Israel and Palestine on trial for war crimes

[Usotsuki]

I've allready pointed that out. For a number of reasons:

- The commisions mandate, parameters and limitations are set by said biased organization.

And the Israeli High Court is an organ of the Israeli state whose membership is determined by the Israeli executive.

The commision only investigated one side of the story, and that side wholly controlled by Hamas, who allowes or vetoes specific witnesses while cordoning off the commision to specific areas.

I've read the( Edit) Israeli report thank you I couldn't see anything like extensive citation of the Palestinian perspective.

In addition, the witnesses interviewed tend to be deeply hostile to the attacking power and would probably not present positive evidence about it. This all makes the need to adress the Israeli perspective far more pressing, but...:

And the High Court judgement relies extensively on the testimony of Colonel Levy a representative of the attacking power.

Goldstone did not even bother to adress the findings of Israeli internal investigations, the High Court report, or 500 pages of material sent to the commision by the Israeli defence ministry which included testimonies, aerial photographs, intelligence, etc..

Section XXVI of the mission report.

[The Pita]

When your enemy is opposed to any meaningfull negotiation, and is sworn to your destruction, then you have no choice but to combat it, while doing whatever is possible to avoid civilian casualties. Unfortunately, many of the extremist liberals of today, if they lived in the 40's, would have advocated 'negotiating with hitler'.

This is where your statement fails, on several levels. I'll respond further to this, and your other rebuttals, later tonight. Its time to go to work. But i will say, i find your equivalence of your conflict with some of the Arab nations and the idea of the dreaded liberals negotiating with Hitler to be misleading. First and foremost, that was sixty years ago. A great deal has changed since then, not the least of which is the western worlds interaction with the Arab world.

I'm considering writing a sentence that contains many of both capital Hs and As. Maybe I'll even start it off with a BW.

Sudan. A country that is systematically killing a group of people in Darfur. I know no of real action that has been taken to prevent the massacre except for Israel taking a few hundred refugees, and Egypt taking more, and then killing those.

The world is completely ignoring this massacre. China hosted the Olympics while it was still doing horrible things to Tibetans, which is somewhat reminiscent of Germany hosting the 1936 Olympics.

A nuclear war is probably going to happen between India and Pakistan.

The world is negotiating with both China and Sudan.

I don't know what levels the massacres are on. But the fact is, little exterminations are happening all over the world and the UN is incapable or unwilling to do anything.

WW2 didn't start because of the Holocaust. It started because the Germans wanted to invade the world, after the Holocaust had started. Sure, some humanistic groups wanted to stop it, but the governments paid them no heed. The US only entered the war because Pearl Harbor was bombed. Russia only entered the war because Hitler invaded it. France started in the war because Poland was invaded. I'm not perfectly sure under which circumstances England joined the war, but I'm confident in saying that it wasn't because of the war. Many British people didn't really care what was happening to Jews in germany; until that time, things not that far from those happened all around the world.

Hitler was originally negotiated with. He offered to send away the Jews to other countries, in the beginning and they all refused. I think the US took in 2000, but that's it. He said he'd send them away in luxury cruises. His taking over Poland happened in stages, most of which had some members of the UN upset, but not the entire UN, or anything close to a majority.

Saying that if another Hitler were to rise today he'd be negotiated with is not extreme nor idiotic. A great deal has indeed changed, but not nearly enough.

[ljkeane]

Im sorry but I doubt you had the time to read the long-winded report since last I posted it, or you would have noticed the great deal of info they give on testimonies to pro-Palestinian organizations like Doctors without Borders, or Palestinian eye-witness accounts presented in the case.

It's 25 pages long, I've read it and there doesn't seem to be a lot of info on Palestinian eye witness accounts to me. Feel free to point some out if you want but it clearly says:

Our judicial scrutiny is exercised in such a case while the hostilities are continuing. Naturally this imposes restrictions upon the court’s ability to exercise its scrutiny and to ascertain all of the relevant facts at this stage of the hostilities.

Beyond that the report clearly doesn't address most of the issues raised in the UNHCR report as it's scope is limited to two specific cases.

[mormont]

Problem is that your analogy was not parralel in any way to the commision in Gaza.

Well, I feel that it was, in that it illustrated that there are situations in which people reach sound conclusions on the basis of partial evidence. However, if you disagree, feel free to dismiss the analogy and simply address the point I was using it to make.

[Yoadm]

And the Israeli High Court is an organ of the Israeli state whose membership is determined by the Israeli executive.

It may be an 'organ of the Israeli state', but while the UNHRC's record has proven it's known bias towards a certain country, the High Court of Israel is internationally recognized as one of the fairest and most activist courts in the west, due to its constant defence of Palestinian rights, sometimes at great political and military cost to Israel. And it is not controlled by the Israeli government, who constantly tries to weaken it.

I've read the( Edit) Israeli report thank you I couldn't see anything like extensive citation of the Palestinian perspective.

Palestinian claims regarding water shortages, prevention of wounded evacuation, claims to collateral damage, prevention of food and water entry are all evident in the report, and so are the counter claims of the IDF.

And the High Court judgement relies extensively on the testimony of Colonel Levy a representative of the attacking power.

The High court extensively relies on both sides (the IDF versus Doctors without borders + Palestinian eyewitnesses) to makes its ruling, which is a far more balanced perspective than that of the UNHRC commision.

Section XXVI of the mission report.

Which doesnt adress it in any way apart from stating that the Israeli inquiry 'exists'.

It's 25 pages long, I've read it and there doesn't seem to be a lot of info on Palestinian eye witness accounts to me. Feel free to point some out if you want but it clearly says:

Regarding pro Palestinian and Palestinian claims, the Israeli High Court definately gave them alot of weight, and included them in the report:

addresses delays in evacuating persons wounded in the Gaza Strip to hospitals, and claims that ambulances and medical personnel are being attacked by the Israel Defence Forces (the ‘IDF’). The petition in HCJ 248/09 addresses the shortage of electricity in the Gaza Strip, which prevents hospitals, clinics, the water system and the sewage system from functioning properly. According to the petitioner, this is a result of disruptions caused by the IDF.

cases in which the IDFforces shot at medical personnel while they were carrying out their duties, despite the fact that the vehicles and uniforms of the medical personnel bear the distinguishing mark that is recognized and agreed in the Geneva conventions. It alleges that on 4 January 2009 alone four medical personnel were killed as a result of an IDF strike while they were carrying out their duties, and it gave details of additional cases in which medical personnel were injured as a result of IDF attacks.

Palestinian Red Crescent and the International Red Cross have encountered serious difficulties in coordinating the evacuation of the injured for medical treatment, because of the ongoing military operations

many hours pass from the time when the coordination request is made until the time when it is actually carried out.

It was alleged that since 27 December 2008 the State of Israel has prevented any entry of industrial diesel oil into the Gaza Strip, and as a result the power station in the Gaza Strip (which supplies approximately a third of the amount of electricity needed by the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip) has been completely shut down since 30 December 2008.

And so on and so forth. All claims by pro-Palestinian or Palestinian organizations who received their information from Palestinian eye-witness accounts. There is, ofcourse, much more of this in the Israeli High Courts ruling.

In addition, you were right in pointing out that the ruling was made during the war, and thus is only partiall. That's true, but Israel allso conducted a number of post-war investigations, and over two dozen criminal investigations into personal misconduct of troops. All of this information was available for the UNHRC commision, despite the formal Israeli boycott of it, but the commision decided to ignore the findings.

Well, I feel that it was, in that it illustrated that there are situations in which people reach sound conclusions on the basis of partial evidence. However, if you disagree, feel free to dismiss the analogy and simply address the point I was using it to make.

I've allready told you. There's a difference between 'partiall evidence', and 'partiall biased evidence from hostile witnesses while one side of the ruling controlles the crime scene and the court refuses to take into account the other sides evidence'. Do you see the difference?

[The Pita]

Well, I feel that it was, in that it illustrated that there are situations in which people reach sound conclusions on the basis of partial evidence. However, if you disagree, feel free to dismiss the analogy and simply address the point I was using it to make.

I'll use an analogy that's more fitting.

You have a black defendant. The Jury is partly KKK members. The witnesses are all witnesses for the prosecution. Some of them are also KKK members.

That's the court analogy you should be using.

[ljkeane]

And so on and so forth. All claims by pro-Palestinian or Palestinian organizations who received their information from Palestinian eye-witness accounts. There is, ofcourse, much more of this in the Israeli High Courts ruling.

That is hardly eyewitness evidence that is reviewed by the court, that is the petition itself which is rather intrinsic to there being any case whatsoever. The report contains no information about Palestinian eyewitnesses that were directly interviewed by the court.

[Yoadm]

That is hardly eyewitness evidence that is reviewed by the court, that is the petition itself which is rather intrinsic to there being any case whatsoever. The report contains no information about Palestinian eyewitnesses that were directly interviewed by the court.

The Israeli court accepted the petitioners eyewitness accounts. Thus the claims were fully represented by the petitioners, which is enough. Just like Israel didn't expect the UNHRC commision to interview private IDF soldiers, but rather those who represent them.

On the other hand, the UNHRC commision refused to adress, not only personal Israeli eyewitness accounts, but rather, the overall claims and evidence presented by the Israeli side, making the Israeli High courts ruling far more balanced. Needless to say, a ruling whos findings were ignored by the UNHRC commision.

[ljkeane]

In addition, you were right in pointing out that the ruling was made during the war, and thus is only partiall. That's true, but Israel allso conducted a number of post-war investigations, and over two dozen criminal investigations into personal misconduct of troops. All of this information was available for the UNHRC commision, despite the formal Israeli boycott of it, but the commision decided to ignore the findings.

I'm far from convinced that information was provided to the commission by the Israeli authorities either, the report contains multiple copies of letters sent by the commission requesting assistance and the Israeli response denying that assistance. The Israeli letters also aknowledge that Justice Goldstein's "integrity and commitment to impartiality" so I'm unconvinced that he would lie about the information he received from the Israeli authorities.

[Yoadm]

I'm far from convinced that information was provided to the commission by the Israeli authorities either, the report contains multiple copies of letters sent by the commission requesting assistance and the Israeli response denying that assistance. The Israeli letters also aknowledge that Justice Goldstein's "integrity and commitment to impartiality" so I'm unconvinced that he would lie about the information he received from the Israeli authorities.

He didn't lie. Israel publically boycotted the commision due to its illegitemate 'birth', and the suspicion of deep bias. But under the covers, a couple of major documents were sent to it, from the Israeli Courts ruling, to the IDF's main internal investigation, the criminal investigations opened against private soldiers, and lastly, a formulated and long case-study by the Israeli government which included written testimonies, intelligence assesments, etc.. making a basis for the Israeli case. The commision only admitted it received the info, but did not use any of it in the report.

[ljkeane]

He didn't lie. Israel publically boycotted the commision due to its illegitemate 'birth', and the suspicion of deep bias. But under the covers, a couple of major documents were sent to it, from the Israeli Courts ruling, to the IDF's main internal investigation, the criminal investigations opened against private soldiers, and lastly, a formulated and long case-study by the Israeli government which included written testimonies, intelligence assesments, etc.. making a basis for the Israeli case. The commision only admitted it received the info, but did not use any of it in the report.

The report clearly says that:

The Mission requested information from

the Government of Israel on any inquiry it had conducted into the incidents the Mission had

investigated, and the conclusions of such inquiries, if any, but did not receive any reply.

Where is your additional information that would appear to contradict this coming from?

[shadowbinding shoe]

A polity which is being sanctioned retains control of its borders but lacks trading partners, a blockaded polity is one whose sovereignty has been infringed.

Could you illuminate me on the profound difference between the two? Because to me it looks like trivialities and semantics.

Also while you're at it would you have called North Korea "Occupied" if the USA's threats to conduct searches on its ships and perhaps control the sea around it were realized?

padraig

You can tell me what has changed since this report.

what this report boils down to is that the Hamas regime is recognized by practically nobody and therefore papers it issues (residency papers) go unrecognized. The acknowledged regime for the Palestinians is the one led by Mahmud Abbas. That is also the reason they have problems crossing their borders with Israel, and Egypt, doing commerce and so on. People who get permission from the PNO (and Hamas of course since nothing in Gaza can happen without their permission) can leave and return to Gaza as they wish. Of course since both the PNO and Egypt (and Israel) hate the Hamas and Hamas has a strangehold on Gaza things are at a standstill

[Samalander]

1) Oh, don't worry. I'm watching this closely. This, most likely, Will Not End Well . The question is how long we got.

My bet is 50 posts after either Meili or Samalander shows up.

2) Look, Yoadm, i can respect your position, considering your experiences. But you were, and i'll put this as softly as i can, a fucking member of the Israeli army. Can't you see how that would deeply alter your perceptions of this situation? A great many people not directly involved in the trenches, as you have been, have collectively sat back and gone: "holy shit, this reponse is simply too much."

3) Gaza is still an occupied territory it does not have control of its borders, territorial waters or airspace, the Gaza -Egyptian border after all is governed according to an agreement reached between Egypt and Israel not Egypt and the authorities in Gaza.

4) See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8241247.stm

If it weren't Israel people would call that land-grab. But somehow nobody is supposed to say anything, which could criticise Israel...if he does he becomes an anti-Semite.

5) And the Israeli High Court is an organ of the Israeli state whose membership is determined by the Israeli executive.

1) All threads morghullis.

2) I would say that "boots on the ground" eye account experience would you give one a very good sense of reality.

3) Neither we nor Egypt are obliged to open our borders to a hostile entity. No country has "control of it's borders" beyond the goodwill of it's neighbors. As for waters and airspace, that's why they call it a blockade. We don't want them sneaking rockets in there, do we?

4) That link is about the West Bank. There isn't one single centimeter of disputed land in Gaza. It's all theirs to rot on. And if you're gonna use "but they're all one people, the Palestinians" line, I would urge you to look again. There are two distinct entities now forming: A secular modern one in the West Bank, and a fundie fun zone in Gaza. They would go to war against one another if they shared a border.

5) :lol: What are you, stupid? Ignorance is not knowing things. When you you start talking about the things you know nothing about, that's stupidity. The body that determines membership in the supreme court is composed thus: 3 Supreme court judges, 2 members of parliament (one for the coalition, one for the opposition), 2 members of the bar association, and a paltry 2 members from the executive (Minister of Justice, and for some reason, Minister of Environmental Protection).

P.S

a. Pita, good buddy, why do you keep opening these threads? If you don't open them and they don't open them General Chatter can be used for people's birthdays, amusing robbery stories or debates on the level of cruelty inflicted on the cat in the picture Shryke toats around.

b. Why is it ok for Hamas to kill Al-Queda personnel inside a mosque, but when anyone else tries it it's a terrible war crime?

[Usotsuki]

It may be an 'organ of the Israeli state', but while the UNHRC's record has proven it's known bias towards a certain country, the High Court of Israel is internationally recognized as one of the fairest and most activist courts in the west, due to its constant defence of Palestinian rights, sometimes at great political and military cost to Israel. And it is not controlled by the Israeli government, who constantly tries to weaken it.

Even if there is an international authority which has set forth in letters of gold the objective nature of the Israeli High Court, it matters not, the situation of the court remains unchanged.

Circumstantial bias is always a weak argument, it's a feeble critique of the Israeli high Court judgement and a paltry attack on the mission report, accept the one or abandon the other or of course continue to be charmingly inconsistent but regrettably unconvincing.

Palestinian claims regarding water shortages, prevention of wounded evacuation, claims to collateral damage, prevention of food and water entry are all evident in the report, and so are the counter claims of the IDF. The High court extensively relies on both sides (the IDF versus Doctors without borders + Palestinian eyewitnesses) to makes its ruling, which is a far more balanced perspective than that of the UNHRC commision.

LJ has I think already answered this point,

Which doesnt adress it in any way apart from stating that the Israeli inquiry 'exists'.

How odd, when i read section XXVI I get an extended discussion of the mechanics of the Israeli inquiries and their flaws.

Could you illuminate me on the profound difference between the two? Because to me it looks like trivialities and semantics.

I can indeed, sanctions are a choice made by the sanctioning state or collection of states to cease trading that's sovereignty being exercised, a blockade prevents the polity under interdiction from trading at all which is an infringement of their sovereignty. it's the difference between an individual choosing not to shop at Walmart and Walmart being surrounded by armed guards preventing anyone from entering.

Also while you're at it would you have called North Korea "Occupied" if the USA's threats to conduct searches on its ships and perhaps control the sea around it were realized?

If the US asserts through force control of North Korea's borders it would indeed be an act of occupation.

[Yoadm]

The report clearly says that:

Where is your additional information that would appear to contradict this coming from?

Here you go:

Foreign Ministry: Goldstone ignored our report

The source noted that in an interview to the American PBS network, Goldstone said, "We had a lot of information that came from Israel, both from the government - there was a long 160-odd page report from the Israeli government giving their version

"It seems that Goldstone gave the answer himself. Goldstone received a copy of a thick 160-page report, that was issued by the Israeli Foreign Ministry and details the Israeli claims one by one, including images and other proof of rocket attacks, the murder of Israeli civilians, and the violation of human rights by Hamas.

http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7...3778162,00.html

Now, regardless of the above, the Israeli high courts ruling was published in English, the IDF inquiry was open for all to see, yet there is absolutely nothing to point to ANY use by the commision of Israeli info regarding the conflict.

By the way, regarding your claim of the lack of use of direct Palestinian eyewitness accounts:

Mendelblit said that since Operation Cast Lead, the IDF has received some 100 complaints from Palestinians, and the Military Police has opened investigations into 23 cases, most of them still ongoing. So far, charges have been pressed against one soldier, who was convicted of looting and sentenced to seven and a half months in prison.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1115220.html

Even if there is an international authority which has set forth in letters of gold the objective nature of the Israeli High Court, it matters not, the situation of the court remains unchanged.

Actually, internal investigations are treated worldwide as the prefared method to an external investigation. The Israeli High Court is widely regarded as one of the best and most impartiall activist of the wests high courts, and thus, its internal investigation, coupled with dozens of other internal investigations currently under way in Israel should be enough. They are definately enough to prevent external investigation into every NATO country in Afghanistan, so I don't see how this should be different.

Circumstantial bias is always a weak argument, it's a feeble critique of the Israeli high Court judgement and a paltry attack on the mission report, accept the one or abandon the other or of course continue to be charmingly inconsistent but regrettably unconvincing.

We arnt speaking just of circumstantial bias. We are speaking of a commision born by a biased organization, receiving only 50% of the evidence. In addition, the evidence it received was slanted, the 'crime scene' controlled by Hamas, with the commision ignoring evidence provided to it by Israel. This isnt just 'circumstantial bias'.

How odd, when i read section XXVI I get an extended discussion of the mechanics of the Israeli inquiries and their flaws.

Then, by all means, present the quote.

[Werthead]

What I do know is that our response was fare more measured and less destructive then NATO's in Afghanistan, despite Israel having a far better reason to respond.

Israel did not suffer a multi-pronged terrorist attack with over 3,000 deaths prior to operations in Gaza.

Sure, once you try negotiating with Al-Qaeda. Oh, wait, you rejected the very notion.

Once those reponsible for 9/11 are handed over, negotiations with Al-Qaeda are viable. Negotiations with the Taliban, on the other hand, are commonplace and ongoing. The war in Afghanistan will almost certainly end with some kind of negotiated settlement that allows the Taliban into the mainstream of Afghan politics. Even the Americans have now acknowledged that.

In Gaza there is no Israeli control anywhere.

No, just around it and over it. Gaza is a besieged and blockaded territory where nothing gets in or out without the Israelis knowing about it. Gaza is officially designated by the UN as a territory occupied by an outside power, and has been since 1967.

The problem I have with this post is that Israel didn't bomb hoping to hit something. They only bombed places that did have terrorists and weapons in them.

Apart from all the places that didn't, like a UN administrative centre (hit with phosphorous gas), a school run by the UN and other non-combatant locations hit by Israeli fire. The lack of decent intelligence in the conflict which led to such mistakes was pretty ridiculous.

[Yoadm]

Israel did not suffer a multi-pronged terrorist attack with over 3,000 deaths prior to operations in Gaza.

No, rather, Israel suffered years of constant terror attacks which killed hundreds of civilians, with Israel's population being 50 times smaller than the US. In addition, while the Taliban never attacked the US directly, and was never sworn to the wests destruction. Hamas, by contrast, which is the government of Gaza, is not only sworn to Israel's destruction, opposed to any peace agreement, but has attacked Israel for years, and has submitted 150,000 Israeli's to daily strategic rocket attacks.

Here's an analogy for you:

A fanatical religious party wins a string of elections in Mexico's northern states, then stages a civil war to drive out the federal government and take full control.

The party's charter demands the return to Mexico of the occupied territories of California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Texas.

Firing homemade rockets and more advanced projectiles smuggled in from Iran and China, the party's gunners can hit a total of one of every seven Americans, or 43,598,000 people, in a broad swath which includes Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix, Albuquerque, Austin, San Antonio and Houston, and Las Vegas.

In all of these areas, pre-schools, grade schools, and universities are all forced to shut down. Families sleep in bomb shelters, and return to them several times a day during air raids. Businesses are shuttered, and the economy shuts down.

So, how do you think the US would respond to that? Believe me, if it conquered afghanistan due to its government harboring terrorists over one combined attack, it would absolutely go ballistic if a 1/7th of its population was under months of rocket fire.

Once those reponsible for 9/11 are handed over, negotiations with Al-Qaeda are viable.

Yes, but Al-Qaeda would never do that, and untill it does, there is no room for negotiation. Just like untill Hamas agrees to any possibility of peacefull coexistance, there is little room for negotiation.

Apart from all the places that didn't, like a UN administrative centre (hit with phosphorous gas), a school run by the UN and other non-combatant locations hit by Israeli fire. The lack of decent intelligence in the conflict which led to such mistakes was pretty ridiculous.

And the US constantly bombes mosqs, schools, weddings, even a chinese embassy, friendly troops, foreign press, etc.. This is not done due to the US targetting civilians, but due to human error, which happens in every single army. To claim that Israel purposely targetted civilians.. that would be very odd considering the fact that there are few if any historical urban battle parralels with less civilian casualties than the Gaza war. I mean, hell, Gaza is 10 times more populous and dense than Fallujah, yet the US killed 10 times more civilians in Fallujah. Was the US targetting civilians? Ofcourse not. Same with the IDF.

[Samalander]

1) Israel did not suffer a multi-pronged terrorist attack with over 3,000 deaths prior to operations in Gaza.

2) Apart from all the places that didn't, like a UN administrative centre (hit with phosphorous gas), a school run by the UN and other non-combatant locations hit by Israeli fire. The lack of decent intelligence in the conflict which led to such mistakes was pretty ridiculous.

1) But we did suffer one (with the same ratio of a casualties in proportion to population size) before we built the Wall. We just built something to protect ourselves, the US went and conquered two countries. Who should be on the receiving end of a UN report, again?

2) a. Mistakes will happen in the fog of war.

b. All outgoing fire must be returned (with care) even if the shooter is beside civilians. Otherwise, they might thing some areas immune and fire from them (even rockets into Israel) with impunity.

[Usotsuki]

We arnt speaking just of circumstantial bias. We are speaking of a commision born by a biased organization, receiving only 50% of the evidence. In addition, the evidence it received was slanted, the 'crime scene' controlled by Hamas, with the commision ignoring evidence provided to it by Israel. This isnt just 'circumstantial bias'.

The argument that the mission is born of a biased organisation is the circumstantial criticism and unsound.

The argument that the conclusions are flawed because of an inability to gather evidence is a valid critique of method.

Then, by all means, present the quote.

Paragraphs 1572 onwards.

Samalander, and the appointments are then made by the President of the State but if it makes you feel better, I will amend my point, the composition is determined by all three organs of the state..

[Samalander]

Samalander, and the appointments are then made by the President of the State.

Who is elected by Parliament, and not, in fact, a memeber of the Executive (this isn't the US, you know).