Israel and Palestine on trial for war crimes

[Yoadm]

I see an arguable difference of degree, but that doesn't necessarily constitute proof that the people assessing the evidence have accepted it uncritically at face value.

Even if they havent accepted it at face value, if you are bombarded with wholly one-sided information, while you ignore the other side's input, then it is plausable that the result would not reflect the truth. Honestly, in my opinion, even if one receives evidence skeptically, but that evidence is still severely slanted, then without the ability to receive different input, there is no way to draw a balanced conclusion.

It's not clear what report is meant in this article but the UNHCR report refers to the information provided by several Israeli reports in chapter XXVI and it also says that the lack of Israeli official cooperation limits it's ability to evaluate this information.

Limits, but no prevents. Yet it is pretty clear that despite the commision having the ability to analyze a wide range of Israeli investigations, from the high court, to the foreign office portfolio, to the IDF internal investigations, none of the input was used in the report itself, while the information used allmost exclusively, was Palestinian, supervised by Hamas. Indeed, the only reference to the Israeli investigations is the claim that some of them are not impartiall... well... no one expects them all to be (apart from the High Courts ruling), yet they should still be considered as part of the commisions attempt to delve into the truth. It's still the Israeli perspective.

That the Palestians have done terrible things and might have done worse if the had the chance it not the point. The point is that doing terrible things, committing war crimes, should be subjected to judgement. That the other site has also committed crimes should not be an excuse.

Actually, I don't believe state sponsored crimes were commited at all. The civilian casualties stem both from Hamas's use of civilians as human shields, tactical mistakes (which happen in every army), and the occasional bad apples (which the IDF does act against). This does not merit an international criminal investigation, just like Afghanistan doesnt merit one for the US and UK.

Except for the fact that the USA was not militarily occupying by force of arms any foreign territory in September 2001, whilst Israel was prior to the Gaza conflict (or blockading it and refusing to allow enough aid into the territory to support itself, which is pretty much the same thing).

False. When Israel left Gaza in 2005, there was no blockade, or non-allowance of foreign aid. The sanctions were imposed after 3 things happened: Hamas got elected, resorted to violantly killing off the opposition, and then commencing to an unprecedented wave of rocket and mortar attacks. As a result, Israel did what any other country would do, first slap Gaza with economic sanctions, and then do what it can to prevent rocket making materials and weaponary from entering Gaza. Despite this, those sanctions were far less brutal than the US sanctions on Iraq.

There was no 'invasion' of Afghanistan by outside powers. The Northern Alliance toppled and defeated the Taliban with their own ground troops (albeit suddenly equipped with old Russian tanks and supported by NATO bombings) and very small numbers of American and allied special forces. The large-scale arrival of outside troops only occurred after the collapse of the Taliban regime.

Ofcourse there was. The Northern alliance may have done the dirty work, but NATO was responsible for an unprecedented amount of aerial bombing, and a large commando presence inside Afghanistan. If this isnt an invasion, I don't know what is. In addition, the aerial bombings created thousands upon thousands of civilian casualties, far more than Israel ever created.

The Secretary-General condemned the American invasion of Iraq. I'm not sure what more you want, really, since obviously any security council action against the USA and its allies over Iraq would be vetoed instantly.

Israel is condemned daily by the UN. Im not speaking of condemnations, but actuall UN sponsored investigations to alleged war-crimes. You wont find them.

Or, you know, encourage Hamas to change its stance through action? Hamas has so much support in Gaza because the territory's populace is inclined to believe its rhetoric against Israel by some of Israel's own actions. If Israel was to take action to improve the lot of the people of Gaza (and pull-out or no, Israel is still regarded by the UN as the occupying power of the Gaza Strip with responsibility for its population), then Hamas would find its support base dwindling.

Not by a long shot. During the 90's, when Israel was all about cheerfull gestures to the Palestinians, and the public supported the peace accords, Hamas was even more motivated to conduct terror attacks in order to derail the peace process. Any advance in current talks will allmost surely bring Hamas to raise the amount of cross border and rocket attacks in order to make them break down. Sadly, Hamas cannot be dealt with untill it either renounces violance, or at least opens a window, ANY window, to a peacefull two state solution.

As far as I can tell Justice Goldstone made a critique of method rather than disputing assertions but in the absence of any realistic prospect of evaluating the evidence or finding corroboration independently that's hardly surprising.

Being unable to corroberate information, and yet still reaching a solid conclusion leads me to highly doubt the report (at the very least). If you went to North Korea to study the Korean war, and only NK archives were available to you, with NK representatives being interviewed, coupled with carefully selected aging individuals, naturally you would reach the conclusion that South Korea attacked first.

[Lark the Sisterman]

If that's the case, I'm not sure how they don't notice the fact that they are constantly creating more bad guys by their actions.

So, basically what your'e saying is to sit back and let Hamas do whatever it does cos by retaliating Israel just makes more "bad guys"? Guess what- Israel tried it for 7 years and it didn't really work. Hamas was flinging rockets daily, to the cheers of the vast majority of Gazans who elected it precisely for that.

There is absolutely no way to make a war on terrorists without innocents dying or suffering. If there is a way I would be glad to learn of it.

Israel does not create its enemies by its actions but by its mere existence. It's existence is an affront to all Muslim Arabs by reasons deeply religious and cultural. Sure the conflict has more mundane political aspects to it, but its heart stems from deep within Arabian culture.

If you are not aware of it, I guess you didn't read the Hamas's charter.

[Week]

Israel does not create its enemies by its actions but by its mere existence. It's existence is an affront to all Muslim Arabs by reasons deeply religious and cultural. Sure the conflict has more mundane political aspects to it, but its heart stems from deep within Arabian culture.

I'd like to see a poll that should 99-100% of Muslim Arabs that believe Israel should be destroyed. Methinks you are overstating your point significantly and leaving the realm of fact.

[Scafloc]

In history there have been a lot of leaders who went to war, killed civilians ect. Most of them got away with it. So does that mean that the Allies should not have judge the Nazi leadership after WWII?

No sane human being can mean that.

It's a tragedy that a lot of (war)criminals have not been punished but that should motivate us to double our efforts to bring them to justice. It is not a reason to let others go off as well.

[Swordfish]

In history there have been a lot of leaders who went to war, killed civilians ect. Most of them got away with it.

I think the point is that there are zero leaders who have gone to war and NOT killed civilians.

Does that make them all war criminals?

[Scafloc]

If they had them executed or deliberately targeted, then yes they are warcriminals.

For instance Bomber Harris the commander of the Royal Air Force was a warcriminal.

Added: I think it is enough if they did not actively prevent civilians from being targeted.

[Samalander]

If they had them executed or deliberately targeted, then yes they are warcriminals.

I don't think even this biased report thinks the IDF deliberately targeted civilians. They just think the IDF showed a disregard to their lives while targeting something else. And yet, they consider this a war crime.

[Maltaran]

I don't think even this biased report thinks the IDF deliberately targeted civilians. They just think the IDF showed a disregard to their lives while targeting something else. And yet, they consider this a war crime.

I suspect they may be using this definition (which I took from Wikipedia)

"the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity"

I suppose it depends whether the disregard that you mention is enough to be classed as "wanton destruction".

[Lark the Sisterman]

If they had them executed or deliberately targeted, then yes they are warcriminals.

For instance Bomber Harris the commander of the Royal Air Force was a warcriminal.

Added: I think it is enough if they did not actively prevent civilians from being targeted.

According to you then, every American, British and Russian officer who fought in WW2 should be trialed.

It's also clear that you don't have the imagination to grasp the realities of war- the mayhem, the confusion, the insanity of it all. Do you know how many soldiers have died from friendly fire? You want commanders in the field to prevent non-combatants from being targeted... the grim truth is that they can't even prevent accidental targeting of their own troops.

I'd like to see a poll that should 99-100% of Muslim Arabs that believe Israel should be destroyed. Methinks you are overstating your point significantly and leaving the realm of fact.

I don't need to conduct a poll. All I need to do is to go to the MEMRITV site and see the Arab media first hand. All I need is to read Bernard Lewis' Semites and Anti-Semites. All I need is to know that Mahmud Abbas, which is considered a moderate, has got his masters in a Holocaust Denial thesis in the university of Cairo. All I need is to open the Koran and read how cursed are the Jews and that they are sons of pigs and monkeys.

I suggest you do the same.

[Shryke]

I don't need to conduct a poll. All I need to do is to go to the MEMRITV site and see the Arab media first hand. All I need is to read Bernard Lewis' Semites and Anti-Semites. All I need is to know that Mahmud Abbas, which is considered a moderate, has got his masters in a Holocaust Denial thesis in the university of Cairo. All I need is to open the Koran and read how cursed are the Jews and that they are sons of pigs and monkeys.

I suggest you do the same.

:rofl:

Man, your better then Samalander.

[Xray the Enforcer]

[mod] And I suggest (very strongly, I might add) that we leave the cultural demonization and borderline-racist commentary OUT of this thread. Any more of it, about either side of this conflict, will result in deletions and bannings. [/mod]

[Arthmail]

Yoadm, kudos to you for trying to make concise, reasoned arguments. Samalander and Lark the Sisterman, you guys need to go learn some of the basics of debate...or at least try and understand why you are drinking the cool aid.

I still don't have the time to respond to this as i want, but i will, hopefully later tonight. But the dumbest response anyone can give, for any reason, as some sort of justification, is that someone else did it so its okay for you to do it as well. Give me a fucking break.

And Lark, your last statement is tantamount to racism in my mind, pure and simple. The majority of Arabs don't hate you, to claim otherwise is sheer stupidity. Having actually read the Koran, it singles out no one group more than any other, and is no less strongly worded than the Bible. Religion breeds intolerance dependant mostly on who is doing the reading, not the words in the text, which have been bastardized for a thousand years by everyone with an axe to grind.

The problem lies in the Muslim worlds perception of Israel as an extension of western imperialism. Considering what the US did in Iran in the fifties, and everything else they have done to try and control the flow of oil since, it is no wonder that there is some resentment there. Considering how Israel was formed it is no wonder. Considering the sheer and overwhelming fucking response to a couple of kidnapped soldiers, it is no wonder.

I in no way condone Palestines actions, but that doesn't let Israel off the hook either.

And no, boots on the fucking ground and gun in hand is, in no way shape or form, objective. You can talk all you want about how long military planners worked to avoid civilian casualties. I am sure they did. The fact remains that there were massive and glaring tactical errors of the course of those three weeks. Phospherous was used, against a UN building no less.

All of these are mistakes that need to be accounted for, and having the IDF conduct its own investigation into the matter creates a serious level of doubt for anyone looking at the entire affair from the outside.

And please, before we make more idiot comments like Arabs hate us, or terrorists hate us because of our freedoms, lets think about the cause and effect a little bit. Cause and effect is not just short term either, by the way. What you did yesterday directly affects today, and what you are doing right now is something that your kids will have to deal with. The west has been brutal bastards in terms of imperialistic and nationalistic goals in the ME. And they have been heavily criticised for it. This has directly given rise to the problems we see today, problems that are further exacerbated by massive displays of miltary power.

Of course you have a right to defend yourselves...but as you expand further into Palestinian held lands with new settlements, then the shoe starts to fit on the other foot. Who, in the end, becomes the aggressor, and who the agrieved?

And please, please don't say anything about Israel having once been your land. It was, in like 135 BC. Now its yours again, and make no mistake, Israel has many claims to being there. But so does Palestine. Consdidering that the halving of the nation is something that occured in living memory, there are bound to be open hostilities. There are bound to be radical elements. You can continue to respond as you have been, with overwhelming force, or you can try a new approach until those hard liners find themselves completely marginalized.

That might never happen, of course, but a semblance of peace could be found.

[Max the Mostly Mediocre]

In addition to Iraq having nothing to do with 9/11 in the first place.

Right, but part of the sales job for the invasion and occupation was that, um, Saddam and Osama and Al Qaeda were linked. Thus the polls revealing that an absurdly large percentage of Americans thought that Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

[Lark the Sisterman]

Arthmail-

1. I didn't say that every Muslim Arab hate us- I said that all of them sees Israel's existence as an affront. There's a difference. It can be a slight affront or a grievous one. Im also willing to correct myself and concede that not all of them see it that way- but most do.

2. I didn't say it justify any action by Israel. If you trace back my comment you'll see I was responding to a statement made by the Lord of Bones which basically traces the popular, yet wrong, assumption that the west, by its actions, brought upon himself the rage of the Jihadists. He said that we are responsible for producing the bad guys- I responded that the "bad guys" have a lot of intrinsic material in their own cultures to draw from.

3. I can't see how you read the Koran and didn't get the strong impression of the "Us vs Them" mentality. Sure it speaks of many other "not us" groups- such as Christians, polytheists, hypocrites (those who pretend to be Muslims) but it has some choice words for Jews.

4. "The problem lies in the Muslim worlds perception of Israel as an extension of western imperialism." How come you can make such general, over-sweeping statements regrading Arab societies, while mine are racism?

[Bellis]

<mod>Second and final warning: Anything about the religion of Islam or the religion of Judaism in this thread will result in the ban-hammer being called down firmly and without mercy. Now, you could take it to another thread, but be warned and beware that we have a *few* boarders who have actually studied in-depth the relevant texts, so I would think twice. </mod>

[Lord O' Bones]

I was talking to an old army guy here about various stuff from our non-Air Force contractor pasts, and at one point we realized that the newish Centurion Counter Rocket and Mortar cannon was basically the Phalanx's I knew from my Destroyer days, but mounted on a truck. Which led to me this article.

Basically, Israel could buy several of these and effectively render rocket attacks useless. But for various incredible (IMO) reasons do not.

Apologies if this has already been brought up here or elsewhen, but I can't usually stick with these threads for the duration like some of the more stalwart.

[Shryke]

I was talking to an old army guy here about various stuff from our non-Air Force contractor pasts, and at one point we realized that the newish Centurion Counter Rocket and Mortar cannon was basically the Phalanx's I knew from my Destroyer days, but mounted on a truck. Which led to me this article.

Basically, Israel could buy several of these and effectively render rocket attacks useless. But for various incredible (IMO) reasons do not.

Apologies if this has already been brought up here or elsewhen, but I can't usually stick with these threads for the duration like some of the more stalwart.

Well, that was a :bang: / depressing read.

[Samalander]

1) :rofl:

Man, your better then Samalander.

2) And Lark, your last statement is tantamount to racism in my mind, pure and simple. The majority of Arabs don't hate you, to claim otherwise is sheer stupidity. Having actually read the Koran, it singles out no one group more than any other, and is no less strongly worded than the Bible. Religion breeds intolerance dependant mostly on who is doing the reading, not the words in the text, which have been bastardized for a thousand years by everyone with an axe to grind.

3) Considering the sheer and overwhelming fucking response to a couple of kidnapped soldiers, it is no wonder.

4) a. And no, boots on the fucking ground and gun in hand is, in no way shape or form, objective.

b. You can talk all you want about how long military planners worked to avoid civilian casualties. I am sure they did. The fact remains that there were massive and glaring tactical errors of the course of those three weeks. Phospherous was used, against a UN building no less.

5) Of course you have a right to defend yourselves...but as you expand further into Palestinian held lands with new settlements, then the shoe starts to fit on the other foot. Who, in the end, becomes the aggressor, and who the agrieved?

1) I take umbrage to that.

2) [Mod Edited]

3) I'm assuming you are talking about our last war with Lebanon, as the operation in Gaza, was not in fact triggered by the kidnapping of soldiers (though that did help with public support) but because of the unceasing bombardment of israeli cities by Hamas. As for the war with Lebanon, like I keep saying, that was one the clearest cut cases of Casus Belli I have ever seen. Sending militants over the internationaly recognized border, to commit copious acts of violence with the express purpose of kidnapping soldiers...and then we are obliged to give chase to bring back our soldiers (which we most certainly are allowed to do- rules of hot pursuit) and the whole thing spirals off from there.

4) a. I did not, in fact, use the word "objective". It is, however, more credible than rumors.

b. Since when are tactical mistakes considered "war crimes". I did not attend that meeting. Did you? Was there a circular of some kind going around informing officers worldwide that if they make tactical mistakes they will be tried for war crimes? Or is it just, there is one rule for the people making the rules, and another one for us?

5) Let's put the right and wrong of the land dispute aside for a moment. What you have to understand is this takes place in the West Bank, who have decided to negotiate and use diplomatic means to resolve their differences with us. We have no land dispute in Gaza, and quite frankly Hamas want all the land between Jordan and the Mediterranian to be full of religous Muslims only. Their zealous religous aspirations are the sticking point.

[Arthmail]

Ban Hammer. I should start a band called Ban Hammer. They should be Swedish death metal, guys with viking bears and such.

unceasing bombardment : Really? Unceasing? What, then, would you call the Israeli response? You are correct, it wasn't just the kidnapping of the soldiers, but i think that was the real justification for the entire affair.

4)a): International reports are rumors? Oh wait, they might be, because Israel tried to ban the worlds media from Palestine while it bombed the shit out of them. It is not credible to ask the soldier storming houses, who has possibly watched comrades die in battle and been in the very thick of the fighting, what is going on. The military is not what you would call a transparent organization

b) And tactical mistakes are one thing, using phospherous on civilians is another. From an article i read, i think there were seven specific incidents that stand out. Such as shooting civilians carrying a white flag, that sort of thing. It is not the entire Israeli action that they are critical of, though to be honest we as an international community need to step up and be more critical of such things as they occur all over the world, but rather those specific incidents. And please, please don't take an agrieved tone like that. The US certainly needs to be critisized, and it is, but officialy that can be tough because they are the largest nation in the world. They have been critisized soundly over Iraq, and Blackwater, and a host of other incidents, but when you carry the biggest stick its hard to actually give a shit.

Again, i will say that because others justify it in no way makes it acceptible for you to do the same thing.

5) Religous zeolotry is a sticking point the world over. The US is having serious problems with fundamentalist Christians right now. As Christopher Hitchens so succinctly put it, religion poisons everything.

But the rise of zeolotry is usually in direct proportion to a number of factors. Lack of education, poverty, and oppurtunity as presented by those with the means of manipulating them into doing something violent. For Palestinian youth, the idea of actually making some money, combined with a lack of education, multiplied with feelings of repression (real or imagined), can directly affect how these things turn out.

There is a cycle here, and as long as it is continued then nothing will change. There will always be violence, and death, and hate. Someone has to bridge the gap, and has to stay there despite elements on the other side that WILL look to fuck things up.

[Sariel]

I find this whole: well why don't you complain more about China and Pakistan and Bangladesh and so on and so forth, more than a little odd. Of course we hold Israel to a higher standard than we do say China. Israel is pretty much considered a western country (they even compete in the eurovision song contest for crying out loud) and so they are judged as we would judge England, France, Italy and so on.

How is this surprising or even noteworthy?

I have a lot of respect for the Israeli Supreme Court, and claiming that they're partial because they've got ties to the government seems like a statement that needs some serious evidence to be considered anything but drivel.