Israel and Palestine on trial for war crimes

[ljkeane]

Libya and Sudan aren't members of the UNHRC and included in it's members are Canada, France, the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, Brazil etc and the US was just elected to join.

[Yoadm]

Libya and Sudan aren't members of the UNHRC and included in it's members are Canada, France, the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, Brazil etc and the US was just elected to join.

Sudan and Lybia presided in the previous two years. Lybia, if Im not mistaken, actually presided over the council for one year (how ironic). Current 'stellar' members include:

Bahrain

Bangladesh

China

Indonesia

Jordan

Pakistan

Saudi Arabia

Sri Lanka

Algeria

Morocco

Tunisia

Zambia

Not only do most of these countries have a horrendous human rights record, but they are historically hostile to Israel (many opposing its very existance), who use the UNHRC, not only as a tool to bash Israel, but as a way to deflect from their own far worse human rights abuses. They, on a yearly basis, hold such a large block in the UNHRC, that in 2006, 100% of its resolutions were directed at Israel (practically ignoring dozens of far worse worldwide events), and in 2007 70%. Not only that, the UNHRC voted to put Israel on a permanent 'review'. Israel is the only country to receive such treatment.

In addition:

- That the council is capable of swift and decisive action is a welcome surprise; that Israel remains the only nation to provoke such action is not. In the 17 months since its inception, the body has passed 13 condemnations, 12 of them against Israel.

- According to former Secretary-General Kofi Annan, "the selectivity and politicizing of its activities [were] in danger of bringing the entire U.N. system into disrepute."

- In some cases, the council has actively eroded the level of monitoring. Last year, when Cuba drew fire for persecuting journalists, and Belarus for political imprisonments and rigged elections, the council responded by removing monitors from both countries.

- As fresh waves of violence convulsed Darfur in December, the council responded by dismissing the team of experts tasked with monitoring atrocities in that region. Sudan's closest allies, Egypt and China, have led the council in shielding the Sudanese regime.Even mild resolutions, like a Canadian proposal requesting the prosecution of those responsible for abuses in Darfur, have been rejected.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120156891659323879.html

[Artas]

Whatever criticism could be hurled against the UN doesn't excuse Israel.

[Yoadm]

Whatever criticism could be hurled against the UN doesn't excuse Israel.

Maybe not, but it pulls the rug under any claims to legitimacy by the Gaza fact finding mission, which says alot.

[Werthead]

As I said at the time, Israel has the full right of self-defence, as any nation on Earth does (including the future Palestinian state) when it is subjected to attack. I remember the debate we had about the rights and wrongs of the Palestinians hiding their offensive weaponry behind a civilian population. I think the thread Godwinned in record time with discussions of the Allies levelling entire German cities just to knock out a couple of armaments factories and so forth.

The report seems broadly fair, condemning Hamas for launching the attacks deliberately aimed at civilians in the first place, and then for Israel not being more discriminatory in the counter-strikes. In fact, I remember the discussion at the time was during the Israeli bombardment, not the actual ground war, when there was speculation that there would be no ground war. In retrospect the IDF should have gone in on the ground to target the rocket launchers right at the start instead of bombing the Gaza Strip in the random hope you might hit something vital (a couple of targetted assassinations of Hamas commanders aside).

However, there are signs that the USA are losing patience with Israel. Certainly significant sanctions have been deployed against countries who have done far less and caused fewer casualties, so the USA's inconsistent and biased attitude certainly needs to change. The problem is that despite those signs of change, probably nothing concrete will happen, and of course any sanctions against Israel would likely also negatively impact on the occupied territories (aside from a total US freeze on all US defence exports to Israel, which would not be beneficial for the US defence industries in a recession either).

Basically, Obama needs the Israelis to agree to suspend all settlement building in the West Bank as a sign of his authority and to get the negotiations back underway, but he has neither the carrot or stick to make the Israelis agree to that. Until he can deliver that, then, just like Bush before him, he will achieve nothing in Israel apart from some fancy speeches.

[Yoadm]

In retrospect the IDF should have gone in on the ground to target the rocket launchers right at the start instead of bombing the Gaza Strip in the random hope you might hit something vital (a couple of targetted assassinations of Hamas commanders aside).

It's kind of hard to conduct a surprise attack against Hamas using a ground incursion, which takes days to set up logistics, call on reservists, and actually enter Gaza, thereby giving Hamas time to hide its weapons and prepare. Infact, unlike your claim of 'shooting in the blind', the IDF prepared its target bank 6 months in advance, and in the first two hours of the strike killed an estimated 200 Hamas men and 40 civilians, in one of the densest areas on earth (6000 people died in Fallujah due to US strikes, and fallujah is 10 times smaller than Gaza). Indeed, one might say that the IDF was far more carefull in chosing its targets than the coalition in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

. Certainly significant sanctions have been deployed against countries who have done far less and caused fewer casualties

I believe you would have a hard time finding any conflict with less casualties than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In two months of war in Sri-Lanka, 20,000 civilians were killed, which is 30 times more than died in the Gaza war, yet the US hasnt pushed for any sanctions against that nation.

[ljkeane]

Maybe not, but it pulls the rug under any claims to legitimacy by the Gaza fact finding mission, which says alot.

The way the evidence in the report was compliled is fairly clearly set out and it seems sound to me, the absence of attention to other issues might be a reasonable criticism of the UNHRC but that doesn't mean that the issues raised in the report aren't valid.

The likelihood is that the US will prevent any action being taken by the UN beyond this report but Israel's refusal to address the issues raised in any meaningful manner certainly doesn't paint it in a good light.

[Yoadm]

The way the evidence in the report was compliled is fairly clearly set out and it seems sound to me

Pardon me, but on what basis does it 'seem sound'? Neither of us knows how the research was conducted, only that it was conducted in Gaza, with the aid of Hamas, who fully controlled the scene. What we do know is that the mission was created by a council known for its extreme bias and targetting of Israel. Thus, how much credibility might it have?

, the absence of attention to other issues might be a reasonable criticism of the UNHRC but that doesn't mean that the issues raised in the report aren't valid.

I think the sole focus on Israel destroys such validity, since it proves that the reasons behind the council's creation of such a fact finding mission were tainted with bias to begin with.

The likelihood is that the US will prevent any action being taken by the UN beyond this report but Israel's refusal to address the issues raised in any meaningful manner certainly doesn't paint it in a good light.

Would you care to elaborate on what you mean by 'refusing to adress the issues'?

[SquireThomas]

The way the evidence in the report was compliled is fairly clearly set out and it seems sound to me, the absence of attention to other issues might be a reasonable criticism of the UNHRC but that doesn't mean that the issues raised in the report aren't valid.

Doesn't it? Frankly, the fact that the body funding and directing the preparation of this report is obviously deeply biased against Israel should and does raise deep concerns about its legitimacy.

[Shryke]

I think the sole focus on Israel destroys such validity, since it proves that the reasons behind the council's creation of such a fact finding mission were tainted with bias to begin with.

The report condemns Hamas as well....

[Yoadm]

The report condemns Hamas as well....

Indeed it does, which says alot considering that Israel refused to present any evidence against Hamas of in favour of itself to the mission. Unlike Israel, Hamas publically admitted its use of civilians to protect its leaders, military installations, and warehouses, which is something even this fact finding mission would have a hard time ignoring.

[ljkeane]

Pardon me, but on what basis does it 'seem sound'? Neither of us knows how the research was conducted, only that it was conducted in Gaza, with the aid of Hamas, who fully controlled the scene. What we do know is that the mission was created by a council known for its extreme bias and targetting of Israel. Thus, how much credibility might it have?

On the basis that the methodology they used to collect the evidence is clearly set out in the report, the transcripts and some video of all the hearings is available on the UNHRC website and there is evidence available from sources beyond just Palestinian citizens. On top of that the bio's of all the members of the team that compiled the report are available and they all look to be very credible investigators to me.

Would you care to elaborate on what you mean by 'refusing to adress the issues'?

There are some very concering allegations raised in the report with a reasonable amount of evidence to support tham and the only response I've seen from the Israeli government is to describe it as "born in sin".

[Shryke]

Indeed it does, which says alot considering that Israel refused to present any evidence against Hamas of in favour of itself to the mission. Unlike Israel, Hamas publically admitted its use of civilians to protect its leaders, military installations, and warehouses, which is something even this fact finding mission would have a hard time ignoring.

So it condemns both sides.

What are you mad about again?

[Yoadm]

On the basis that the methodology they used to collect the evidence is clearly set out in the report, the transcripts and some video of all the hearings is available on the UNHRC website and there is evidence available from sources beyond just Palestinian citizens. On top of that the bio's of all the members of the team that compiled the report are available and they all look to be very credible investigators to me.

Unfortunately, when you hear only one side of the story, visit only one area of conflict, interview only the Palestinians, it is inevitable that your findings will be tainted by it. Like Hezbollah, Hamas controlls the 'crime scene'. Gaza's health ministry which presented the casualty figures (directly quoted by the mission) is controlled by Hamas aswell. Hamas choses who is allowed to be interview and who isnt, and they are all very well prepared prior to the missions arrival. In addition, Israel refused to present its evidence and witnesses to the mission, since it saw it from the start as lacking legitimacy. Now, you can argue that this move was stupid on the Israeli side, but the result is that the findings only used 50% of the information, deriving 100% from the Palestinian side.

There are some very concering allegations raised in the report with a reasonable amount of evidence to support tham and the only response I've seen from the Israeli government is to describe it as "born in sin".

If those allegations are a result of a biased mission, who was created by a council known for consistantly targetting Israel due to the large block of muslim nations residing in it, then the mission immidiately loses any validity it had. Here's a small (and a bit silly metaphore): If a crime was commited, and the judge(a cousin of the victim), points a finger at his personal worst enemy, then naturally you will ignore it out of hand.

So it condemns both sides.

What are you mad about again?

Say you are American, and a UN body, sponsored by North Korea and Iran, creates a fact finding mission with regards to the US conduct in Afghanistan, and it 'equally condemns the Taliban and the US army', drawing a parralel between them.. Im sure you would be outraged as-well.

[Werthead]

Generally speaking, the report can be seen as being fair as it seems to have seriously pissed off both the Israelis and Palestinians and gotten them to agree on something.

Maybe this is a new way forward? The UN just has to remember to say something unflattering about the Palestinians every time they say something negative about Israel and vice versa, until both sides agree to negotiate just to spite the UN?

[Shryke]

Say you are American, and a UN body, sponsored by North Korea and Iran, creates a fact finding mission with regards to the US conduct in Afghanistan, and it 'equally condemns the Taliban and the US army', drawing a parralel between them.. Im sure you would be outraged as-well.

Depends on the phrasing. If it said "Both the US and the Taliban have done some terrible things in Afghanistan" I don't think you'd find anyone reasonable to disagree with that.

Your whole problem with the thing seems to be that it has the temerity to condemn both sides of the conflict.

[Yoadm]

Depends on the phrasing. If it said "Both the US and the Taliban have done some terrible things in Afghanistan" I don't think you'd find anyone reasonable to disagree with that.

Read the report (or, lets be realistic, the shorter versions of it published over the media). It mainly deals with Israel, and it seems as if the criticism of Hamas was a finishing touch intended to make a minimal presentation of fairness. In addition, its report on Israel ignored many favourable IDF actions intended to aid the Palestinian population, which were surprisingly ommited from the report, as if they didn't exist.

[Shryke]

Read the report (or, lets be realistic, the shorter versions of it published over the media). It mainly deals with Israel, and it seems as if the criticism of Hamas was a finishing touch intended to make a minimal presentation of fairness.

It reads that way to you because that's what you were looking for.

[Yoadm]

It reads that way to you because that's what you were looking for.

That's quite presumptuous of you. Without even reading the report, you conclude two things: That the report is fair, and that my analysis of it isnt.

[Shryke]

That's quite presumptuous of you. Without even reading the report, you conclude two things: That the report is fair, and that my analysis of it isnt.

Far be it from me to overrule your automatic presumption that the report is unfair and biased and that I didn't read it. :rolleyes: