Guilty without a trial

[shira]

snip...

According to the ICRC, Article 51 of the UN Charter does not allow Israel to act in self-defense against terrorists because "they are not a state but organized individuals among the population it occupies." Terrorists, according to this interpretation, may be "criminals – (but) not military targets," unless they are directly engaged in carrying out a terrorist act at the time; if not, they should be arrested and are entitled to due process in courts of law.

Such a position is obviously absurd in reality. In the context of modern urban warfare, terrorists deliberately imbed themselves within civilian populations in order to take advantage of humanitarian concerns.

snip...

Moreover, these rules seem applicable only to Israel. There is little or no appreciation of Arab "Palestinian" terrorism as the context. Nor has the UN applied these rules to other conflicts, for example, in Sri Lanka, to protect the Tamils, the allied bombing of civilian targets in Belgrade, or anti-terrorist actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan in which civilians are killed. Israel, and Jews are held to a different standard, and that message needs to be exposed as bigotry.

more...
http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3790526,00.html

[madeline_con]

1. Due process is absurd? Netanyahoo loves you! n/t

[shira]

4. you must have missed the part about there being rules for Israel and rules for the rest of the world

[damntexdem]

5. How many occupying powers are there that constantly take more land from the occupied population?

How many occupiers are there that keep an occupied population behind walls around their entire territories?

If there weren't special rules for Israel, they would need to be developed.

[shira]

6. first, Gaza hasn't been occupied in 4 years when every last Israeli soldier left

if it were occupied, Israel would still be responsible for restoring law and order there, stopping the weapons smuggling, the tunnels, etc., under international law.

and second - even if it were occupied, international laws of war must apply everywhere or nowhere at all....there cannot be one standard for Israel and another for the rest of the world. The USA occupies both Iraq and Afghanistan and the UN isn't applying the same laws even though the US ratio of civilians killed to combatants is FAR worse than Israel - worse by a long shot.

[stranger81]

23. Israel has demonstrated time and again that it doesn't give a whit about

international rules of war, unless they can be used as a sword instead of a shield. When Israel is asked to abide by those same rules itself, you can hear the laughter all the way over here on the West Coast.

If Israel can't stand the heat, it should get the f&*k out of the kitchen.

[shira]

25. Israel's performance in wars is better than US/UK, NATO, etc...

....when civilian to combatant kill ratios are compared - and it's not even close. Even if NGO figures are right (and they're not) and Israel's kill ratios are on the order of 4:1 civilians to combatants (they're really closer to 1:1), everyone else including NATO, US/UK are at levels much greater than 10:1 (ex. Pakistan drone kills are at 50:1 ratio).

You've got it completely backwards.

If Israel doesn't give a whit, what does that say about NATO, the US/UK, etc.? They care far less, don't they? Does it bother you that NATO and all western allies (forget 3rd world nations who are 10x worse) make Israel look very good in comparison? Why condemn Israel when your own country sucks at waging war far, far worse?

Talk about nerve.

Maybe you should get out and criticize the USA more. Wait until the USA gets itself up to Israeli standards before spouting more idiotic statements.

[shira]

2. Goldstone backs away from report

With so much (though not all) of the civilized world justly condemning (or ignoring) the Goldstone Report for its distortion of the facts and its one-sided condemnation of Israel, Richard Goldstone himself now seems to be backing away from the report's conclusions - at least when he speaks to his Jewish audiences.

In an interview with The Jewish Daily Forward, Goldstone denied that his group had conducted "an investigation." Instead, it was what he called a "fact-finding mission" based largely on the limited "material we had." Since this "material" was cherry-picked by Hamas guides and spokesmen, Goldstone acknowledged that "if this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven." He emphasized to the Forward that the report was no more than "a road map" for real investigators and that it contained no actual "evidence," of wrongdoing by Israel.

....

Goldstone went so far as to tell the Forward that he himself "wouldn't consider it in any way embarrassing if many of the allegations turn out to be disproved." This is total nonsense. Goldstone has put his imprimatur - and his reputation - behind the reports' conclusions. The only reason anyone is paying any attention to yet another of the serial condemnatory reports by the United Nations Human Rights Council is because Richard Goldstone - a "distinguished" Jew - allegedly wrote it and signed on to its conclusions. If he really doesn't stand by its conclusions - if he doesn't care one way or another whether they are true or false, proven or unproven - then no extra weight should be given to its findings or conclusions because of the "distinguished" reputation of its Jewish chairman.

more...
http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/dershowitz/entry/goldstone_backs_away_from_report

[shira]

21. Self-Defense is not a Crime of War

Testimony at the UN


Self-Defense is not a Crime of War

UN Watch Oral Statement
Delivered by Colonel Richard Kemp, 16 October 2009

UN Human Rights Council: 12th Special Session




Thank you, Mr. President.

I am the former commander of the British forces in Afghanistan. I served with NATO and the United Nations; commanded troops in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and Macedonia; and participated in the Gulf War. I spent considerable time in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, and worked on international terrorism for the UK Government’s Joint Intelligence Committee.

Mr. President, based on my knowledge and experience, I can say this: During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defence Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.

Israel did so while facing an enemy that deliberately positioned its military capability behind the human shield of the civilian population.


Hamas, like Hizballah, are expert at driving the media agenda. Both will always have people ready to give interviews condemning Israeli forces for war crimes. They are adept at staging and distorting incidents.

The IDF faces a challenge that we British do not have to face to the same extent. It is the automatic, Pavlovian presumption by many in the international media, and international human rights groups, that the IDF are in the wrong, that they are abusing human rights.

The truth is that the IDF took extraordinary measures to give Gaza civilians notice of targeted areas, dropping over 2 million leaflets, and making over 100,000 phone calls. Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military capability were aborted to prevent civilian casualties. During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. To deliver aid virtually into your enemy's hands is, to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable. But the IDF took on those risks.

Despite all of this, of course innocent civilians were killed. War is chaos and full of mistakes. There have been mistakes by the British, American and other forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq, many of which can be put down to human error. But mistakes are not war crimes.

More than anything, the civilian casualties were a consequence of Hamas’ way of fighting. Hamas deliberately tried to sacrifice their own civilians.

Mr. President, Israel had no choice apart from defending its people, to stop Hamas from attacking them with rockets.

And I say this again: the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.

Thank you, Mr. President.

http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1313923&ct=7536409

[imdjh]

3. Screw the UN. Right rarely survives a popularity contest with wrong. Which is why ...

.... the US must maintain its sovereignty so it can do what is right, even when it isn't popular.

[bemildred]

7. Well, good, let's have some trials, everything on the up and up for a change. nt

[shira]

8. no problem, so long as Israel is judged by NATO standards and all NATO countries also go to trial

also, post #2 shows Goldstone doesn't even believe in the credibility and findings of his own report - so why should we, or anyone else for that matter?

[bemildred]

12. So we agree there ought to be lots of trials?

That's something anyway.

[shaayecanaan]

14. There should be either lots or none at all...

Milosevic, for example, was tried for genocide, largely because of the massacre that was probably instigated by one of his generals at Srebenica, which is sort of like charging George W Bush with genocide for what happened at Fallujah.

I think the world's tolerance for bullshit ad hoc tribunals is coming to a close. If the US wants people to be charged with crimes against humanity, they can either submit to the jurisdiction of the ICC, or alternatively they can abandon any pretense that they actually give a shit about international law.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. I totally agree with that last point of yrs...

I think the world's tolerance for bullshit ad hoc tribunals is coming to a close. If the US wants people to be charged with crimes against humanity, they can either submit to the jurisdiction of the ICC, or alternatively they can abandon any pretense that they actually give a shit about international law.

I wish they'd stop pretending they give a shit about international law and start honestly giving a shit about it...

[bemildred]

20. I'm completely OK with that. nt

[shira]

22. but you're also okay with Israel being singled out and held to a higher standard than NATO

[bemildred]

24. Well, you gotta start somewheres.

Might as well start with the low-hanging fruit.

[shira]

26. singling out Israel and holding them to a higher standard than anyone else is pure bigotry

"Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East (or the Western world) is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest."

[bemildred]

27. Holding someone to a high standard is bigotry?

You think we ought to think the worst? That isn't bigotry?

[shira]

45. it's not a high standard, it's a different standard and thus it's bigotry

expecting more from Israel than any other country including all Western nations means you have less expectations for everyone else

[proteus_lives]

9. The UN is prejudiced against Israel.

This is not breaking news. It's been standard for a long time.

[shira]

10. yeah, but it's apparently okay to be prejudiced against Israel and hold them to a different standard

[proteus_lives]

11. Sadly, that's how a lot of people think.

It's disgusting. I long ago realized that a hideous double-standard exists on the I/P issue.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. It's interesting that some pro-Israelis are the ones who want Israel held to a different standard...

They want Israel to be able to operate outside the boundaries of international law, yet demand that the Palestinians operate inside it. If that's not a double standard, I don't know what is. I want all parties to be obligated to respect international law, so there's no double standards in my approach to the conflict...

[proteus_lives]

17. I would like all parties to respect the law too.

There is a double standard for the Palestinians. But that doesn't negate the D/S that the world holds Israel to. Rallies across the world against Israel. International aid for those who launch attacks against them. Bile and and venom tossed at them from all corners. I can see why they wouldn't trust international law.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. I don't think terrorist groups have recieved international aid...

The aid is for the Palestinian people and is meant to be used to try to improve their lot in life. Also, I don't think bile and venom is tossed at Israel from all corners. Look at all the countries that have spoken up against Ahmanutjob's rants about Israel. I also don't see bile and venom coming from countries like my own, the UK, New Zealand, Canada, Jordan, Egypt, the EU, Japan, Mexico, the list could go on and on but I figure I've mentioned more than enough countries. There has been growing criticism of Israel from some of the countries I just mentioned, and OCL is the main reason for that happening. That's not bile and venom - that's legitimate criticism. Even if it all was bile and venom, that's even more reason for Israel to abide by and trust in international law rather than turning its back on it....

[shira]

19. sorry Violet, but Israel is held to a higher standard than NATO and that's bigotry

You are all for double-standards in your approach to I/P when you ignore the fact that the UN and human rights orgs are holding Israel to a higher standard than NATO (one law for Israel and another for every other country).

You support the Goldstone Report - and that report holds Israel to a different standard than any other nation in the world, including NATO.

You therefore fully support double-standards against Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

28. I don't know why yr apologising to me...

Holding someone to a high standard isn't bigotry. NATO isn't a country or a nation, so I don't know what the hell yr going on about in yr post...

You wouldn't know what a doublestandard was if it bit you on the bum, so we'll add that to the ever-growing pile of terms you've got no clue as to the meaning of, which includes bigotry...

[bemildred]

29. Well, I've seen Pelsar argue that not holding the Palestinians to a high standard is bigotry.

The bigotry of low expectations, so to speak. I don't find that argument all that convincing, it's a bit too convenient, but I don't feel compelled to dispute it either. But the notion that holding someone TO high expectations, having high expectations from them, is bigotry is a new one. Perhaps what is meant is "unfair" or something like that.

[shira]

30. would you two please get real? you both know damn well the issue isn't holding Israel to a high...

...standard, but to a different standard not expected from any other nation, including all NATO nations involved in wars the past decade.

Singling out Israel (with the flimsiest of charges) while not holding any other country to the same standards is clear bigotry.

As for Palestinians, the problem is holding them to the same standards as anyone else - including Israel, not to higher standards than anyone else.

It'd be great if Israel were held to NATO standards, but we know that's not the case.

[Violet_Crumble]

32. You don't know what either of us think, nor what being real is...

Maybe at this point it's not unreasonable for me to suggest you shove yr incoherent babble up yr arse and stop following me around this forum like a bad smell...

[bemildred]

33. So we want to hold Israel to a lower standard, and that's bigotry?

I could agree that we want to hold Israel to the standard of the Geneva Conventions, and the "laws of war" and that sort of thing, and that the great powers are often reluctant to hold themselves to those standards when it is politically inconvenient, and that that is unfair, inequitable. But then there is nothing equitable about the situation of the vast majority of Palestinians in the OPT, who would like to simply be able to get on with their lives, to have some chances for the future. What is fair about their situation? Half of them are children, they have had no say in bringing about the current situation, no choices at all, they are just stuck with it.

NATO standards don't amount to much, as I see it, I'm more than willing to take them to task, but I don't see letting Israel off the hook as solution to that.

[shira]

40. no, same standard as any other western nation - including the US and UK - is that too much to ask?

as for the Palestinians' situation, holding Hamas and Fatah to the same one standard as anyone else will help ensure that life for average Palestinians improves. Ignore the situation and allow Hamas or Fatah to do as they wish to Palestinians, expect nothing in return.

[bemildred]

43. No, like I said, try them all is fine with me. nt

[bemildred]

35. See, this is where I am:

Iraq inquiry: Soldier's father calls for "protection" to be lifted from Tony Blair]

I want Blair and Bush and Cheney facing war crimes trials too. Barak and Olmert are small potatoes, but it's a start all the same.

THE FATHER of Jamie Hancock, who was killed while serving in Iraq, has called on Tony Blair's role in the lead up to the war to be fully scrutinised.

Eddie Hancock addressed the Iraq Inquiry hearing today and called for an end to the "protectionism" that he says surrounds the former Prime Minister.

Kingsman Jamie Hancock, from the 2nd Battalion, The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, was shot dead while on sentry duty in Basra, southern Iraq, in November 2006.

Mr Hancock was one of several family representatives taking part in the hearing in Manchester today.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4106465

[Violet_Crumble]

39. That's how I feel about it too...

I'd add Australia's former prime minister to the list as well....

[shira]

41. but that's not happening....when that starts happening, you'll have a better case against Israel

what do you think of post #2 and the way in which Goldstone minimizes the findings of his own commission?

there's also this...

Goldstone slams UN resolution for failing to condemn Hamas
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1255694826451&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

see? it was a sham all along, wasn't it?

and you say you want to help Palestinians, but how do Palestinians get real help if they're not in any way protected from Hamas? This latest vote is Hamas' wet dream - they get off scot free, to do as they will exploiting more Palestinians and therefore endangering them, but you still want to push this silly POS through the UNSC?

pushing this silly POS through the UNSC won't do anything to prevent Hamas from repeating everything that led up to and included OCL.....so really, how do you think this helps Palestinians?

not to mention the fact that if this POS is continually pushed by the UN, the peace process is officially dead - as there's no way the Israeli public will ever get behind a W.Bank withdrawal, knowing that if the rockets start flying, all this shit will happen again.

looks from my POV, you're not interested in peace or human rights - but bashing Israel.

[bemildred]

42. When it starts happening, I intend to support it. nt

[shira]

44. but you support it despite all the factors mentioned in my last post that you ignored

it's all about demonizing Israel for you, not human rights, peace, real justice.

[bemildred]

47. Hey you ignore what I say, then I ignore what you say.

Seems fair enough to me.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. Yeah, I'm held to high standards at work and that's sure not bigotry...

I'm a bit confused as to the way *bigotry* is used. While in this thread, the claim's made that holding someone to high standards is bigotry, I've just come from another thread where the same poster is claiming that a local govt group in Israel that goes out and locates mixed couples and tut-tuts at them isn't acting out of bigotry. I think it's time for me to go make a cuppa and take a break :)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

36. Bureaucrats are rarely held to any standard and tend to avoid public exposure

[Violet_Crumble]

38. Huh? If yr talking about me, yr very wrong...

And also, I'm not sure why you insist on referring to me as a bureacrat all the time....

[pelsar]

34. two standards is bigotry....

it assumes that a certain group isnt capable of being judged as the other group because, they arent intelligent enough, or they aren't capable of understanding .....whereas this may have merit and be acceptable with individuals, it doesn't work on an intl level.

the two standards may have some value when the cultures are so different that the two standards represent the two cultures, however in the I/P conflict the Palestinians are only too aware of the standard israel is held to and there is no reason why they can't be held to the very same one.

[bemildred]

37. Two standards is unfair.

It assumes that one group is not to be held accountable in the same way and with the same penalties as another. I am all for having the same rules for everybody, as you know, but it is no "bigotry" against settlers that they get away with things that a Palestinians would be killed for, and it is no "bigotry" against Israelis that they may expect better opportunities in life than Palestinians.

[shira]

46. you contradict yourself.....holding Israel to some nebulous "higher standard" means lower standards

for everyone else, and therefore 2 standards which you say is unfair.

[bemildred]

48. The Geneva Conventions are "nebulous"?

There is only one standard, the Geneva Conventions, and they are far from nebulous, they are quite carefully thought out.

[shira]

49. yes, in the way Goldstone employs them selectively and here are examples

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x289382#289393

[bemildred]

50. Selective application, even if true, is not being nebulous.

Your continual butchering of the English language is beginning to be annoying.

[shira]

51. yes it is.....try this one on again

http://www.icty.org/sid/10052#IVB3

paragraphs #71-79

That's either a war crime according to Geneva and Goldstone in all cases or it's not. Either the USA and its allies are guilty in that case (as well as Israel when they do it) or no one is guilty. I realize you don't have a problem with different, bullshit standards when it comes to Israel but the least you can do is admit to it.

If nothing is vague or nebulous when it comes to warcrimes - and you want justice - then kindly explain that particular situation according to Geneva. Why is Israel guilty of that while NATO is not?

Geneva's very clear, right?

FTR, I agree with Goldstone's decision on NATO bombing in 1999....but there cannot be one law for NATO and one law for Israel.

=======

Note the difference between paragraphs #71-79 compared to what Goldstone wrote WRT Israel?

That's an unfair double-standard - compounded by all the evidence his commission ignored (video, news articles, etc.) in order to support his flimsy claims against Israel.

Factor in his recent statements that there's no evidence of anything and he wouldn't mind at all if much of his silly report were disproved. He's now distancing himself from his own report. Not to mention the UN voted for the UNSC to judge Israel, not Hamas.

You know damn well this is all one sick and bigoted fixed political game.

[greennina]

13. So the insurgents in this country...

are criminals instead of military targets? I guess that's ok because us Native Americans haven't really put up much of a fight against the European insurgents in a while. Maybe arresting Europeans instead of shooting at them would be more effective.

[azurnoir]

52. Does the author of this piece depend

on the ignorance of the reader concerning both Article 51 and the stance of the ICRC on its role in international law? He must


Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/article51.htm

Article 51 provides for the right of countries to engage in military action in self-defense, including collective self-defense (i.e. under an alliance). This has been cited as support for the legality of the Vietnam War.<8>
“ Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_VII_of_the_United_Nations_Charter#Article_51

Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/UNSC_DOCS/Article%2051.htm


• International humanitarian law cannot serve as a basis for armed
intervention in response to grave violations of its provisions; the
use of force is governed by the United Nations Charter.
• It is not for the ICRC to pronounce on the legality or legitimacy
of such intervention.
• International humanitarian law applies when intervention forces
are engaged in hostilities with one or more of the parties to the
conflict.
• The ICRC seeks to promote the term “armed intervention in
response to grave violations of human rights and of international
humanitarian law”.

http://www.genocideinfo.org/files/ICRCHumanitarianIntervention.pdf


the article is a mass of hyperbolic imaginings and strawman maybe possiblt might couldbe's


Part IV : Civilian population #Section I -- General protection against effects of hostilities #Chapter II -- Civilians and civilian population
Article 51 IHL - Treaties & Comments -- Protection of the civilian population

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.

2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:

(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;

(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or

(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.

7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités \1.2. Par Article'.

http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/WebART/470-750065?OpenDocument