Amnesty details Gaza 'war crimes'

[M.Dancer]

your mr. boyle also believes israel has committed war crimes.

Of course he does. He's a fruitcake. Think's the US is an illegal occupier of Hawaii too...

[dub]

Of course he does. He's a fruitcake. Think's the US is an illegal occupier of Hawaii too...

so you're okay with quoting a fruitcake when his comments suit you but any other time he's a fruitcake?

does that make you a part time fruitcake?

Edited July 9, 2009 by dub

[M.Dancer]

so you're okay with quoting a fruitcake when his comments suit you but any other time he's a fruitcake?

does that make you a part time fruitcake?

Even a fruitcake can be right once in a while...sort of like if asked you what the weather is like right now, chances are I would get a near right answer.

Now back to the issue. AI reports aren't worth the paper they're written on. They are biased to the bone.

Some have criticized AI for its allegedly unbalanced and excessive criticism of Israel. The American Jewish Congress asserts that AI's criticism of Israel distorts the law of war by "read[ing] the law of war as if it was a law banning war", and misinterprets the Geneva Conventions with regard to the issue of proportionality in war. [39] Yael Beck and Merav Fima of NGO Monitor claim the AI has an "obsession with Israel" and "persistently condemns Israel while ignoring suffering elsewhere". [40]. Dan Kosky of NGO Monitor claims that AI's recent call for an international arms embargo against Israel is "tantamount to placing Israel on trial in a kangaroo court" by accusing Israel of war crimes without a serious investigation to determine whether its actions were legal or not. [41] Alan Dershowitz, professor of law at Harvard University, in his book The Case for Israel, is very critical of AI and their comparison of Israel to nations such as Sudan and other offenders of human rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_...national#Israel

When you read that, they could be very well talking about your quais fascist obsession with Israel.

Edited July 9, 2009 by M.Dancer

[dub]

oh yeah.

lol @ Alan Dershowitz, professor of law at Harvard University, in his book The Case for Israel

haha.

anyway:

Even a fruitcake can be right once in a while...sort of like if asked you what the weather is like right now, chances are I would get a near right answer.

but he agrees with the conclusion of the amnesty report; that israel commits war crimes.

Edited July 9, 2009 by dub

[Sulaco]

those are figures from the IDF. the IDF is known to lie. Red cross is a reputable organization who has been around for over a century. their main objective is not to gain land, but to save lives of all people around the world.

the redcross is not the only expert organization that does not agree with IDF's body count. there are also amnesty and HRW and numerous others.

The Red Cross is also known to lie.

[dub]

The Red Cross is also known to lie.

what have they lied about? how many lies are we talking about, as compared to the lies from the IDF?

are you another war crime apologist, sulaco?

[KrustyKidd]

what have they lied about? how many lies are we talking about, as compared to the lies from the IDF?

are you another war crime apologist, sulaco?

Unless they have said they are working with Hamas or, reported their vehicles stolen the night the vid of Hamas using their ambulances as troop carriers was shot they certainly do.

Or are you just another apoligist Jew hater Dub?

Heck, don't even bother to answer that last comment. It's a given.

[dub]

Unless they have said they are working with Hamas or, reported their vehicles stolen the night the vid of Hamas using their ambulances as troop carriers was shot they certainly do.

Or are you just another apoligist Jew hater Dub?

Heck, don't even bother to answer that last comment. It's a given.

you're babbling and pulling a weak DoP style debate.

which video of hamas using ambulances? is it anything like the video released by israel that was from years ago in their response to shooting a building with civilians?

amnesty has already said hamas has committed war crimes. i'm sure that's not a problem for you. but for some reason, anyone who criticizes israel becomes a dishonest jew hater in your eyes.

get over yourself and the paranoid culture of victimhood and be honest about the situation instead of making excuses and apologizing for war crimes.

[KrustyKidd]

you're babbling and pulling a weak DoP style debate.

which video of hamas using ambulances? is it anything like the video released by israel that was from years ago in their response to shooting a building with civilians?

amnesty has already said hamas has committed war crimes. i'm sure that's not a problem for you. but for some reason, anyone who criticizes israel becomes a dishonest jew hater in your eyes.

get over yourself and the paranoid culture of victimhood and be honest about the situation instead of making excuses and apologizing for war crimes.

Were the vehicles reported stolen?

[dub]

Were the vehicles reported stolen?

eh?

you're not being clear.

are you saying that amnesty missed war crimes by hamas? if so, be a little more clear and share your points.

while you're at it, tell me what it is about the report that you don't agree with. you still haven't touched any of the reports on israel's war crimes.

[DogOnPorch]

eh?

you're not being clear.

are you saying that amnesty missed war crimes by hamas? if so, be a little more clear and share your points.

while you're at it, tell me what it is about the report that you don't agree with. you still haven't touched any of the reports on israel's war crimes.

[M.Dancer]

is it anything like the video released by israel that was from years ago in their response to shooting a building with civilians?.

Did they run out of bullets?

[Sulaco]

what have they lied about? how many lies are we talking about, as compared to the lies from the IDF?

are you another war crime apologist, sulaco?

Well - there was that tainted blood scandal. Look - you're an ignoramus - as demonstrated by your continued need to be educated on pretty much everything. Why don't you look those countries up yourself?

[dub]

Well - there was that tainted blood scandal. Look - you're an ignoramus - as demonstrated by your continued need to be educated on pretty much everything. Why don't you look those countries up yourself?

what? the tainted blood scandal?

that's your proof that the red cross has lied about israel's violation of human rights? don't be ridiculous.

look - you make a ridiculous comment about a reputable humanitarian organization and fail to back it up. you are placing yourself in the same category as war crimes apologists.

[M.Dancer]

what? the tainted blood scandal?

that's your proof that the red cross has lied about israel's violation of human rights? don't be ridiculous.

Reading hard?

It's prrof the the Red Cros isn't above mistakes or lying about the mistakes.

[dub]

Reading hard?

It's prrof the the Red Cros isn't above mistakes or lying about the mistakes.

#1 - International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and Canadian Red Cross Society are different. one has been given a mandate by those signatory to the geneva conventions (including israel) to protect "the victims of international and internal armed conflicts." the other worked with Health Canada to run its blood system.

#2 - the blood scandal was due to canadian red cross not moving fast enough to implement a test.

for you to use the canadian red cross' mistake to discredit a report by the ICRC shows how far you'll go with your dishonest style of debating.

you're a war crimes apologist.

[KrustyKidd]

eh?

you're not being clear.

are you saying that amnesty missed war crimes by hamas? if so, be a little more clear and share your points.

while you're at it, tell me what it is about the report that you don't agree with. you still haven't touched any of the reports on israel's war crimes.

Sure. Amnesty International has pandered to Hamas and ignored it's use of civillians and civilian facilities to wage war while condemning Israel's actions to stop this. The Former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan explains; If you will note, there are more than a few discrepancies in his account to what the biased AI article rants on about.

But what of the Israeli Defence Forces? The IDF face all the challenges that I have spoken about, and more. Not only was Hamas's military capability deliberately positioned behind the human shield of the civilian population and not only did Hamas employ the range of insurgent tactics I talked through earlier. They also ordered, forced when necessary, men, women and children , from their own population to stay put in places they knew were about to be attacked by the IDF. Fighting an enemy that is deliberately trying to sacrifice their own people. Deliberately trying to lure you in to killing their own innocent civilians.

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

Their people often have no option than to go along with the charades in front of the world's media that Hamas so frequently demand, often on pain of death.

What is the other challenge faced by the IDF 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.

So what did the IDF do in Gaza to meet their obligation to operate within the laws of war? When possible the IDF gave at least four hours' notice to civilians to leave areas targeted for attack.

Attack helicopter pilots, tasked with destroying Hamas mobile weapons platforms, had total discretion to abort a strike if there was too great a risk of civilian casualties in the area. Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military capability were cancelled because of this.

During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. This sort of task is regarded by military tacticians as risky and dangerous at the best of times. To mount such operations, to deliver aid virtually into your enemy's hands, is to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable.

But the IDF took on those risks.

In the latter stages of Cast Lead the IDF unilaterally announced a daily three-hour cease fire. The IDF dropped over 900,000 leaflets warning the population of impending attacks to allow them to leave designated areas. A complete air squadron was dedicated to this task alone.

Leaflets also urged the people to phone in information to pinpoint Hamas fighters vital intelligence that could save innocent lives.

The IDF phoned over 30,000 Palestinian households in Gaza, urging them in Arabic to leave homes where Hamas might have stashed weapons or be preparing to fight. Similar messages were passed in Arabic on Israeli radio broadcasts warning the civilian population of forthcoming operations.

Despite Israel's extraordinary measures, of course innocent civilians were killed and wounded. That was due to the frictions of war that I have spoken about, and even more was an inevitable consequence of Hamas' way of fighting.

By taking these actions and many other significant measures during Operation Cast Lead the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other Army in the history of warfare.

But the IDF still did not win the war of opinions - especially in Europe. The lessons from this campaign apply to the British and American armies and to other Western forces as well as to the IDF.

We are in the era of information warfare. The kind of tactics used by Hamas and Hizballah and by the Taliban and Jaish al Mahdi work well for them. As they see it, they have no other choice. And they will continue to use it.

How do we counter it? We must not adopt the approach that because they flout the laws of war, we will do so too. Quite the reverse. We must be and remain - whiter than white.

Within the absolute requirements of operational security, and sometimes we may need to really push the boundaries of this out as far as we can, we must be as open and transparent as we can possibly be.

There are three lines of attack.

First, we must allow, encourage and facilitate the media to have every opportunity to report fairly and positively on us and on our activities. This requires positive and proactive, not defensive and reactive, engagement with the media. We should bring the media into our training, let them get to know our units before battle, bring them in whenever possible during combat.

Perhaps embed them into combat units as the British forces often do, sometimes for protracted periods, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let them see our soldiers doing their job in as complete a way as we can.

There are risks in all this, big risks which are self evident and do not need to be spelt out. But we must be brave enough to take those risks.

The benefits are great. The insurgents - Hamas in particular - put a human face on war with spectacular success. We must do the same. We must let the field soldiers speak with sand on their boots and with a sweat and dirt-covered human face.

Second, we must show the media in a way they cannot misunderstand the abuses perpetrated by the enemy. Our own units must identify such enemy abuses, and make statements about them, backed up by the hardest available evidence.

Every front line unit must be trained and equipped to collect this information in the same way as they are trained and equipped to collect intelligence on enemy operations.

This is information war.

Third, we must be proactive in preventing adverse media stories about our own units. I am not talking here about distorting the facts. We must look ahead and identify potential problem areas - preferably before they arise. We must have what the British Labour Party used to call rapid rebuttal units.

They should have the ability to establish the facts on the front line very, very quickly. Be absolutely sure of the facts, and ensure they are pushed rapidly to the media. If they are not one hundred percent sure of the facts they must say as much.

Where real problems do occur, where our troops are in the wrong, if possible we should say so as quickly as we can, driving the agenda, pre-empting the shrieks of the enemy or of the UN.

This demands a culture of openness and honesty among commanders and soldiers at all levels, so they are willing to admit their mistakes readily to their chain of command.

For any of this to work, I repeat, our people must be whiter than white. This requires the best of training and the toughest of discipline and it is sometimes even harder among conscript troops and mobilised reservists.

Here I am not just talking about serious abuses and breaches of the laws of war. I include smaller things like graffiti-ing and trashing people's homes that have been taken over, or are searched or cleared. Like being as courteous as possible to civilians. Maintaining control over soldiers who have just seen their best mates blown apart is far from easy, but it is vital.

Where there is genuine concern over our own troops' conduct or action, we must not hesitate to conduct enquiries and investigations, and if necessary bring people to justice. As far as possible, these processes should also be open and transparent.

But this involves of course yet another major complication -because we must not confuse mistakes made as a genuine consequence of the chaos and fog of war with deliberate defiance of rules of engagement and the laws of war.

Mistakes are not war crimes. We must also know how to explain this.

Most armies do some of these things already. But what we need really is a radical re-evaluation of the effort required to achieve the impact we need. This requires a mind-set that is hard to find in most armies around the world. It requires extra resources and a shift in priorities. And it significantly complicates already highly complex military operations.

It does not answer all of our problems by any means. But all the steps I have mentioned are - in my view - essential to countering the strategies and tactics of the insurgents we are faced with today -in Gaza, Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere.

They are also I believe essential in defending our military policies and objectives -and in defending our brave servicemen and women who are prepared to put their lives on the line to defend their country.

[tango]

Not only was Hamas's military capability deliberately positioned behind the human shield of the civilian population ...

Of course, Israel could have opened the borders to let the civilians flee, but refused to do so.

This is a ridiculous argument.

[KrustyKidd]

Of course, Israel could have opened the borders to let the civilians flee, but refused to do so.

This is a ridiculous argument.

Where would they 'flee?' Egypt? Nope. Israel? Perfect for Hamas.

best solution would have been for Hamas not to have put their people in danger by using them as shields when attacking Israeli civilians. What think about that idea Tango?

[DogOnPorch]

Of course, Israel could have opened the borders to let the civilians flee, but refused to do so.

This is a ridiculous argument.

Israel was giving 4 frickin' hours notice before doing anything. In that time, Hamas could have evacuated civilains to any open area of the strip away from the danger of the looming show down with the IDF. Instead, they forced the non-combatants to stay in their homes to die for the 6 o'clock news.

[dub]

Sure. Amnesty International has pandered to Hamas and ignored it's use of civillians and civilian facilities to wage war while condemning Israel's actions to stop this. The Former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan explains; If you will note, there are more than a few discrepancies in his account to what the biased AI article rants on about.

looks like you're really reaching.

you're basically saying that a former british commander in afghanistan who has not been to gaza and who has not done an investigation knows more about what happened in gaza than an expert and reputable human rights organization who went to gaza and investigated and came up with a report that details the evidence of war crimes by both israel and hamas?

okay you win, dancer..err.. dop...err.. krusty.

[dub]

Where would they 'flee?' Egypt? Nope. Israel? Perfect for Hamas.

best solution would have been for Hamas not to have put their people in danger by using them as shields when attacking Israeli civilians. What think about that idea Tango?

you are ridiculous and i will tell you why.

#1 - an investigation by amnesty has shown that hamas did commit war crimes, but using civilians as human shields was not committed by hamas. it was actually committed by israel.

#2 - you're saying that hamas should not have hid in the towns and buildings and should have gone head to head with tanks, helicopters and planes in open air.

you are ridiculous.

[DogOnPorch]

you are ridiculous and i will tell you why.

#1 - an investigation by amnesty has shown that hamas did commit war crimes, but using civilians as human shields was not committed by hamas. it was actually committed by israel.

Hamas herds women onto the roof of a Hamas leader's home to prevent Israeli attack.

#2 - you're saying that hamas should not have hid in the towns and buildings and should have gone head to head with tanks, helicopters and planes in open air.

Why not evacuate the population to, say, here...the old Jewish Kibbutz. Just a hop outside the city. They had plenty of warning.

I'm pretty darn ridiculous.

Fixed.

[dub]

2.1 PALESTINIAN CIVILIANS USED AS “HUMAN SHIELDS”

From the Amnesty Report - Page 58

According to testimonies, in several cases Israeli forces also forced unarmed Palestinian

civilian males (mostly adults but in two cases also children) to serve as “human shields”,

including making them walk in front of armed soldiers; go into buildings to check for booby

traps or gunmen; and inspect suspicious objects for explosives. These practices are not new.

Numerous such cases have been documented in recent years and the Israeli Supreme Court

has ruled that such practices contradict international law and prohibited them in October

2005.73

Majdi Abed Rabbo, a father of five and a member of the PA security forces, told Amnesty

International: “At about 10am on Monday 5 January soldiers came to my house and took me

with them to a neighbour’s house where they were also keeping other neighbours. The

soldiers were shooting from the house but I don’t know at what because I could not see. At

about 2pm a soldier took me outside, pointed to Abu Hatem’s house and told me to go into

that house to take the weapons and the clothes of the armed men who were in that house,

whom they had killed. I refused but they told me to obey. I went into the house, and found

three armed Qassam members alive. They told me to leave and not to come back and

threatened to shoot me if I went back. I returned to the soldiers, who made me undress and

turn around, and I then told them that the three were alive. They handcuffed me; they were

shooting. Later they again sent me to check on the armed militants inside the house. I found

one wounded and the others alright, who said: ‘Tell the officer that if he is a man, he can

come up here himself.’ I went back and told the soldiers and they cursed me and handcuffed

me. I heard a helicopter approaching, followed by the sound of a missile exploding. The

soldiers said that now they were sure they had killed the armed men in the house with the

missile. But when I looked I saw that the missile had struck my house and not the house with

the gunmen inside. I told the soldiers. At about midnight, between Monday and Tuesday, I

was forced to go for a third time, to check if the gunmen were dead. I found two of the

gunmen still alive, but buried under the rubble; the third was still holding his weapon. I told

the soldier, who got angrier and didn’t believe me and sent two teenagers, Jamal Qatari and

Zidane, to take photos. The two refused but the soldiers beat them and so they went and took

photos and then the soldiers sent in a dog. By then it was about 10 or 11am.”

His neighbour and relative Akram Abed Rabbo, a father of six, also told Amnesty

International that he had been taken from his home in the early morning (about 2-3am) on 6

January by Israeli soldiers who also used him as a “human shield” and forced him to inspect

several houses in the area over a three-day period. He said: “The soldiers sent me into the

houses first and then they sent in the dog and only after that they went into the houses

themselves. I didn’t find anything in the houses I inspected, but I was afraid. Also, in the

meantime I had no idea where my wife, who is pregnant, and my children were.”

In Khuza’a, east of Khan Yunis, Mohammed al-Najjar, 16, told Amnesty International that on

13 January he was held by Israeli soldiers in a house they used as a sniper position: “The

soldiers, special forces, took me to the house. I was handcuffed and blindfolded but they

untied me when they let me go to the toilet so I could see a bit then. They didn’t interrogate

me. They just sat around on a mattress and chatted and laughed and also sang a bit. I didn’t

understand what they said because they spoke in Hebrew, but one of them spoke to me in

Arabic and told me to sing with them; I refused at first but then I had to obey. Then they shot

a couple of shots and I heard women nearby screaming ‘God is great’ and crying. Later I

knew that this is when they killed our neighbour Rawhiya.74 I was afraid but nothing else

happened; there was no other shooting. Later, before they left the house they told me to stay

in the house for a while and that when I heard a shot being fired I could leave. I did as they

said; I waited a bit and then took off the blindfold and left the house.75

According to Article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, “The presence of a protected

person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.”

The prohibition against the use of “human shields” is further clarified in Article 51(7) of the

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the

Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Additional Protocol I). It states:

“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.”

[Bonam]

According to Article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, “The presence of a protected

person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.”

An excellent point. That's why Israel can and does strike against terrorist targets in Gaza despite the presence of civilians. The presence of these "protected persons" does not render these areas immune from military operations.