Israel and Palestine on trial for war crimes

[Yoadm]

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:

My 'presumption' stemms from actually reading the report, personally being inside Gaza, knowing the IDF's inner workings, and studying 6 months of international law and its applications in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

[potsherds]

What Shyrke/Uso etc said.

Seems reasonable.

Agreed.

[ljkeane]

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.

That may be true and those accused should of course be allowed to provide a defense, but there is certainly sufficient evidence of wrongdoing that those responsible should be investigated, which is exactly what the report recommends.

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.

I think you're confusing the potential bias of the council members with that of the mission, I don't see any evidence that the members of the mission are biased and the member states of the council have no role in compiling the report. While the council should certainly be doing more to investigate other conflicts that doesn't mean that there was no basis for an investigation into this conflict.

[Shryke]

My 'presumption' stemms from actually reading the report, personally being inside Gaza, knowing the IDF's inner workings, and studying 6 months of international law and its applications in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

What does any of that have to do with your continued annoyance at the report having the gall to criticize Israel along with Hamas?

You have prejudged that the report is biased.

[Yoadm]

What does any of that have to do with your continued annoyance at the report having the gall to criticize Israel along with Hamas?

You have prejudged that the report is biased.

I havent 'prejudged' its bias, since I read the report. I 'post-judged it'. My issue isnt with criticism of Israel. We deserve to be criticised for numerous actions we commit, as does every other nation. My issue is with the blind, biased, vile and one-sided criticism created by the UNHRC, supervised by some of the worst human rights abusing nations on earth, who use Israel as a punching bag due to their being opposed to its very existance. The report, which I've read, ignored more than a handfull of well known facts regarding the war against Hamas, including IDF actions meant to minimize civilian casualties, actions with the coalition in Iraq/Afghanistan never bothered to conduct, due to the fear of compromising the mission. The IDF's actions were allready analyzed deeply by the High-Court in a long-winded report, a report that the UNHRC did not even bother to adress.

That may be true and those accused should of course be allowed to provide a defense, but there is certainly sufficient evidence of wrongdoing that those responsible should be investigated, which is exactly what the report recommends.

The report was, in itself, an investigation of the facts. It presented its findings, but sadly, those findings were based on an investigation which only checked one side of the story, thus ignored crucial evidence regarding the conflict. This is akin to you judging the US war in Iraq, and only interviewing Iraqi's, Iraqi authorities, without any US input. Needless to say, your findings would be vehemently anti-American, but they would allso be irrelevant.

I think you're confusing the potential bias of the council members with that of the mission, I don't see any evidence that the members of the mission are biased and the member states of the council have no role in compiling the report. While the council should certainly be doing more to investigate other conflicts that doesn't mean that there was no basis for an investigation into this conflict.

Oh, I have no problem with an investigation into the war against Hamas, if such standards were applied elsewere. Evidently, the council actively discouraged numerous fact finding missions in countries whos nations presided over the council (or were allies of those nations), like Sudan, Cuba and Syria. This means that the council's decision over what must or must not be investigated, is in itself, deeply tainted in Bias. This council choses some of the members of the mission and pre-sets the missions mandate and parameters. This, coupled with the (unfortunate), non-inclusion of Israeli evidence into the report, means that the findings, from the beginning, are doomed to be one-sided.

[ljkeane]

The report was, in itself, an investigation of the facts. It presented its findings, but sadly, those findings were based on an investigation which only checked one side of the story, thus ignored crucial evidence regarding the conflict.

The report was an investigation into whether there was sufficient evidence to merit criminal proceedings that would determine whether Israelis or Palestinians were guilty of war crimes, there seems to be more than enough evidence for the conclusions drawn to me. Whether a criminal investigation would result in there being a valid defence doesn't change the fact that these allegations should be thoroughly investigated by the appropriate authorities.

Additionally the absence of evidence from the Israeli side is the fault of the Israeli authorities and isn't a reasonable justification for them to reject the findings, rather like if a suspect refuses to talk to the police that doesn't mean that an investigation into a crime has no validity.

This means that the council's decision over what must or must not be investigated, is in itself, deeply tainted in Bias. This council choses some of the members of the mission and pre-sets the missions mandate and parameters

Despite the potential bias of the Muslim members of the UNHRC there are a large number of members that it would appear to me have no particular reason to be biased against Israel and as far I'm aware none of them had any objections to the members of this mission or the mandate it was given. Again I see no evidence that this report was compiled in a biased manner beyond that forced upon it by the Israeli government.

[Yoadm]

The report was an investigation into whether there was sufficient evidence to merit criminal proceedings that would determine whether Israelis or Palestinians were guilty of war crimes, there seems to be more than enough evidence for the conclusions drawn to me.

Uhm, actually, the commision catagorically claimed that war-crimes were commited. It didn't investigate if there was 'a valid reason to suspect so'. It made a pretty obvious accusation, based on only one-sidese evidence. Your criticism rings true, though, that Israel boycotted the commision and thus shot itself in the foot. I agree with that, but its hard to speak on hindsight. When a venomously anti-Israeli body creates an investigation you do not trust, your first instinct is not to lend it legitimacy. Regardless, Israel's mistake doesnt change the fact that the fact finding mission was only presented half of the evidence, and even that evidence was closely monitored and screened by Hamas. Thus, making any conclusions based on this would be foolhardy.

Despite the potential bias of the Muslim members of the UNHRC there are a large number of members that it would appear to me have no particular reason to be biased against Israel and as far I'm aware none of them had any objections to the members of this mission or the mandate it was given. Again I see no evidence that this report was compiled in a biased manner beyond that forced upon it by the Israeli government.

The muslim members make up a large enough part of the UNHRC, that they can pass any resolution they want if they vote in concert (considering that numerous neutral nations tend to abstain in decisions that do not concern them). This is the reason the muslim world, in the general assembly, was able to pass more resolutions against Israel than the sum of resolutions enacted against all other countries in the world... combined.

[Shryke]

When a venomously anti-Israeli body

Hehehe.

[Yoadm]

Hehehe.

I believe I've provided more than enough evidence, in my first post in this thread, to prove my point regarding the UNHRC's bias regarding Israel. Ban-Kai Moon and Koffi Annan (neither of them big fans of Israel) pretty much corroberated that.

[ljkeane]

I believe I've provided more than enough evidence, in my first post in this thread, to prove my point regarding the UNHRC's bias regarding Israel. Ban-Kai Moon and Koffi Annan (neither of them big fans of Israel) pretty much corroberated that.

Actually neither of those criticisms were of the Human Rights Council but of it's predecessor and by my count the majority of the members aren't muslim states. Again there are a large number of members of the UNHRC that have no particular reason to be biased against Israel and as far as I'm aware none of them have objected to the members of the mission or it's mandate, otherwise I'm sure that would have been pointed out.

[VarysTheSpider]

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.

Hmm, it's a good point Yoadm, and does put a different perspective on things. We don't even bother to count the number of our dead enemies in Afghanistan, but I remember when Israel's conflict was going on, they were made to answer for every death. And that phrase "proportional response", my God I heard that about fifty times a day (though never an example of one), but oddly have never heard it connected to operations in Aghanistan.

[Padraig]

Here is a list of the current members of the UN HRC btw.

Yoadm, I can understand why you might be a little biased in your views.

Varys, answer as in have a spokesperson excuse it? I'm not sure that's particularly important.

[Shryke]

Hmm, it's a good point Yoadm, and does put a different perspective on things. We don't even bother to count the number of our dead enemies in Afghanistan, but I remember when Israel's conflict was going on, they were made to answer for every death. And that phrase "proportional response", my God I heard that about fifty times a day (though never an example of one), but oddly have never heard it connected to operations in Aghanistan.

Are you talking about when the Coalition toppled the government or the "Nation Building" phase?

Because in both contexts, the phrase "Proportional Response" doesn't even make sense.

[Yoadm]

Actually neither of those criticisms were of the Human Rights Council but of it's predecessor and by my count the majority of the members aren't muslim states.

Neither are Muslim states the majority in the UN General assembly, but it's enough that they have a solid block that votes together to pass allmost any motion they want with regards to Israel. This happens since most countries prefare to abstain rather than enter the mud of decisions clearly politically motivates. Thus, just like they were able to impose on Israel 60% of all General assembly resolutions, they can do the same in the UNHRC.

Hmm, it's a good point Yoadm, and does put a different perspective on things. We don't even bother to count the number of our dead enemies in Afghanistan, but I remember when Israel's conflict was going on, they were made to answer for every death. And that phrase "proportional response", my God I heard that about fifty times a day (though never an example of one), but oddly have never heard it connected to operations in Aghanistan.

Regarding proportionality, I agree. Since when is war a mathematical equation? The basic objective of any warring party is to inflict maximal damage on the enemy while minimizing its own casualties. Was there anything proportional about the US war in Iraq? Or about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait for that matter? Was the US's response to Nazi Germany not legitemate because far less US civilians were killed compared to Germans?

Would a British citizen complain that too few British soldiers are being killed in Iraq? Probably not.

[Shryke]

The basic objective of any warring party is to inflict maximal damage on the enemy while minimizing its own casualties.

No, it's not.

And this is a horrifying way to look at it too.

The basic objective of any conflict is .... DUN DUN DUN! ..... to achieve your objective.

So unless your objective is to kill as many Palestinians as possible ....

[Lord O' Bones]

The basic objective of any conflict is .... DUN DUN DUN! ..... to achieve your objective.

So unless your objective is to kill as many Palestinians as possible ....

I thought the objective was to kill as many Hamas as possible? You know, the enemy?

[Yoadm]

No, it's not.

And this is a horrifying way to look at it too.

The basic objective of any conflict is .... DUN DUN DUN! ..... to achieve your objective.

So unless your objective is to kill as many Palestinians as possible ....

You misunderstood what I said. By 'inflicting maximum damage on the enemy', I referred to an enemy force, not civilians. When the US entered Iraq in 2003 and Afghanistan in 2001, it did everything it could to inflict as much damage as possible on its enemy and thus render it inoperable. There was no such thing about proportionality since simply responding to an enemy attack in a ping-pong manner allows the enemy to attack at will, to reorganize and attack again... and does not intend to remove the enemy's ability to attack a second time - is called passive defense, and ends in downfall and destruction... Thus, when one responds to an attack, one's objective is to render the enemy unable to attack again, not simply respond for the fun of it.

[ljkeane]

Neither are Muslim states the majority in the UN General assembly, but it's enough that they have a solid block that votes together to pass allmost any motion they want with regards to Israel. This happens since most countries prefare to abstain rather than enter the mud of decisions clearly politically motivates. Thus, just like they were able to impose on Israel 60% of all General assembly resolutions, they can do the same in the UNHRC.

Actually the majority of those members of the UNHRC that voted in favour of the resolution that lead to this investigation weren't muslim states. The lack of action by the UNHRC over other issues is a valid criticism of the effectiveness of the UNHRC but it doesn't negate the fact that this conflict was a valid issue for the UNHRC to address nor does it mean that this mission operated in a biased manner. In fact as far as I can see the members of the mission were as qualified as it's possible to be and they investigated in as fair a manner as possible.

What about the suggested course of action following their investigation do you object to? The recommendations given seem reasonable to me.

[Shryke]

You misunderstood what I said. By 'inflicting maximum damage on the enemy', I referred to an enemy force, not civilians. When the US entered Iraq in 2003 and Afghanistan in 2001, it did everything it could to inflict as much damage as possible on its enemy and thus render it inoperable.

Actually the purpose was to defeat them, to render them inoperable, not to kill as many of them as possible or inflict as much damage as they could.

In fact, the US's plan in Iraq was essentially to bypass as much of the Iraqi military as they could, hit the leadership and then cause the rest of the force to surrender. The idea was to achieve their objective with MINIMAL damage.

There was no such thing about proportionality since simply responding to an enemy attack in a ping-pong manner allows the enemy to attack at will, to reorganize and attack again... and does not intend to remove the enemy's ability to attack a second time - is called passive defense, and ends in downfall and destruction...

No, there was no such thing as proportional response because in the context of the Iraq or Afghanistan Conflicts, the concept doesn't even make sense. It was an invasion with the purpose of deposing a government and then creating/imposing a new one. It was not a strike to get back at them for killing some of "our" people.

Thus, when one responds to an attack, one's objective is to render the enemy unable to attack again, not simply respond for the fun of it.

Yes, but that does not always or necessarily translate to "inflicting as many casualties as possible" either.

[Max the Mostly Mediocre]

And saying that you can't use casualty figures is fucking stupid. Look at the difference. I think i read a figure once saying that in all the years of rocket attacks (which i do deplore, and condemn), there have been only 30 or so Israeli deaths. I'll try and hunt that figure down when i have more time.

Yet in the short time that these two sides engaged, anywhere between 1100 and 1400 died. In a matter of days. Overwhelming and unjustified response to a few kidnapped soldiers.

I'm sympathetic toward this view. The problem for Americans is that it leads to a real uncomfortable place. So we lose three thousand or so on 9/11 and in response we undertake military operations that have to date killed....well, no one knows how many have died. We do know that something like 10% of Iraq's population fled the country while another 10% was 'internally displaced'. So yeah. Mote, beam, eye.