it's quite clear that the author and his team had also already made up their minds that Hamas were also responsible for war crimes.
Really? I wonder, were Hamas guilty of war crimes, or just crappy aim? These weren't guided missiles they were shooting, eh? Also, in this latest fracas, Hamas was clearly the aggressor. Does that not warrant a response? Does it not justify a response? Should Kuwaitis in 1991, in response to Iraqi aggression, have cried out to the international community "Please don't be too hard on them, they are just being aggressors!"
This is not unreasonable. Anyone who watched the Aljazeera broadcasts from inside Gaza during the conflict would have seen Hammas fighters launching rockets and using civilian areas for cover. They also would have seen Israel indiscriminately using white phosphorus and shooting PRC workers as they attempted to assist the wounded.
On what facts do you base that judgmental statement?
Two wrongs do not make a right. True.
Both sides have undoubtly committed many atrocities.
Unproven, hyperbolic, rhetoric, and in denial of what war constitutes: slaughter as a matter of habit. Comes as part of the package deal. Sad, but true.
Whether these qualify as war crimes under the strict definition of the law or not, they should be condemned UNCONDITIONALLY by everyone.
Weak rhetoric, of no utility other than to make yourself feel good, so you can show yourself to be in favor of virtue. Mayhap you'll spare us your pontification, given that you opened with
Trying to pick through the hyperbole and insults in this thread sure is hard work.
;)
And here was me thinking that it might be a sensible discusion of the Goldstone report.
FWIW, there is an adage that I think was first made by RandFan or Cleon:

Politics sub forum is where skepticism goes to die.

I see by your post count that you are a new player, so may I be the first to say:

Welcome to the scrum. :)

DR

WildCat

28th October 2009, 08:25 AM

sigh...You are simply misrepresenting what Israel is "expected to do". You claim Israel is expected to allow the free flow of goods into gaza. This is bollocks. You are asking me to provide examples of other countries that are expected to do what Israel is not expected to do.....you are correct, I can't provide an example.
Oh, so we can dismiss all the allegations of "collective punishment" due to the semi-blockade of Gaza?

and you are still avoiding the question of if you think Israel has breached these laws and the laws are unfair or Israel has not breached these laws. Can you decide?
Which laws? The ones made up just for Israel, like how suddenly using white phosphorous as a smoke screen is a war crime if and only if Israel uses it?

WildCat

28th October 2009, 08:32 AM

just keep saying it and it must be true? you have not established either of these claims or provided any evidence in support of them. You just keep saying its the case.

I refer you to his report. You can read?
Still no evidence huh? Because there's certainly none in the report.

no its not.....I'll patiently say it again. Nobody is expecting Israel to allow the free flow of goods no matter how many times you chant the slogan. Nobody has any problems with israel restricting flow of war materials.

no..
Oh, so now they are expected to allow all except "war materials", now we're getting somewhere!

Now, all you have to do is find examples of a war in which one side was expected to allow the free flow of all goods which are not "war materials" into territory held by the enemy.

Btw, define "war materials".

Pardalis

28th October 2009, 08:58 AM

"The letter in question also condemned the firing of rockets by Hamas into Israel and suicide bombings, which it said were also war crimes," he noted in an interview with The Jerusalem Post"

So it's quite clear that the author and his team had also already made up their minds that Hamas were also responsible for war crimes.

Yes, but all this is quite clear, everybody knows Hamas has done that, repeatedly, for years. Why need them to investigate themselves to find that out? We all know that they do that, with plenty of evidence. Why need an investigation? Why don't they accuse them of war crimes already?

Their intifada and terror campaing has been going on for years. If they had been formally accused of war crimes maybe they wouldn't have been elected in Gaza, and the whole situation of Cast Lead would have been avoided.

That whole thing about asking them to investigate themselves sounds fake to me. It's like truthers who ask the US government to re-investigate 9/11. They know it's not gonna happen. The UN is just saying that about Hamas to make themselves sound "fair" and impartial, while they know Hamas will never comply. Why would they? It's a terrorist organization, they know what they've done, and they're not going to stop because of some UN report.

Darth Rotor

28th October 2009, 09:27 AM

If they had been formally accused of war crimes maybe they wouldn't have been elected in Gaza, and the whole situation of Cast Lead would have been avoided.
I am skeptical of this counterfactual.

DR

Pardalis

28th October 2009, 09:32 AM

I am skeptical of this counterfactual.

DR

Well, Hamas has been sending rockets and suicide bombers since well before operation Cast Lead, so why is the UN now suddenly interested in Hamas' war crimes? If they had investigated Hamas from the beginning of their campaign, something would have been done about them.

Darth Rotor

28th October 2009, 11:20 AM

If they had investigated Hamas from the beginning of their campaign, something would have been done about them.
By the UN?

My mirth is bountiful, my dear Canadian friend. :D

Memory failure here: wasn't the EU the election oversight organization in Gaza?

travelingoz

28th October 2009, 11:40 AM

Thanks for the warm welcome DR! My ears are all toasty now! :D

Bigjelmapro & DR regarding the WP, i assume you're referring to the IDF's own investigation? AFAIK it is a war crime if it is used in a civilian area, except as a smokescreen for troops. During the conflict, on at least 5 or 6 occasions, i saw WP munitions being used at night over Gaza. :confused: I don't see how lighting the night sky up like the proverbial christmas tree achieves this.

Bigjelmapro; Whilst i didn't see the first PRC guy get shot while he was trying to get to what i assumed to be an injured Hamas fighter, i did see his colleague get shot while trying to subsequently help him. So who was this incident attributed to?

Pardalis; It's a good point you're making there. I would guess prosecuting Hamas would fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC?

Darth Rotor

28th October 2009, 12:25 PM

Thanks for the warm welcome DR! My ears are all toasty now! :D
A pleasure to have you. Welcome. Were you in Gaza during Cast Lead?
Bigjelmapro & DR regarding the WP, i assume you're referring to the IDF's own investigation? AFAIK it is a war crime if it is used in a civilian area, except as a smokescreen for troops. During the conflict, on at least 5 or 6 occasions, i saw WP munitions being used at night over Gaza. :confused: I don't see how lighting the night sky up like the proverbial christmas tree achieves this.
WP is most typically used (in my experience) as a spotting round for artillery and air strikes.
Do other militaries use WP for a smoke screen as a standard technique?

Anyone? Ryokan? Skeptic? Funko del fino?

Hmm, curious: how did you know it was WP being used at night?

ETA: I was being a bit air centric here, did a little checking, yes, one use of WP is smoke/cover on battlefield.
if it is used in a civilian area
Here is the problem. You are making a load of assumptions here. If anyone enters a civilian area and makes a fighting position out of it, it is a target. If two APC's are running from you, you are shooting at them, and they enter a village, they don't reach base. They are still a target.

That's Geneva. So no, not a war crime.

So, what is "a civilan area" in the context of what you are telling us?

Now, if you and I were in our A-10, with some Willy Pete 2.75 rockets that we usually use to mark for our wingman when he shoots his main gun, and we see a gaggle of school kids evacuate a school onto a football (soccer) field and decide to welcome them to the forum battle with some Willy Pete ... oh, yes, my friend, war crime, big time.

If we attack a populated village where we have NO reason to believe there are combatants, and we just want to make everyone run away, and we shower them with Willy Pete rockets ... you can probably make a case for a violation of RoE, and maybe a war crime. I'd not want to take that chance, if it were me in the A-10. Better ways to scare them off than spraying WP all over the place.

DR

Stout

28th October 2009, 03:40 PM

Not being a military minded kind of guy, but curious nonetheless I went a googling', wondering what wiley pete 2,75s were. Now I know. One thing I did find was that Hamas had used this stuff too (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1055472.html).

Now I'm not thinking Hamas used this as a smokescreen for advancing troops, seeing as how they had none in the area and I can't for the life of me figure out why they might want to illuminate a target at night in an area where they're not fighting.

Being a suspicious kind of guy, I'm left wondering whether Hamas was trying to use this as an anti personnel weapon and whether this single ( apparently ) use might constitute a war crime in itself.

The Fool

28th October 2009, 03:51 PM

Oh, so we can dismiss all the allegations of "collective punishment" due to the semi-blockade of Gaza?

ok, here's how it works. You whine about Israel being required to allow the free flow of goods into gaza. Something that is not required of them. I can't help you there....its your choice to complain about something you manufacture yourself.

Which laws? The ones made up just for Israel, like how suddenly using white phosphorous as a smoke screen is a war crime if and only if Israel uses it?

Ok, heres how it works. you whine about the use of white phosphorus as a smoke screen is suddenly a warcrime. Something that is not true. I can't help you there....its your choice to whine about crimes you manufacture yourself. Of course the question here is if Israel was using it as a smokescreen....They say they were so you accept this as truth. Goldstones investigation indicates that this is one area where a court may be satisfied that it was not.....but you reject that as one sided, pre-determined and anti-semitic.

bigjelmapro

29th October 2009, 04:53 AM

No, I'm asking you on what you base your claim that the conclusions of Goldstone were predetermined. so far you have backed it up by repeating the claim and also posting an article from Dershowitz where he says he thinks the same thing.

So you didn't bother reading the articles posted. Which article is from Dershowitz anyways? And who is stating that Goldstone's conclusions were 'predetermined'? This mission's mandate is flawed, as Goldstone confirmed, from the get-go, stating nothing along the lines of Hamas's infractions (which is barely touched upon in the report itself) and HRW, which commissioned this group to investigate made statements on January 12th that Israel committed war crimes and not using the term 'alleged'. So 'guilty until proven innocent' which in turn is predetermined:

The Grave Violations of Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
particularly due to the recent Israeli military attack against the occupied Gaza Strip (http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/A8A783ACB5D0C6B88525753C0071F427)

Recognizing that the massive ongoing Israeli military operation in. the Occupied Palestinian territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, caused grave violations of the human rights of the Palestinian civilians therein, exacerbated the severe humanitarian crisis in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and undermined international efforts towards achieving a just and lasting peace in the region
..
Recognizing also that the Israeli siege imposed on the occupied Gaza Strip, including the closure of border crossings and the cutting of the supply of fuel, food and medicine, constitutes collective punishment of the Palestinian civilians and leads to disastrous humanitarian and environmental consequences
..

1. Strongly condemns the ongoing Israeli military operation carried out in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, which have resulted in massive violations of human rights of the Palestinian people and systematic destruction of the Palestinian infrastructure;
..
5. Demands the occupying Power, Israel, to stop the targeting of civilians and medical facilities and staff as well as the systematic destruction of cultural heritage of the Palestinian people in addition to the destruction of public and private properties as laid down in the Fourth Geneva Convention;

This predetermined guilt was also trumpeted by the members of the mission itself. This group was mainly comprised of people who had a history of an anti-Israel stance:

e.g. House of Cards: NGOs and the Goldstone Report (http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/_house_of_cards_ngos_and_the_goldstone_report)

The fourth member, Christine Chinkin, who declared Israel’s actions to be a “war crime” and delegitimized Israel’s right to self-defense while the fighting in Gaza was still underway, was also previously a consultant to Amnesty International.
So no Dershowitz here either. But I doubt you'll read this anyways.

after a period of failing to back something up you now wave somewhere back in the thread and say you have answered it.....whatever.

Somewhere? You mean a page back? Difficult eh?

That's how I would sum up the brunt of your replies: 'whatever...'

After all the flapping around and outrage and slander....whats the plan? I've listened to Goldstone and I've listened to his detractors....know which one sounds like a considered conclusion? Know which one sounds like a tantrum? I'll let you guess.
Doubtful you've listened to much of anything or bothered reading the Goldstone report itself. Since its almost 600 pages long and your inability to press the back button on this thread, I find it highly doubtful you'll read much of anything. Unless its books on tape.

Tantrum? :D How many more tactics are you going to employ to avoid any form of debate? Guess there's a few more in that little sack of tricks.

bigjelmapro

29th October 2009, 05:28 AM

Bigjelmapro & DR regarding the WP, i assume you're referring to the IDF's own investigation? AFAIK it is a war crime if it is used in a civilian area, except as a smokescreen for troops. During the conflict, on at least 5 or 6 occasions, i saw WP munitions being used at night over Gaza. :confused: I don't see how lighting the night sky up like the proverbial christmas tree achieves this.

No, an NGO's preliminary investigation into the usage of WP. This was back in May and I'll link this article when I dig it up again.

Its not a warcrime to use WP rounds as illumination and smokescreen purposes, which are its conventional uses:

The use of white phosphorus as a conventional weapon is not outlawed or banned by any convention. The 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons forbids using incendiary weapons against civilians or against military targets amid concentrations of civilians. The United States did not sign convention protocols.

So during the day, predominantly used as a smokescreen. At night, both a smokescreen, marking targets and illumination (as night vision has been around since WWII).

Bigjelmapro; Whilst i didn't see the first PRC guy get shot while he was trying to get to what i assumed to be an injured Hamas fighter, i did see his colleague get shot while trying to subsequently help him. So who was this incident attributed to?

First-hand knowledge or you stating something you saw in a video? If the latter, post it.

The UN reported that this particular incident involved an IDF tank shelling this humanitarian aid convoy right after it happened. The IDF was informed and held its fire when this convoy came in. The two injured (later 1 dead) suffered from gunshot wounds to the chest) were treated at the Barzelai hospital in Israel where their wounds were confirmed not to be fragments from a tank shell. At the end, I don't know who it was attributed to.

The Fool

29th October 2009, 06:17 AM

So you didn't bother reading the articles posted.

actually I did read the articles you posted.

Which article is from Dershowitz anyways?

Here it is, you posted in post #91
http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/dershowitz/entry/goldstone_investigation_undercuts_human_rights

And who is stating that Goldstone's conclusions were 'predetermined'?

You are.

You said "This commission made accusations and already pointed the finger of guilt at Israel before they stepped foot in the region."

This mission's mandate is flawed, as Goldstone confirmed, from the get-go

yes, he refused to accept that mandate....so as it turns out....the mandate you love to quote wasn't the mandate ...was it.

This predetermined guilt was also trumpeted by the members of the mission itself.

Careful when you complain about the predetermined guilt because just up there at the top of the post you said "And who is stating that Goldstone's conclusions were 'predetermined'?"

This group was mainly comprised of people who had a history of an anti-Israel stance:

could have been chock full of Israeli representatives except.....Israel chose not to participate, remember?

So no Dershowitz here either. But I doubt you'll read this anyways.

found your dershowitz post yet?

Doubtful you've listened to much of anything or bothered reading the Goldstone report itself. Since its almost 600 pages long and your inability to press the back button on this thread, I find it highly doubtful you'll read much of anything. Unless its books on tape.

sorry but this is laugh out loud material. I seem to know more about what you post than you do. If you want to debate the report you need to move on from denial and address the issues the report highlights. You may think you are helping Israel by avoiding this and putting up a smokescreen but.....

bigjelmapro

29th October 2009, 08:57 AM

actually I did read the articles you posted.

Very doubtful, again, since you're asking me questions that I've previously answered and took excerpts from the articles mentioned.

Here it is, you posted in post #91
http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/dershowitz/entry/goldstone_investigation_undercuts_human_rights

:D You found Waldo in the numerous links I posted. I didn't emphasize this one either. So does this somehow void the rest of the articles (sheer majority not Dershowitz, actually, I only remember ever posting 1) I've posted?

You are.

You said "This commission made accusations and already pointed the finger of guilt at Israel before they stepped foot in the region."

Didn't know Goldstone's given name was Commission Goldstone, or Goldstone's nickname. Perhaps you would like to see more quotes (from the article I linked above this one) from the members of the commission who presumed Israel already guilty of war crimes.

I don't quite understand how difficult it is to understand the original mandate of: "to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying Power, Israel" IN ADDITION to the HRW's statement (also linked above) that already presume Israel's war crimes. The term 'alleged' or a derivative thereof is not used. Hence its assumed to be true. This is simple English.

yes, he refused to accept that mandate....so as it turns out....the mandate you love to quote wasn't the mandate ...was it.

The mandate wasn't revised. Goldstone also had an issue with the final report issued by the HRW. So it was used.

Careful when you complain about the predetermined guilt because just up there at the top of the post you said "And who is stating that Goldstone's conclusions were 'predetermined'?"

Complain? You don't understand the distinction between the term 'Commission' and the name 'Goldstone', as previously mentioned.

could have been chock full of Israeli representatives except.....Israel chose not to participate, remember?

Now you're befuddling blocking entry of the already formed commission into Gaza via Israel (based on their statements assuming Israel's guilt prior to the investigation) with that of the formation of the commission itself.

Israeli representatives were never invited as this commission was comprised of HRW approved representatives with well-established prejudices towards Israel with Goldstone as a showpiece to give the false impression that it was objective.

You really think this passes as a reply? Chock full of fallacies there buddy.

sorry but this is laugh out loud material. I seem to know more about what you post than you do. If you want to debate the report you need to move on from denial and address the issues the report highlights. You may think you are helping Israel by avoiding this and putting up a smokescreen but.....
Glad you find this a form of entertainment. Just as I find it entertaining trying to pull these fallacious arguments of yours.

Problem with you is, you have to actually step up and debate the issues of this report rather than use these endless antics of yours.

Your cheerleaders TFT and Parky have already exited stage right (even though there are a few more out there), so I don't know who you're trying to impress. Yourself maybe?

bigjelmapro

29th October 2009, 09:04 AM

Interesting side-note. The outcome of the Goldstone report run through Wordle:

http://www.honestreporting.com/a/images/communiques/upload1/goldstonewordcloud.jpg

Hamas being barely legible above the word 'Attack'

Doctor Evil

29th October 2009, 11:13 AM

A nit pick. The wordie above is taken from the report conclusions and recommendations section, not the whole report.

The Fool

29th October 2009, 04:04 PM

Your cheerleaders TFT and Parky have already exited stage right (even though there are a few more out there), so I don't know who you're trying to impress. Yourself maybe?
tantrums tantrums :)

anyway, after you have had your flap....the next phase will be to see the outcome of the investigations that Hamas and Israel have been urged to undertake and I don't like the chances of either of them getting off the ground do you?

So after the internal investigations fail Goldstones report that there is a prima facie case for warcrimes will be off to the hague.

better start looking for dirt to throw at the hague eh?

bigjelmapro

30th October 2009, 05:57 AM

Another response deflected and excused as a tantrum. Nice stonewalling and yet another failure on your part to argue the points.

Doubtful this report will be admissible in the Hague since Goldstone himself had stated that this report has no legal implications (although its full of baseless legal banter) that could be forwarded to the ICC. Mind you, the report is replete with procedural errors. This has all been a show so far and like Amnesty International half-baked attempt with the water affair, it has been taken at face value. Its the initial accusations that stick regardless if they're backed up by actual facts.

The Fool

30th October 2009, 09:19 PM

Another response deflected and excused as a tantrum. Nice stonewalling and yet another failure on your part to argue the points.

I'll argue the point with you if ever you get past denial, misrepresentation and slander.

Doubtful this report will be admissible in the Hague

wrong.

Since Goldstone himself had stated that this report has no legal implications (although its full of baseless legal banter)

misrepresentation, or possibly just misunderstanding of the role of the report. It was to establish if there was a prima facie case (not to prove or disprove or determine guilt or innocence). Thats what it found, so that will be referred to the Hague.

as I said, unless you change your minds and start to participate its probably time to start looking for crap to fling at the Hague.. If you can find out who the judges will be you could get a head-start in digging up dirt on them, they are probably anti-semites.

Darth Rotor

31st October 2009, 05:44 AM

Its the initial accusations that stick regardless if they're backed up by actual facts.
This style has become standard fare, made worse by the internet, and not just on this topic.

bigjelmapro

31st October 2009, 11:27 AM

I'll argue the point with you if ever you get past denial, misrepresentation and slander.

You keep stating this, but refuse to actually give examples of this.

wrong.

Numerous procedural errors and their heavy reliance on politicized NGOs who are vehemently anti-Israel makes the 'evidence' used in this report inadmissible. Along with the group members, besides Goldstone, this mission had no claim of objectivity. This was mentioned and many links provided earlier to support this premise.

misrepresentation, or possibly just misunderstanding of the role of the report. It was to establish if there was a prima facie case (not to prove or disprove or determine guilt or innocence). Thats what it found, so that will be referred to the Hague.

This mission and subsequent report, goes far beyond the scope of a mere fact-finding mission. It makes unsubstantiated claims of war crimes mainly relying on NGO (rehashed) information (ie B'tselem, left-wing human rights advocacy group, also mentioned earlier), makes claims using and misrepresenting legal terms (often determining guilt, not just the existence of information to support the existence of war crimes), predominantly lays blame on Israel for this war crimes allegation while ignoring and excusing Hamas.

There's no doubt that this is prima facie, I've never denied this. The report itself makes a great case if they were defending Hamas and this mission went so far as to refuse naming them, choosing rather to use the term ‘Palestinian militant group’, whitewashing Hamas of any direct guilt for their many infractions.

as I said, unless you change your minds and start to participate its probably time to start looking for crap to fling at the Hague.. If you can find out who the judges will be you could get a head-start in digging up dirt on them, they are probably anti-semites.
Crap to fling? Just like the tantrum bit, its stonewalling at its basic level. That on top of the anti-semitic angle, is this how you debate all topics? Again, who are you trying to impress here? If you want to debate, then debate, cease with the infantile antics.

a_unique_person

31st October 2009, 07:08 PM

bigjelmapro

1st November 2009, 01:23 AM

So another re-hash of the Israel-can-do-no-wrong bit? So it doesn't get tiresome then.

As a whole, I don't think there has been an accusation that warrants any ICC show trial. On a case to case basis, there have been infractions, no doubt. This, however, is and has been under investigation within Israel's own independent and impartial multi-tier judicial system.

If there weren't trials in Israel for infractions by IDF soldiers, which I personally know exist, then the Goldstone report would be justified in its claims. What I've seen in the report is a failed equivalence between the judicial system in Israel and Gaza in addition to a haphazard application of international laws/conventions/statutes to cases of dealing with assymetric warfare.

The Fool

1st November 2009, 02:18 AM

As a whole, I don't think there has been an accusation that warrants any ICC show trial. On a case to case basis, there have been infractions, no doubt. This, however, is and has been under investigation within Israel's own independent and impartial multi-tier judicial system.

They have been under investigation within Israels Judicial system? Can you name a Judge that has been involved in these investigations?

In actuality some of the things cited in the report have been investigated by......guess? The IDF. So far they have one soldier guilty. Someone was found guilty of stealing a credit card.

Oh well, its a start. The IDF are right on top of the credit card theft problem.

I believe the Israeli Judiciary is a sound institution with numerous people of sufficient international standing to easily satisfy the request of this report for Israel to conduct an open independent inquiry.

How about it?

bigjelmapro

1st November 2009, 08:19 AM

They have been under investigation within Israels Judicial system? Can you name a Judge that has been involved in these investigations?

:rolleyes: You're asking me here to go through the history of the IDF where court cases have been passed on to Israel's judicial court? Obviously you've made the false assumption that I was talking specifically about on-going investigations regarding Operation Cast Lead.

In actuality some of the things cited in the report have been investigated by......guess? The IDF. So far they have one soldier guilty. Someone was found guilty of stealing a credit card.

And why wouldn't the military court investigate infractions/allegations against IDF soldiers? Unless you're assuming that all military courts around the world are automatically biased and unfair. Are you?

Cases come under review by the Attorney General and possibly the Supreme court if deemed so. There's an order to this. Doesn't just skip to the judicial court.

I believe the Israeli Judiciary is a sound institution with numerous people of sufficient international standing to easily satisfy the request of this report for Israel to conduct an open independent inquiry.

How about it?
We'll see how this goes.

1. That the Security Council require the Government of Israel, under Article 40 of the
Charter of the United Nations:
(a) To take all appropriate steps, within a period of three months, to launch appropriate investigations that are independent and in conformity with international standards, into the serious violations of International Humanitarian and International Human Rights Law reported by the Mission and any other serious allegations that might
come to its attention;

Done.

There's quite a lot more drivel from page 547 onwards in this court that requires Israel to report to the Security Council, which I don't know if its been officially done yet, however, official statements as to the investigations were made by the MFA to this effect. (Mind you this report and mandate has already been declared as biased by a number of countries and human rights groups, so no need to really adhere to this report).

I do, however, want to see where such requirements were put upon another country in a similar position. Perhaps with US (and coalition troops) actions in Iraq and Afghanistan? Have they been subjected to review by the Security council or been asked to?

Nice to see that you skimmed over my previous responses. I take it you agree with them.

Eyeron

1st November 2009, 08:44 AM

Is there anything the IDF has done that is a war crime?

This is a difficult question to answer because personal prejudices and bigotries will affect the answer.

Here's a Wiki for you though on some of the accusations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Defense_Force

In summary:

Several specific allegations of killings of prisoners of war by members of the IDF have been made by former members with regard to incidents in the 1956 Sinai War and the 1967 Six-Day War.

In September, 1982 it is alleged by a Knesset appointed commission of inquiry that IDF forces permitted Lebanese Phalangist troops to enter the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps. The Phalangist troops then carried out a massacre of Palestinian civilians.

However, one has to watch out for the propaganda when looking for this kind of info. For example, there are photos of children with Israeli troops and one of the most common claims is that the IDF use civilians to shield their military when nothing can be further from the truth.

Pardalis

1st November 2009, 12:48 PM

Is there anything the IDF has done that is a war crime?

Is there anything that Hamas has done that isn't, since the first day it existed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Intifada

a_unique_person

1st November 2009, 01:07 PM

Is there anything that Hamas has done that isn't, since the first day it existed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Intifada
You haven't answered my question.

bigjelmapro

1st November 2009, 01:15 PM

Neither have you AUP

The Fool

1st November 2009, 05:26 PM

:rolleyes: You're asking me here to go through the history of the IDF where court cases have been passed on to Israel's judicial court? Obviously you've made the false assumption that I was talking specifically about on-going investigations regarding Operation Cast Lead.

And why wouldn't the military court investigate infractions/allegations against IDF soldiers? Unless you're assuming that all military courts around the world are automatically biased and unfair. Are you?

Cases come under review by the Attorney General and possibly the Supreme court if deemed so. There's an order to this. Doesn't just skip to the judicial court.

We'll see how this goes.

Done.

There's quite a lot more drivel from page 547 onwards in this court that requires Israel to report to the Security Council, which I don't know if its been officially done yet, however, official statements as to the investigations were made by the MFA to this effect. (Mind you this report and mandate has already been declared as biased by a number of countries and human rights groups, so no need to really adhere to this report).

I do, however, want to see where such requirements were put upon another country in a similar position. Perhaps with US (and coalition troops) actions in Iraq and Afghanistan? Have they been subjected to review by the Security council or been asked to?

Nice to see that you skimmed over my previous responses. I take it you agree with them.
I'm glad you appear confidant that the Israeli government is going to conduct an open independant inquiry as requested in the Goldstone report . Lets see what happens.

In Goldstones own words, the best place for war crimes investigations are in an effective independant judiciary of the Nation itself. This is obviously the outcome of choice.

a_unique_person

1st November 2009, 06:24 PM

What it took to get one IDF member tried fairly.

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2007/08/05/james-millers-idf-killer-may-soon-be-wanted-man-in-britain/

Note that he was promoted after the initial IDF internal investigation.

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2007/08/05/james-millers-idf-killer-may-soon-be-wanted-man-in-britain/

Eldar also notes an even more serious charge against the IDF of tampering with the evidence:
In [Lord Peter] Goldsmith’s letter, received by Haaretz, the British attorney general writes that the ballistic tests carried out in Israel “could only show that the bullet that killed James did not come from the rifle barrels of the weapons that were examined.” In essence, the senior British official is charging Israeli authorities with tampering with evidence, there having “been a significant opportunity for the rifle barrels to have been changed.”

a_unique_person

1st November 2009, 06:35 PM

Following are extensive excerpts from the transcript of the meeting, as it appears in the program's bulletin, Briza, which was published on Wednesday. The names of the soldiers have been changed to preserve their anonymity. The editors have also left out some of the details concerning the identity of the units that operated in a problematic way in Gaza.
Danny Zamir: "I don't intend for us to evaluate the achievements and the diplomatic-political significance of Operation Cast Lead this evening, nor need we deal with the systemic military aspect [of it]. However, discussion is necessary because this was, all told, an exceptional war action in terms of the history of the IDF, which has set new limits for the army's ethical code and that of the State of Israel as a whole.

"This is an action that sowed massive destruction among civilians. It is not certain that it was possible do have done it differently, but ultimately we have emerged from this operation and are not facing real paralysis from the Qassams. It is very possible that we will repeat such an operation on a larger scale in the years to come, because the problem in the Gaza Strip is not simple and it is not at all certain that it has been solved. What we want this evening is to hear from the fighters."

Aviv: "I am squad commander of a company that is still in training, from the Givati Brigade. We went into a neighborhood in the southern part of Gaza City. Altogether, this is a special experience. In the course of the training, you wait for the day you will go into Gaza, and in the end it isn't really like they say it is. It's more like, you come, you take over a house, you kick the tenants out and you move in. We stayed in a house for something like a week.

"Toward the end of the operation there was a plan to go into a very densely populated area inside Gaza City itself. In the briefings they started to talk to us about orders for opening fire inside the city, because as you know they used a huge amount of firepower and killed a huge number of people along the way, so that we wouldn't get hurt and they wouldn't fire on us.

"At first the specified action was to go into a house. We were supposed to go in with an armored personnel carrier called an Achzarit [literally, Cruel] to burst through the lower door, to start shooting inside and then ... I call this murder ... in effect, we were supposed to go up floor by floor, and any person we identified - we were supposed to shoot. I initially asked myself: Where is the logic in this?

"From above they said it was permissible, because anyone who remained in the sector and inside Gaza City was in effect condemned, a terrorist, because they hadn't fled. I didn't really understand: On the one hand they don't really have anywhere to flee to, but on the other hand they're telling us they hadn't fled so it's their fault ... This also scared me a bit. I tried to exert some influence, insofar as is possible from within my subordinate position, to change this. In the end the specification involved going into a house, operating megaphones and telling [the tenants]: 'Come on, everyone get out, you have five minutes, leave the house, anyone who doesn't get out gets killed.'

http://sites.google.com/a/ithaca.edu/judaism-2009/Home/the-arab-israeli-conflict/war-in-gaza-2008-2009/war-and-ethics

The Fool

1st November 2009, 07:45 PM

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1246443820082&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

excerpts below...

"First we saw the destruction of Gaza on TV, then we heard about it from Palestinians, then from journalists (mainly foreign), then from the world's leading human rights organizations. We didn't believe it, or we found ways to justify it, but at any rate, we, the Israeli public, made sure the images and words went in one ear and out the other."

"Now comes "Breaking the Silence," an organization of IDF combat reservists, with the testimonies of 26 soldiers who served in Operation Cast Lead, and the stories are very, very familiar, only they're much more detailed than what we've heard before. Over 100 pages of testimony about the extraordinary scale of destruction ("like in those World War II films where nothing remained"); the vandalism ("In one house we entered I saw guys had defecated in drawers"); the shoot-'em-up spirit ("The atmosphere was not one of fear but rather people too eager to shoot other people"); the elastic definition of "legitimate target" ("suspects, lookouts, people standing on roofs and looking towards our forces, making suspect movements on the roof, bending down, looking out beyond the rim"); the firing of napalm-like white phosphorous in thickly-populated areas; the killings of unarmed civilians in no-go zones; the rabbis' anti-Arab pep talks; and much, much more."

"I don't know what depresses me more - these stories or the IDF's reaction to them. You would think that after reading 100-odd pages of such testimony from 26 veterans of the war - 14 conscripts and 12 reservists - the IDF brass would at least say it was disturbing, troubling, something."

"Now, on top of the TV footage from Gaza, the word of Palestinian victims, journalists, human rights investigators and the Rabin academy soldiers, there are the war stories of 14 conscript and 12 reserve IDF veterans that we have to deny."

"In a few weeks we'll be denying another report, that one by a UN committee headed by South Africa's Judge Richard Goldstone, one of the bravest, finest Jewish fighters for justice in modern times."