Israel Said to Fear War Crimes Charges

[Judi Lynn]

Associated Press
Israel Said to Fear War Crimes Charges
By MATTI FRIEDMAN , 09.04.2006, 02:51 PM

Three weeks after a cease-fire ended Israel's monthlong war against Hezbollah guerrillas, Israel is increasingly concerned that government officials and army officers traveling abroad could face war crimes charges, a Foreign Ministry official said Monday.

A special legal team is preparing to provide protection for officers and officials involved in the 34-day conflict in Lebanon, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter with the media.

More than 850 Lebanese were killed during the conflict, most of them civilians. The human rights group Amnesty International has accused Israel of war crimes, including indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on civilian targets.

Israel has said it acted legally and accused Hezbollah of hiding among civilians in Lebanon and deliberately targeting Israeli civilians in rocket attacks. The fighting left 159 Israelis dead, including 39 civilians hit by Hezbollah rockets in Israel's northern cities. The Amnesty report also criticized Hezbollah's attacks on civilians.
(snip/...)

http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/entrelaw/feeds/ap/2006/09/04/ap2991725.html

[mike_c]

1. Israel is preparing to DEFEND its war criminals rather than to...

...prosecute them. :wow:

[lpbk2713]

2. Looks like BushCo democracy really IS taking hold in the ME after all.

[NOLADEM]

3. As they should be...

Israel committed numerous war crimes. It is completely unacceptable to bomb civilians with cluster bombs to collectively punish the country for crimes of the few.

Israel blocked humanitarian aid, bombed ambulances and evacuating civilians (after ordering them to evacuate), bombed civilian targets, and created an unprecedented environmental disaster on Lebanon's shores by bombing oil infrastructure.

They acted as criminals.

Now, before the apologists tear me a new one, let me say that Hizbollah's tactics are despicable, and they should disarm and enter peace talks, return the captured soldiers and turn over their murderers for trial.

[eccles12]

4. Why should they worry? They never had to suffer any consequences before

for much the same kind of behavior. This is all so much PR stuff to play the victim role once again. It's their "pre-emptive" political media attack.

[bluedog]

6. the internet and satellite dishes have

shown the horrors done in this invasion by Israel and the true crimes done in Iraq......

Yes, the internet has become a vital tool on getting the truth out .long before the US media has a chance to white wash it....

[NOLADEM]

12. touche n/t

A man can dream of a fair world though, can't he?

;-)

[question everything]

14. Could you, please, elaborate on "before" "playing the victim" etc.?

You may want to open some history books before you reply, though.

When the UN voted on a resolution to establish two states in the land known as Palestine, Israel accepted, the Arabs attacked, and they lost.

When the UN set troops between Israel and Egypt in Gaza, the Egyptians kicked them out, blockaded the Straits of Tiran - an internationally recognizable act of war - Israel attacked. Jordan and Syria joined they all lost.

Now they are crying? Like the good old man who murdered his parents and then asked for mercy because he was an orphan.

Do you even have any idea of the size of Israel in the Middle East?

Do you have no problem with an army within an army operating inside Lebanon and attacking Israel? Yes, it attacked it even before the soldiers were killed and kidnapped.

But, no. It is so much easier to spout PR that you hear from.. where, exactly?

Israel is not a Christian nation. It does not believe in turning the other cheek. If its neighbors would not live in peace with it, it will make sure that their attack will not be a final one, even it it requires it to take the first step.

And if you are having problems with this, tough. Israel is not there to please you or anyone else.

[ShockediSay]

26. Two states offered in Palestine? If someone took away half your home to

give to someone else, what would you do?

[hogwyld]

29. Fantastic point!

The Israel apologist never fail to amaze me in their one-sidedness.

[question everything]

36. What an articulate response, full of information and data - NOT

[Phx_Dem]

45. Do you support a two-state solution?

and if not, where do you think the jews should go?

[breakaleg]

46. It's not a matter of supporting a two state solution today.

It's more about recognizing why Palestinians felt the way they did when this thing started.

It's logical to say 'where should they jews go' but it's illogical to imply that a third party in the dispute at the time, were the ones responsible for giving them their land.

And it's not entirely about giving them part of their land, it's about changing the face of the region.

It's one thing to allow a different ethnic group to come into a region, but another for them, a minority, to take over and change the politics of the region. If they were the ruling party because of population and the change was gradual, there would be no argument. It's no different from the whites taking over South Africa.

[Phx_Dem]

48. S. Africa is a different situation

Jews have a historical connection to Israel. Depending on how one feels about multiculturalism, one might think that changing the "face/politics" in the ME is a good thing.

[breakaleg]

49. I disagree.

the whole historical connection is the bullshit. It's about the weakest argument I've seen. Are we going to give back all of Canada to the Native American Indians?

And it's arrogant for any country to think that changing the politics of another is ok. Who are we to say that their system isn't good enough for us?

[msmcghee]

32. Israel did not take half their home.

Read some basic history on this before you develop such strong opinions.

The world decided through the UN to partition Palestine. Both the Jews and the Arabs living there each wanted the whole thing for themselves.

But the UN, which had inherited the "Mandate" to establish states in the former Ottoman Empire, from the League of Nations which the UN had replaced, split it up - not the Zionists.

Even though the Arabs had generally sided with the Nazis in WWII. And even though the Nazis had just killed 6 million Jews. And even though the Palestine Territory was surrounded by other Arab states who the Palestinians shared a common culture and religion with. And even though the Jews would never be welcome in any of those surrounding states and would be stuck inside whatever boundaries they accepted for their state. The UN still decided to divide it up somewhat equally.

The Arab League thought they could use the poorest Arabs, the Palestinians, for their own political ends. So they rejected the UN Partition and attacked Israel.

If the UN had given the whole thing to the Jews, and the Palestinian Arabs had accepted that outcome, the descendants of those Arabs would probably be the most successful Arab community in the world today. They would have the freedom to stay in Israel or emmigrate to other Arab states (if those states would allow it). Remember, Israel wanted the Arabs to stay, to be part of Israel to help develop the new economy. They were encouraged to leave by the Arab League - not by Israel. The states of the Arab League, after losing their ill-conceived war against Israel then placed those same Palestinian Arabs in refugee camps where their descendants still live.

And so it continues today. The Palestinian Arabs are some of the poorest and most destitute Arabs in the world - still being used by other Arabs for their own ends - still being told that Jews are the devil and that dying to kill them is better than making peace with them.

How sad that so many here continue to support all that unhappiness - and that that support is based on such a misguided view of the actual history.

[question everything]

35. Who says it was their home?

The whole Middle East was part of the Ottoman Empire and after WWI the British arbitrarily drew the borders - see what they did in Iraq.

There were Jews and Arabs living in that area and the only thing anyone can agree is that there was no agreeable census of how many there were there.

[papau]

43. it wasn't "half your home" - most Pal moved east to work for Jews - they

were not there to be begin with because the land was lousy.

So to use your analogy - if one loses one's apartment lease on the east side of town, one could go to the home the relatives actually own on the west side of town.

Losing a war has consequences. Always has - for at least 5000 years.

[Occulus]

30. It is time, and past time, for Israel's leaders to be

held to account for their war crimes.

Past histories, including the how of Israel's founding, the attitudes of its neighbors, or who did what to whom, are irrelevant. A war crimew is a war crime is a war crime, and there exists no justification, moral or otherwise.

To defend Israel is to defend a pack of war criminals at this point. The fact that they are assembling defenses against the same- "A special legal team is preparing to provide protection for officers and officials involved in the 34-day conflict in Lebanon"- is proof of the truth of that statement. Amnesty International is accusing them! A further truth is that Israel war crimes and resolution violations go pretty far back into the past.

Then there's this, from near the end of the article:

Israeli fears of prosecution abroad are based on experience. A retired general arriving in London last year who had commanded Israeli forces in Gaza was tipped off by an Israeli diplomat that he was about to be arrested by British authorities over a 2002 air strike that killed a Hamas leader and 14 others, nine of them children. Doron Almog remained on the plane and returned to Israel.

In 2001, then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon faced a lawsuit in Belgium over his alleged role in a 1982 massacre in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Beirut. Several former Israeli army chiefs of staff also have been targeted. None of the cases have succeeded.

Israel's defenders have exactly zero credibility on this particular issue. It is time, and past time, for Israel's leaders to be held to account.

By the way: I didn't really bother to learn anything about what's gone on before regarding this neverending conflict in too terrible much detail until recently. Nearly everything I have learned has only made me more and more pissed off at Israel's leaders. No, I won't give you specific cases; this is just a general feeling. No, it ain't anti-Semitism either; I've never even understood why some people hate Jews so much (maybe that's because I have just a general disdain for organized religion across the board, but no one religion in particular). It's more on the fundamental level of feeling that Something Is Wrong, that the results do not match the intent behind Israel's founding.

Sorry; I'm rambling. My point is that there comes a time when even allies need to step back and say, "wait- we can't accept this behavior from you." I'm sure you or others would like us to, say, overtly invade Lebanon and have a military victory (which would end up like Iraq x 10^25000). I'm sure you're perfectly willing to keep helping Israel arm itself, as we currently do, to great cost to us: taxpayers, many of whom (including myself) would like to see military funding allocated to Israel be markedly reduced. I bet you're willing to do whatever you can to Defend Israel's Right To Exist(tm), but to defend leadership such as Israel's citizens have been subjected to- leadership willing to commit war crimes, just as ours is- is just as immoral as anything else I can think of involving this entire conflict.

We're helping to keep this whole thing going by continuing to support Israel the way we have. Maybe, if war crimes trials are held (for our leaders as well as theirs), the hateful elites ruling the world today will finally get a motherfucking CLUE.

(What could we pay for here with the money we give hand over fist to Israel? Just how out of control is it, anyway?)

[question everything]

37. Yes, you are rumbling and clearly you don't know about the history

of the conflict.

Please look at the map and see how Israel is surrounded by larger more populous countries. Look at the way the Islamic extremists are moving thanks to apologists like you.

The jihadists are a threat to the world but the European nations and many here want to, yes, appease them. I've got news for you. You will not stop these extremists even if Israel ceased to exist tomorrow and even if the US will exit Iraq and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia tomorrow. The jihadists want the glory of the first Millennium, with women in Burka, of course, and with slavery. Did you know that the Muslims were the slave traders of Africa?

Israel will make sure that it is not caught off guard even if it has to strike first, it will. And, thank you, it does not care for your opinion about its actions.

As for the funds - you may dislike the military, though enjoy the safety that it provides you, but starting with the Cold War, when the Soviet Union was supplying the Arab nations, the US gained important knowledge about the Soviet military equipment. And, like most foreign aid, there are strings attached; most of it has to be used to purchase foodstuff and military equipment from the U.S. Even now, if the US wants to attack Iran, finding out how Hezbollah stood up with the Iranians arms is an important lesson.

You really should try to learn about the history of the area before you post anything, but it is obvious that you think expressing an informed opinion is a waste of your time. I hope that we, the Democrats, do not count on the likes of you to take the House and the Administration.

[0007]

42. Could water have been the issue.......and land grabbing?

Is Mordechai Vanunu - The Israel Nuclear Scientist still under arrest? Will Israel ever let him leave?

[greccogirl]

5. Hezzies first.

[Zhade]

22. That's a good point.

The prosecution of those will go faster, as there were far less of them (due to Israel's indiscriminate attacks on innocent Lebanese civilians, made easy by overwhelming firepower) and allow time to ensure all of Israel's war crimes in this conflict are punished.

Good thinking!

[question everything]

38. No, there were none of them.

While Israel reported how many civilians and how many soldiers were killed and wounded, Hezbollah never distinguished between them. They were hiding among the poor civilians who had to accommodate them and once they were killed, they metamorphed into martyrs on their way to bed the 70 virgins, or so.

[mike_c]

31. ahhh, the adults have arrived....

:rofl:

[Benhurst]

7. If it looks like a goose, honks like a goose, and steps like a

goose, it should be expected to be treated like a goose.

[bahrbearian]

8. Can't they argue that they were unwell ling coerced, by Chimpy

[w4rma]

9. This is why they killed those UN observers. To prevent their observing. nt

[question everything]

15. No. The UN observers put themselves in the middle of a battle

so that they could observe and report to Hezbollah where the bombs were. When you put yourself in the middle of the aerial attack you may get killed.

[w4rma]

17. I'm sorry but the UN observer building had been there for about 30 years.

It was targeted with both mortar fire and aircraft bombs. The observers were told to stay put inside the building by the Israeli officials that they were in constant communication with on the phone.

[question everything]

39. And Hezbollah, like the PLO before it, purposefully

took over civilians and, in this case, UN buildings, from which to fire their rockets.

If criminals take over a house and the inhabitants stay there, even though they are free to leave, and police forces storm the house and hostages are killed, will you, then blame the police for killing innocent victims?

[w4rma]

47. There were only 4 bodies in the rubble of the UN building. They were all

observers. And noone was firing rockets from the building, at any point, either.

[Tom Joad]

19. hmm, not really, but Israel always claims this... always

"the dozens killed were in the middle of the battle"

Actually the Israeli aggression in Lebanon killed hundreds of children.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynnTheDem]

27. ...

:wow:

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

10. In their determination to slay the dragon, they BECAME the dragon.

:shrug:

[question everything]

11. **

[Vidar]

13. Too bad US officials don't suffer from the same apprehension.

[Zhade]

25. HEAR, HEAR!

Best damn post on the thread! :)

[leesa]

16. Good. Bring them to court on charges.

[Tom Joad]

18. There are lawsuits being persued for Israel's last bombing of

Qana, back ten years ago
http://www.endtheoccupation.org/article.php?list=type&type=160

The Palestine Human Rights Litigation Project (PHRLP) is presently being incubated at the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. The project aims to inform and educate the public both about how legal acion can help to bring about justice and human rights, and about what constitutes international law and human rights. The US Campaign is excited to be incubating this project for two years, providing advice and support as requested. During its incubation the Legal Advocate, Noura Erakat, will work with an Advisory Team of legal practitioners and scholars to develop the role, function, and structure of the Litigation Project. At the end of two years, the hope is that the Project will be institutionalized within an existing advocacy organization where it can continue to develop and begin to function.

At present, two law suits have been filed against former Israeli military officials in US federal district courts. The class action suits filed on behalf of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians allege that the former officials are guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, and extrajudicial killings. The suits are filed pursuant to the Alien Tort Claims Act for civil damages.

[Zhade]

20. Well, when you commit them, you SHOULD fear them.

NT!

[LeftyMom]

21. I hope those responsible are brought to justice

War criminals have lived lives without fear for too damn long. Let them feel a little of what thier victims felt, not that I think the experience will bring any mercy to thier hearts.

[gratuitous]

23. Well, I'm sure if the IDF did nothing wrong . . .

They'll have nothing to fear from international tribunals.

[bemildred]

28. Fearing lawsuits, Israel warns brass: no ‘crushing’, no ‘wiping out’

JERUSALEM — Israel has warned its civil servants and military officers to watch what they say about the Lebanese and Palestinian conflicts, fearing tough talk could invite war crimes lawsuits, political sources said yesterday. They said the Foreign Ministry has set up a legal team to counter efforts by foreign groups to arrange the prosecution abroad of Israelis involved in the attacks in Lebanon and crackdowns on the Palestinian protests.

A ministry memorandum issued to Israel's military and other government agencies urges officials to avoid belligerent remarks that could potentially be used to back up allegations they were complicit in excessive use of force in Lebanon or the Gaza Strip."The type of language now considered off-limits includes 'crushing' the enemy, and 'cleansing', 'levelling', or 'wiping out' suspected enemy emplacements," a political source who saw the memo said. The source quoted the memo as censuring one official who called for Israel to respond to Hizbullah rocket strikes against the strategic port city of Haifa during the 34-day war by ‘getting rid of a village in Lebanon.’

The Foreign and Justice ministries declined comment. According to the memo, numerous war crimes lawsuits against Israeli officials were being prepared. It cited venues such as France, Belgium, Morocco and Britain, but no details were available. Israel's top brass have been on high alert since a former general who had commanded forces in Gaza was almost detained after flying out for a London holiday last year. Tipped off that a pro-Palestinian group had secured a warrant for his arrest, the ex-general remained aboard his plane and returned to Israel.

Three Moroccan lawyers said last month they were suing Israeli Defence Minister Amir Peretz over the recent offensives in Lebanon and Gaza. Some 1,200 Lebanese and 200 Palestinians, mostly civilians, have died in operations launched after three Israeli soldiers were abducted in two deadly border raids. A Danish opposition lawmaker sought to have Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni detained when she visited Copenhagen last week. Danish police took no action and prosecutors declined to investigate Livni, noting her diplomatic immunity.

http://www.omanobserver.com/Daily/World/World1.htm

[The Magistrate]

50. Circumspection In Speech, Sir, Is Always Wise

Military men do tend to get a little more ferocious at the tongue than is necessary....

[bemildred]

53. I really think it takes a politician to do the job right.

Not that the military is immune, but they are closer to the action, in most cases.

"Dead battles, like dead generals, hold the military mind in their dead grip."
-- Barbara M. Tuchman

[darkism]

33. See what you get when you use white phosphorus on civilians? n/t

[breakaleg]

34. Under which court would they be tried? Just wondering about

jurisdiction, as the article doesn't state which country, but implies any country.

And if the IDF did nothing wrong, then they should have nothing to fear. The fact that this department even exists speaks to their culpability.

[The Magistrate]

51. That, Unfortunately, Is Untrue, Sir

Matters of this nature are always seized of a political component, cries of war crimes being in most instances a mere rhetorical bludgeon in a political struggle, and proceeding from a particular political view of a conflict. The danger of politically based, and politically biased, trials in this matter is a real one.

[breakaleg]

54. I think it's cynical to think of accusations of war crimes exclusively

as a political attack. Someone has to be a public watchdog, of sorts and speak for the dead. While I'm certain there is an aspect of politics involved, I think there is also a concern for human beings.

But that wasn't my question.

[msmcghee]

55. There are very few cases in history where deaths of civilians . .

. . are considered war crimes.

Seldom do states attack civilians with no military purpose other than punishment for being on the other side - as Saddam Hussein did to the Kurdish villages. Even then there was plausible evidence that the whole village supported those who were plotting his overthrow. Such points are being raised in Saddam's trial right now.

But those are hard to prove and rest necessarily on the clearness of the intent rather than the brazenness of the action itself.

War crimes that do receive due process are when captured prisoners are tortured or shot where there's a clear chain of command and evidence is available. But even those can be tough. It's difficult to maintain that a nation's infrastructure is not important to their ability to wage war. It's also difficult to say that bombs were intentionally dropped on civilians rather than some military target - because certainly the suspicion that a target exists must be sufficient to bomb it when one is fighting for one's life. I can't imagine a court ever able to define what "sufficient suspicion" would amount to in any objective way.

War itself is the worst crime and the only real war crime is starting one IMO. Once it is started all manner of reprehensible things will be done to the "enemy" in the name of survival and victory. The winner will then determine what the "war crimes" were in the way of retribution, not justice - that's how it works.

But starting wars is the one war crime that world bodies could take seriously but never do. Pity.

[entanglement]

40. Their crimes against humanity will not be forgotten

n/t

[Nihil]

41. The people who say "Never again" have simply changed sides.

This is the destructive cycle of killing that humanity has been
in for thousands of years. Group "A" expand, conquering their
neighbours then fade as group "B" (sometimes allied with "C")
get their revenge on "A". Subsequently, "C" rises to dominance,
only to be attacked by "A" and so on.

Much of the power of past regimes has been built upon the dual
pillars of "scapegoats" and "revenge". Like a school football
match, every now and then people change shirts but it's still
the same game.

[voter x]

56. Ha!

:argh:

Meh ken Brechen......

[plasticsundance]

44. Israel is in violation of UN Resolution 242

And 65 other UN Resolutions. They annexed the Golan Heights, even though to this day the UN and international community recognize it as belonging to Syria. Israel has not removed itself from the Shebaa Farmlands. Israel bulldozes Palestinian homes and blocks and rations water to the Palestinians. Israel does not allow Palestinians to trade on the global markets. Israel will not allow Palestinians access, if they don't have the proper papers, even if a family is taking a sick child to the hospital.

Israel locks Palestinians up in prison, sometimes with no charges ... and some of these also include children. Israel treats its Arab population as second class citizens.

Sharon was already taken to the World Court on war crimes in Lebanon. Does anyone really think that the international community is going to enforce anything against Israel? C'mon. Let's get real.

As for the Israeli apologists on this topic quoting history, I'm ready for that debate. First off, Arab support of Germany during WWII was a reaction to British imperialism in the region, rather than the ideology of the Nazis. Read the book All the Shah's Men by Stephen Kisner and learn about the dismal treatment of the Iranian workers at the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

[The Magistrate]

52. You Wish To Debate The Events Of The Second World War In The Region, Sir?

It looks to be a slow afternoon....

Perhaps we may begin with the simple observation that the debateable element of motive for support of a power is of not too much meaning compared to the objective fact of its existence.