Israel and Palestine on trial for war crimes

[Yoadm]

The "invasion" Iraq was in fact not significantly different in time period to the conflict in Gaza and what is clear is that far more access was allowed for news organisations to monitor developments, the only access allowed to the Gaza conflict was after a court order and even then it was far more curtailed.

First of all, the Iraq war was more massive on a scale of roughly 25-30, if we compare ground sorties, the size of the front, and the number of troops involved. In addition, foreign reporters were NOT allowed through the front lines to 'monitor events', but either were themselves attached to specific units (thus the reporters themselves were monitored), or they they reporting from behind the lines, or alternatively, if those reporters were inside Iraq before the war started. Gaza was no different.

[ljkeane]

First of all, the Iraq war was more massive on a scale of roughly 25-30, if we compare ground sorties, the size of the front, and the number of troops involved. In addition, foreign reporters were NOT allowed through the front lines to 'monitor events', but either were themselves attached to specific units (thus the reporters themselves were monitored), or they they reported from behind the lines, or alternatively, if those reporters were inside Iraq before the war started. Gaza was no different.

Regardless of the different ratios of reporters to size of the front what is clear is that the Israeli government's preferred level of access was zero and only after a court order was any access provided. Additionally since Israel controlled access to Gaza it was responsible for the lack of coverage within Gaza during the conflict.

Reporters in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflict were certainly on the front lines and frequently exposed to danger and sometimes died as a result of that, so to say that the Israeli desire to restrict access was purely born out of a desire to protect the reporters and this is a common practice is a bit disingenuous.

[shadowbinding shoe]

The "invasion" Iraq was in fact not significantly different in time period to the conflict in Gaza and what is clear is that far more access was allowed for news organisations to monitor developments, the only access allowed to the Gaza conflict was after a court order and even then it was far more curtailed.

This looks like a non-answer to my question, just more hand-waving

Regardless of the different ratios of reporters to size of the front what is clear is that the Israeli government's preferred level of access was zero and only after a court order was any access provided. Additionally since Israel controlled access to Gaza it was responsible for the lack of coverage within Gaza during the conflict.

Once again the Gazan-Egyptian border has inexplicably vanished into the realm of myth

Reporters in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflict were certainly on the front lines and frequently exposed to danger and sometimes died as a result of that, so to say that the Israeli desire to restrict access was purely born out of a desire to protect the reporters and this is a common practice is a bit disingenuous.

not at all. For some reason Westerners care a lot more when westerners die than when some locals die. And so, despite the reporters' willingness to risk themselves, the public opinion and diplomatic damage caused by reporters' death or injury in makes armies dislike their presence in the field.

Also, Israelis often feel that foreign media tend to be very biased and unobjective in their reporting about Israel

[ljkeane]

This looks like a non-answer to my question, just more hand-waving

To put it clearly there was without a doubt vastly more media coverage of the invasion of Iraq than the Gaza conflict and given the choice the Israeli government would have allowed far less coverage than there actually was.

Once again the Gazan-Egyptian border has inexplicably vanished into the realm of myth

Israel and Egypt have both denied access to Gaza for foreign journalists since November 2008.

[shadowbinding shoe]

To put it clearly there was without a doubt vastly more media coverage of the invasion of Iraq than the Gaza conflict and given the choice the Israeli government would have allowed far less coverage than there actually was.

Well I was asking about the battle in Fallujah, not the whole Iraq war if you'll remember

Israel and Egypt have both denied access to Gaza for foreign journalists since November 2008.

Didn't it have something to do with terrorist groups kidnapping them for ransom or to kill them?

[Yoadm]

Regardless of the different ratios of reporters to size of the front what is clear is that the Israeli government's preferred level of access was zero and only after a court order was any access provided. Additionally since Israel controlled access to Gaza it was responsible for the lack of coverage within Gaza during the conflict.

Wow, Ok. You seem to purposely be ignoring my post. Listen carefully: Differentiate between 'letting reporters in', and 'allowing reporters to accompany troops in an controlled environment'. The first, was not allowed in neither Gaza nor Iraq. In addition, the US allowing reporters to join specifically prepared units in a warzone, when those reporters are subject to severe restrictions does not equate to letting reporters roam free and photograph all they want. Quite the opposite, its used by the US army to present a rosy picture of its operations.

Reporters in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflict were certainly on the front lines and frequently exposed to danger and sometimes died as a result of that

Only when they were allowed to accompany specifically prepared US army units. They were not allowed to roam free, and were subject to severe restrictions. There were no reporters allowed by US troops to simply cross the front line during the invasion and do whatever they want. Indeed, some reporters died, but far more would have if they would have been allowed to advance beyond the US front line, and many would have probably died by US fire, which is, at the very least, a PR nightmare.

[ljkeane]

Didn't it have something to do with terrorist groups kidnapping them for ransom or to kill them?

The most notable kidnap of a journalist that I can think of happened significantly before the ban on access to journalists and I as recall Hamas was largely reposnsible for his release. It seems strange to me that Israel would wait a year and a half to refuse access to journalists if that was their concern.

Well I was asking about the battle in Fallujah, not the whole Iraq war if you'll remember

I don't have specific figures for Fallujah but the invasion of Iraq seems like a reasonable comparison if we are discussing the apparently routine policy of denying access to reporters attempting to report on conflicts.

[Yoadm]

I don't have specific figures for Fallujah but the invasion of Iraq seems like a reasonable comparison if we are discussing the apparently routine policy of denying access to reporters attempting to report on conflicts.

No, because the Iraq war was an actuall war. Gaza was an operation, more of the size and scope of Fallujah.

[ljkeane]

Wow, Ok. You seem to purposely be ignoring my post. Listen carefully: Differentiate between 'letting reporters in', and 'allowing reporters to accompany troops in an controlled environment'. The first, was not allowed in neither Gaza nor Iraq. In addition, the US allowing reporters to join specifically prepared units in a warzone, when those reporters are subject to severe restrictions does not equate to letting reporters roam free and photograph all they want. Quite the opposite, its used by the US army to present a rosy picture of its operations.

No I just don't agree, 600 reporters embeded with frontline military units provided a far more comprehensive coverage of the Iraq war than Israel allowed, the events these reporters witnessed may have been coloured to an extent by the fact that they were attached to specific units but this was offset by reporters who operated free of military control. In fact I recall some complaints that certainly British news coverage was too critical of the information provided by the coalition forces.

In addition to this reporters were not actively prevented from trying to enter Iraq to report the conflict from that perspective in comparison with Israel's policies prior to the Gaza conflict. The notable difference here is that as far as I can find there were no complaints about the level of access provided in the Iraq invasion while the Israeli government was taken to court over it's policy on media coverage.

[Yoadm]

No I just don't agree, 600 reporters embeded with frontline military units provided a far more comprehensive coverage of the Iraq war than Israel allowed, the events these reporters witnessed may have been coloured to an extent by the fact that they were attached to specific units but this was offset by reporters who operated free of military control.

You are missing the point. There were no reporters who were allowed to roam free outside the army's controll. They were all attached to specific army units. If a reporter were to ask the US army to bypass the front lines and enter the war-zone, he would be simply laughed at. Thus, the only thing the US did was allow reporters to join the army in a specifically controlled environment, which simply means that the US had a better oiled PR machine than Israel, but no more. In addition, the vast majority of such reporters were not foreign, but coalition nation based reporters, just as Israel allowed mostly Israeli reporters to join the army units.

In addition to this reporters were not actively prevented from trying to enter Iraq to report the conflict from that perspective in comparison with Israel's policies prior to the Gaza conflict.

Ofcourse they were. They might have been able to enter Iraq from Iran, Syria, or Turkey, areas the US didn't controll, but the US prohibited reporters from roaming ahead of the front-line because that is where the most intense fire-fights and bombings took place. Not only was it suicide to advance there at the time, but the reporters that would have been killed would probably have died by US fire (not intentional, ofcourse). Thus, the US did precisely what Israel did, in not letting reporters advance beyond the front-line to the warzone.

The notable difference here is that as far as I can find there were no comlaints about the level of access provided in the Iraq invasion while the Israeli government was taken to court over it's policy on media coverage.

As I said before, because the US was smarter in allowing reporters to join specifically prepared units. It had a better PR machine than Israel, no more. Thus, on the one hand, it gave the reporters the pictures and scoops they asked, and on the other, still tightly controlled what those reporters were seeing.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

I'm still looking, but there was at least one: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,140445,00.html

I'm not sure how to reconcile that with this, which talks about being the journal of the "only reporter embedded with the US military": http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/in...php/totten/1594 Perhaps they were there at different times.

CNN had someone in as well: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/08/iraq.main/

(There was also someone from Al Jazeera, but he wasn't there with the permission of the US military. http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Fallujah-Unem...r/dp/1844370828 )

Dexter Fillins from Slate also claims to have been with the Marines at the time: http://www.slate.com/id/2110107/

This is pretty much from the first page of Google results. I'm not saying all are exactly as they present themselves, but I do believe there were reporters present in Fallujah during or very close to the battle itself. (Probably weren't with the front line troops, but there.)

ETA: Okay, at first you were saying there were NO reporters allowed, which was using the same reasoning behind the IDF not allowing reporters in. Now you're saying they were allowed, just restricted -- so then why didn't the IDF have embedded reporters?

[ljkeane]

Ofcourse they were. They might have been able to enter Iraq from Iran, Syria, or Turkey, areas the US didn't controll, but the US prohibited reporters from roaming ahead of the front-line because that is where the most intense fire-fights and bombings took place. Not only was it suicide to advance there at the time, but the reporters that would have been killed would probably have died by US fire (not intentional, ofcourse). Thus, the US did precisely what Israel did, in not letting reporters advance beyond the front-line to the warzone.

Well since Israel's policy of denying access to the Gaza strip began before the conflict started that would seem to be understating the Israeli commitment to preventing media coverage of the situation in Gaza. If the coalition authorities had wanted to take steps to deny access to Iraq for reporters it could have done far more than it did, I don't recall any reports of attempts to restrict the opportunities for reporters independent of military units to enter Iraq.

Edit: Also by the rough percentages I can find there were in excess of 100 reporters from outside the US/UK attached to coalition military forces, how many foreign reporters were embedded with the IDF?

[Yoadm]

I'm still looking, but there was at least one: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,140445,00.html

I'm not sure how to reconcile that with this, which talks about being the journal of the "only reporter embedded with the US military": http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/in...php/totten/1594 Perhaps they were there at different times.

CNN had someone in as well: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/08/iraq.main/

(There was also someone from Al Jazeera, but he wasn't there with the permission of the US military. http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Fallujah-Unem...r/dp/1844370828 )

Dexter Fillins from Slate also claims to have been with the Marines at the time: http://www.slate.com/id/2110107/

The first instance is a Fox News reporter embedded with US troops in the battle of fallujah (note, the only one allowed).

The second reporter was one who was in fallujah, but not during the battle itself.

The third was of a reporter outside the firefight, outside fallujah, viewing the US army's overhaul.

None of them were reporters who were simply allowed into the battlefield without severe restrictions, which ammount to being attached to specific army units.

ETA: Okay, at first you were saying there were NO reporters allowed, which was using the same reasoning behind Israel not allowing reporters in. Now you're saying they were allowed, just restricted -- so then why didn't the IDF have embedded reporters?

First of all, I allways claimed that the US army didn't allow reporters to enter the warzone. Embedded reporting is a different thing, because the reporter is basically restricted to go where the unit attached to him goes. And yes, the IDF did allow embedded reporters to join its rank and file, and the vast majority were Israeli reporters. Just like the vast majority of attached reporters with the US or British armies.......are American or British.

Well since Israel's policy of denying access to the Gaza strip began before the conflict started that would seemto understating the Israeli commitment to preventing mdeia coverage of the situation in Gaza.

There were hundreds of jeurnalists in Gaza prior to the Gaza war. They had to get there somehow.

If the coalition authorities ahd wanted to take steps to deny access to Iraq for reporters it could have done far more than it did, I don't recall any reports of attempts to restrict the opportunities for reporters independent of military units to enter Iraq.

Think about this scenario: View a specific US army division during the invasion of Iraq, responsible for 20 miles of frontline. Infront of that front-line, the land is an inferno of US army bombings, artillary hurricane bombardments, and troop fire, with tanks advancing on all sides, and the Iraqi army firing back. You really think Soldiers would let a reporter simply waltz in between the troops and walk ahead? Evidently, they did not. Thus, the only reporters who did report from inside Iraq were either those who entered it before the war, entered it from borders not controlled by the coalition, or were embedded in the US army.

[ljkeane]

Think about this scenario: View a specific US army division during the invasion of Iraq, responsible for 20 miles of frontline. Infront of that front-line, the land is an inferno of US army bombings, artillary hurricane bombardments, and troop fire, with tanks advancing on all sides, and the Iraqi army firing back. You really think Soldiers would let a reporter simply waltz in between the troops and walk ahead? Evidently, they did not. Thus, the only reporters who did report from inside Iraq were either those who entered it before the war, entered it from borders not controlled by the coalition, or were embedded in the US army.

You seem to be of the opinion that the restriction of access to Gaza only happened when the Israeli forces were directly attacking, when in fact Israel denied access to Gaza for foreign journalists weeks before the conflict began.

[Yoadm]

You seem to be of the opinion that the restriction of access to Gaza only happened when the Israeli forces were directly attacking, when in fact Israel denied access to Gaza for foreign journalists weeks before the conflict began.

Again, very similar to the closure of Fallujah in the short priod prior to the invasion, or prior to the invasion of Iraq. Still, I seem to remember numerous NGO's and journalists entering Gaza on a day to day basis.

[ljkeane]

Again, very similar to the closure of Fallujah in the short priod prior to the invasion, or prior to the invasion of Iraq. Still, I seem to remember numerous NGO's and journalists entering Gaza on a day to day basis.

Well apparently the Foreign Press Association of Israel disagrees with your description of the access granted.

FPA open letters.

[The Iceman of the North]

It's based in the high court's history of ruling, appliance of international law, protection of minorities (to a degree of actually changing government policy), and sheer activism which is arguably unparralelled in the western world. If you need examples, just ask.

Again, according to who? Do you have any sources? Just listing cases won't help much because that don't tell me much how they are compared to other supreme courts.

As far as appliance to international law, this doesn't explain how they can allow the settlements which are clearly against international law.

[Lark the Sisterman]

Yoadm:

As for agressors within Palestine firing from population centers, how else do you suppose they fight you?

This strikes me as astonishingly hypocritical. What your'e saying is that war crimes are justified so long as the cause is just. So the Palestinians can bombard civil areas in Israel, send suicide bombers to buses and restaurants and not be accountable for it because in your view Israel is an imperialistic, occupying force?

[Yoadm]

Well apparently the Foreign Press Association of Israel disagrees with your description of the access granted.

Read the letters carefully. They deal with two issues: Specific closings of the Erez crossing during hightened times of violance, when the IDF itself occasionally abandoned the crossing due to fear for its own soldiers lives (ironically, it was this crossing used mainly to send aid into Gaza), and allso, in the days leading to operation cast lead.

Again, according to who? Do you have any sources? Just listing cases won't help much because that don't tell me much how they are compared to other supreme courts.

Judging by the High courts rulings compared to its western counterparts. The Israeli High court actually reviewes, judges and even limits IDF activity during wartime, during an actuall operation. In another western country, the high court judges would be thrown from all the stairs, if attempting to do that. They only judge (and in rare cases), after the war itself. In addition, the Israeli high court tends to shape and limit government policy, changing laws, outlawing policies it deems unconstitutional on an allmost monthly level. A good example of it changing government policy is its review of the security barrier, forcing the hand of the Israeli government and ordering it to move the fence westwards in order to limit the effect on the Palestinians, costing the Israeli government roughly 250 million NIS.

This strikes me as astonishingly hypocritical. What your'e saying is that war crimes are justified so long as the cause is just.

No.. Im saying that because Hamas choses to use civilian buildings are military installations, then those installations are fair game, and targetting them is not a war-crime.

The Geneva convention itself justifies the targetting of a mixed target if it is used as a base of attack:

Article 28 of the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949 : " The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations."

As far as appliance to international law, this doesn't explain how they can allow the settlements which are clearly against international law.

The high court has banned numerous instances of building settlements. The problem it faces is that according to international law, the aquisition of foreign lands by an occupying power is legal as long as it isnt limitless, and the goal of such an act is soley for security. In most cases, the High Court found it hard to prove that the settlements approved by the government were for a limitless period, and made for political reasons. When it did succeed in proving the above, it ordered the dismantling of numerous settlements.

[Lark the Sisterman]

No.. Im saying that because Hamas choses to use civilian buildings are military installations, then those installations are fair game, and targetting them is not a war-crime.

My comment was to Athmail. Should have deleted the "Yodam:" I guess. Sorry.

Keep up the good work with your well founded arguments and the use of sound facts.