HAMAS, THE GAZA WAR AND ACCOUNTABILITY UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

[M.Dancer]

Besides, most of the highest ranking military officials at the time didn't believe it was necessary to drop the a-bomb to end the war.

Nonsense.

[Rue]

Gaza specifically? Yes:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07...port/index.html

Admittedly I'd like more than anonymous testimony, but given the situation in Gaza at the time (no media allowed, people are too poor to be "citizen journalists" and have a camera handy to film this stuff) it's the best we have.

However given the numerous past incidents, I think it's safe to assume that if the IDF has been found to be using human shields in places where they don't have such an information stranglehold, that they'd definitely be using human shields when they're able to operate in the dark in the information vacuum that was the Gaza invasion.

Especially considering that the IDF openly admitted it used human shields until the Israeli Supreme Court squashed this as a violation of the Geneva code in 2005.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4333982.stm

Given how frequently it's happened since then, or reported to have happened (because of course, cameras aren't allowed during Israeli operations), I don't think it's too far-fetched to think that there's a chunk of soldiers in the IDF who are pissed off at Supreme Court decision, could care less, and are continuing the policy. I also think that there's a lot of soldiers who look the other way, because they don't want to be a snitch (police have blue shirts mostly - so it's the "no snitch" barrier is called the blue wall, with the military, is it the olive-wall?).

And btw, while it might seem nice that the IDF former policy on human shields demanded that soldiers get permission first - there have been many cases where people cited in IDF reports as willing shields have later said that they or their families were threatened into complying.

I know there's going to be a knee-jerk reaction (not you specifically Rue) to deny that Israel does bad things, because after all, this is a cosmic war and us Jews are the good guys - but really that speaks to the ignorance and naivety of the people who react that way to the entirety of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Dirty wars make good folks do unspeakable things - this isn't a radical concept.

Thank you. I may disagree with you on a lot of things but I know you don't make stuff up. That is why I asked.

O.k. I got you. Yes now I know the incidents you mean.

I think it is conceivable in the heat of battle this could have happened. It is the sort of thing that happens when conventional soldiers are sent into close civilian quarters where Hamas would be within civilian clusters-I can see soldiers reacting in such a manner during the heat of the moment.

Again I have stated in the past, no good can come of conventional armies going after terrorists in close civilian quarters. No soldier wants to fight in such a theatre and we know civilians get caught in the cross fire.

If it happened it is truly unfortunate. It is also truly unfortunate all conventional military forces and Hamas and Hezbollah and not just the IDF use white phosphorous weapons. They are horrendous.

They burn through flesh and do not stop burning until they exit the other side like sulphuric acid.

Hamas and the IDF used white phosphorous weapons in their last altercation and they have been used in Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya, Georgia, in the civil war with Bosnia and Serbia, etc., and since World War One. I would like to see them internationally outlawed.

I hate them.

[M.Dancer]

I would like to see them internationally outlawed.

I hate them.

Why? Very few people have been killed by them and they really confuse the heck out of the bad guys and cause them quite a lot of alarm.

They are the bagpipes of the 21st century.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....Besides, most of the highest ranking military officials at the time didn't believe it was necessary to drop the a-bomb to end the war.

Not the ones that mattered the most.....Japan promptly surrendered. Funny how that works.....huh ?

[Rue]

JB Globe I may disagree with you on this to a certain degree but I also very much

respect what you are trying to say.

Look for what it is worth, while I think the IDF had no choice but to fight Hamas,

like many supporters of Israel, no I do not like to see the IDF have to go into

civilian populations after terrorists and no I would not suggest they did not make

mistakes-whether those mistakes were deliberate or simply in the heat of the moment

I do not want to pass judgement.

I am comfortable reading the first hand comments of soldiers from the IDF who

were there and if they have criticisms as to what they did while they were there, yes

I think such comments must be taken seriously.

Israel has a very active and aggressive press and because it is a civilian army its

soldiers do speak out after wars and actions. The IDF is not perfect but open discussion

and criticism by its own soldiers is taken very seriously-precisely because it is a civilian army which

means its citizens are members of that army until they are 65.

If there was excessive or unreasonable force used, I would hope the IDF and its

soldiers can constructively deal with such issues and prevent them from happening

in the future.

I will say this JB Globe. I think the one difference between the IDF and Hamas is

IDF does not deliberately implement and advocate policies using terrorism as

a tool to express political will nor does it condone using civilians to transport

weapons with ambulances nor does it allow its soldiers to shoot from Israeli

homes, hospitals, buildings.

It is a huge disadvantage the IDF has. The IDF unlike Hamas wears a uniform and

it fights in the open until it must deal with Hamas who fight from behind homes,

schools, etc.

Yes Palestinian civilians suffered horribly. Absolutely. It is always the case for

Hamas choosing terror. Their choice of terror creates a cycle of response by the

IDF which inevitably traumatizes Palestinians and probably creates the conditions

for future terrorists born in the horror of the moment witnessing IDF soldiers fight

back and kill their parents, etc. by accident.

If I saw someone burned by white phosphorous I would have to feel the person

who used that weapon is a demon. How could I not? It truly is a demon weapon.

When Hamas did not engage in terror, Israel did fund its affiliated charities indirectly building

roads, schools, hospitals, greenhouses. What did Hamas achieve blowing all that up

and turning to terror? How has shooting missiles or suicide bombers into Israel

done anything for Palestinians?

How does Hamas rounding up Palestinians who did not agree with their terror tactics and

accusing them of being collaborators and torturing and murdering them and setting some

on fire with tires around their neck or sending some home missing eyes and limbs as a message

inspire the Palestinian people?

I am sorry but this is about the ego of some violent fundamentalists who could care less

about Palestinians and are about demanding power and control.

The IDF is not motivated by religious belief-simply the agenda of having the moral

obligation to defend its citizens from harm. No the IDF soldier sent to fight is not told

he is going to heaven if he dies and is a martyr. IDF soldiers do not consider themselves

heroes and very few when you talk to them are religious-the best way to describe them

is existentialist-they do what they do not based on anything more then trying to assure their

country's citizens can exist.

If I thought that was what Hamas was about then I would see it in their actions, i.e., instead

of shooting missiles and sending in suicide bombers, they would embrace Israel's eforts to help

it build greenhouses and homes, schools and hospitals, and allow its citizens to work in

Israel. It was Hamas who blew that all up not Israel.

[M.Dancer]

Not the ones that mattered the most.....Japan promptly surrendered. Funny how that works.....huh ?

Besides, most of the highest ranking military officials at the time didn't believe it was necessary to drop the a-bomb to end the war.

There is a fallacy so large in that statement you could park a superfortress in it.....

Lets start " most of the highest ranking military officials at the time"....

Most of the highest ranking military officials at the time didn't even know about it's existance...and the onit on es that did...

"Hey Ike, we got this weapon that if we drop Japan, could end the war and spare the lives of millions...what do ya think?"

"As one of the most highest ranking official, I'm against sparing the lives of our troops...."

[bush_cheney2004]

...."Hey Ike, we got this weapon that if we drop Japan, could end the war and spare the lives of millions...what do ya think?"

"As one of the most highest ranking official, I'm against sparing the lives of our troops...."

"Yes, our troops must die now so that we look good on Internet forums 60 years in the future."

[jbg]

Besides, most of the highest ranking military officials at the time didn't believe it was necessary to drop the a-bomb to end the war.

Except the U.S. was a bit short of cash and credit to continue the war, and the U.K. almost bankrupt. Who was going to fund ongoing war? Canada? Australia? Perhaps Santa Claus?

[jbg]

It is a huge disadvantage the IDF has. The IDF unlike Hamas wears a uniform and

it fights in the open until it must deal with Hamas who fight from behind homes,

schools, etc.

**************

When Hamas did not engage in terror, Israel did fund its affiliated charities indirectly building

roads, schools, hospitals, greenhouses. What did Hamas achieve blowing all that up

and turning to terror? How has shooting missiles or suicide bombers into Israel

done anything for Palestinians?

Perfect.

[Bonam]

Except the U.S. was a bit short of cash and credit to continue the war, and the U.K. almost bankrupt. Who was going to fund ongoing war? Canada? Australia? Perhaps Santa Claus?

Actually Stalin was planning a massive invasion of the main islands of Japan for later in 1945.

I suspect the Japanese were lucky to have those bombs dropped on them compared to what Stalin would have done had the war not been over in August. Had Japan been occupied by the Soviet Union, it would have seen decades of economic stagnation and decay instead of prosperity, as well as very likely having millions of its people sent off to slave labor and death camps.

[jbg]

Actually Stalin was planning a massive invasion of the main islands of Japan for later in 1945.

Probably quite true as well. In history, it's very rarely one thing that drives a decision.

Reflecting on your post, it was probably a combination of:

1. Lack of funds;
   
2. Likely horrific casualties;
   
3. Need to beat Stalin to the punch;
   
4. Desire to exercise dominance over the post-WW II world.
   

The latter was probably not a bad thing, give the chaos that ensued when the British, Turkish, Prussian and Austro-Hungarian Empires imploded, creating enough power vacuums to fuel two horrific world wars.

Edited August 14, 2009 by jbg

[Rue]

Dancing Dude here is some feed-back for you on the use of wp weapons which of

course was used as part of the criticism against the IDF in Gaza....

Part of the criticism against the IDF in Gaza which I am trying to acknowledge in a candid and direct manner is the use of white phosphorous weapons.

As you are more then aware, a WP explosive can release a cloud of white phosphorous dust. The dust ignites at 86 degrees will continue to burn as long as it has a supply of oxygen that necessarily means if it commons into contact with a human body it will burn right through the body until it comes out the other side causing excruciating pain.

The phosphorous is of course what is needed to fuel a bomb’s explosion and its been used in conventional missiles and mortar shells since World War One and if I am not mistaken even earlier then that.

I am aware of the US Army Field Artillery Magazine article on the military action by US Forces in Falluja in November of 2004 whereby a Lieutenant stated it was an effective munition weapon and the high explosive effect of these weapons psychologically led to insurgents leaving their trench lines.

Using WP weapons to flush out guerillas or terrorists is not a new tactic and in particular often used in the Vietnam war to try get the Viet Cong to leave their positions and then was tried by the IAF against Hezbollah in Lebanon who interestingly engaged in the same tunnel labyrinth system the Viet Cong did complete with hidden rail systems to get their men and weapons back and forth quickly which is not surprising since the Hezbollah per capita has the most

insurgents with formal engineering training. I do know the US Vietnam vets referred to them as “Willie Petes”.

I am also aware the IDF used them to illuminate the areas where Hamas was suspected to be and the smoke was used to protect the IDF moving on the ground in close quarters where they would otherwise be sitting ducks for Hamas shooting at them from schools, homes, hospitals, etc.

I am also aware Hamas has shot them into Israel.

My issue is not why they were used specifically by Israel but why they have to be used by anyone including the U.S. and IDF and Hamas, etc.

In an ideal world they would not be available for sale or manufactured. I appreciate that may be impossible and impractical but I am of the belief there are other munitions and military devices that could be used to create smoke cover and illumination instead of WP weapons.

In regards to their psychological use to flush insurgents out, personally I believe if there are not civilians around, fine. So be it. I am not exactly someone who sits around worrying about causing trauma to terrorists and frying them.

What I am worried about is what they do to civilians. While in fact very few did come into contact with Palestinian civilians and the majority of Palestinian civilian deaths were caused by conventional munitions, the psychological impact of witnessing a civilian slowly burn to death or live but with horrendous burns that slowly smoke and sizzle as the civilian wriggles in pain to me is something to try avoid.

I come from the school of thought shared by many soldiers that if possible give them weapons that are effective but they can control and help avoid hurting civilians.

As well the IDF has a tradition of challenging itself to try no matter how impossible it is to be humane so I am not sure how unrealistic it is to ask for, but I would hope they find ways other than with wp weapons to illuminate the skies or obtain smoke cover.

As for being an effective use in flushing out Hamas, the psychological case in the specific case of Hamas or any Islamic fundamentalist terror cell deliberately using human shields has the exact opposite effect. It feeds into the psychology of Hamas and the terrorists. It does exactly what Hamas wants and that is to turn Hamas into

A victim underground and then inflicting on civilians the same results inflicted on Hamas causing a primal emotional connection between these civilians and Hamas or other terrorists due to the immediate reaction to trauma inflicted by these weapons.

The key to winning a war against terrorists is to avoid engaging in actions that cause civilians to identify with them and feel they have the same pain in common.

The solution? Well the IDF is already trying its best to use night vision weapons, laser pin point precision weapons, and is continuing to try work on techniques

to avoid killing civilians.

The point is as long as terrorists use civilians and their homes as shields and a theatre for war these civilians will suffer.

So that expresses my concern and desire they be banned but I say so keeping in mind there is no simple solution to fighting terrorists in civilian zones.

[M.Dancer]

Actually Stalin was planning a massive invasion of the main islands of Japan for later in 1945.

He may have been planning but it would have never have happened.

Stalin had a very limited amphibious capability or even understood the complexity of a seaborne assault. This is illustrated quite clearly in Churchill's history of the second world war in where he showed the various telegram exchanges between the UK and the soviets.

[M.Dancer]

My issue is not why they were used specifically by Israel but why they have to be used by anyone including the U.S. and IDF and Hamas, etc.

A very smart poster answered that question.

I am aware of the US Army Field Artillery Magazine article on the military action by US Forces in Falluja in November of 2004 whereby a Lieutenant stated it was an effective munition weapon and the high explosive effect of these weapons psychologically led to insurgents leaving their trench lines.

WP is like Buckleys cough syrup. It tastes bad but it works.

[JB Globe]

Nonsense.

Not really - top army general Douglas MacArthur, the Prez's chief of staff Admiral Leahy, Brig-Gen Clarke (in charge of translating intercepted Japanese communications), and Pacific Fleet Commander Admiral Nimitz all didn't think the bomb was necessary.

I'm not going to debate this anymore because it's off-topic, but just wanted you to know it's not complete nonsense, and there was dissent against the bomb at the highest levels of the military at the time.

[jbg]

I'm not going to debate this anymore because it's off-topic, but just wanted you to know it's not complete nonsense, and there was dissent against the bomb at the highest levels of the military at the time.

By making this post and saying you're not debating the matter you are seeking the last word.

A good part of the debate was concerning possibility that the bomb wouldn't work.

[JB Globe]

Rue,

Thank you for being mature and intelligent enough to debate this issue and disagree without acting like a jackass - it's a skill a lot of people here could learn.

I don't have the time for a full reply, but I agree with most of your characterization of Hamas.

And while I do criticize the IDF to a degree, I realize that they are given a raw deal in terms of the type of operations they have to carry out. It's not as if the IDF decided it wanted to oppress the self-determination of Palestinians, that was a result of politicians' decisions and a rabid segment of Israeli society.

The best I can summarize my view on the whole conflict is that the decision to occupy the West Bank and Gaza strip was a fatal error that has made possible the kind of atrocities and indignities that Israel has perpetrated on Palestinians. In return this has made possible the rise of groups who believe that violence and/or terrorism is the best method to strike back at Israel.

It's not Israel's fault that terrorists do what they do, but it is their fault they they would rather continue building settlements than drain the swamp that breeds future terrorists. It's also Palestinians fault for choosing to resist occupation in a way that gives some justification to Israel for military action. It also happens to be the worst way to try and force a democratic nation to change it's policy.

I think that rather than arguing that each side is doing something immoral, it would be a lot more productive to argue that the policies that each side engages in are counterproductive to their goals.

[jbg]

And while I do criticize the IDF to a degree, I realize that they are given a raw deal in terms of the type of operations they have to carry out.

OK so far.

It's not as if the IDF decided it wanted to oppress the self-determination of Palestinians, that was a result of politicians' decisions and a rabid segment of Israeli society.

Not OK.

The leaders of the "fighters" made the "decision" that the fight would be out of uniform and conducted in the midst of a civilian population. Further, they were the ones that made the decisions to lob missiles into civilian areas first such as Sderot, from civilian areas in Gaza. No group can exercise their "self-determination" the way Hamas did with impunity.

It's not Israel's fault that terrorists do what they do, but it is their fault they they would rather continue building settlements than drain the swamp that breeds future terrorists. It's also Palestinians fault for choosing to resist occupation in a way that gives some justification to Israel for military action. It also happens to be the worst way to try and force a democratic nation to change it's policy.

The problem as I see it is that the Palestinian leadership has rejected any compromise deals at all. When deals were near they inserted demands for such non-starters as the right to physical "return" to pre-1967 Israel and for the return of Jerusalem. As Arafat well knew, those demands would scupper any productive negotiations.

[tango]

. It's not as if the IDF decided it wanted to oppress the self-determination of Palestinians, that was a result of politicians' decisions and a rabid segment of Israeli society.

... the decision to occupy the West Bank and Gaza strip was a fatal error ...

It's not Israel's fault that terrorists do what they do, ...

It's also Palestinians fault for choosing to resist occupation in a way that gives some justification to Israel for military action.

I think that rather than arguing that each side is doing something immoral, it would be a lot more productive to argue that the policies that each side engages in are counterproductive to their goals.

It would also be a lot more accurate to say that an occupier has responsibility for whatever befalls them as a result of their occupation.

Say ... my brother and I have a history of animosity. Say our parents are away and I expand my 'territory' into his bedroom, blockading him in a small corner and limiting his access to food, water and other services and necessities. If he fights back by lobbing spitballs at me, is it his fault or mine? Can I murder him with a baseball bat because he hit me with a spitball while I occupied his territory?

Edited August 15, 2009 by tango

[DogOnPorch]

It would also be a lot more accurate to say that an occupier has responsibility for whatever befalls them as a result of their occupation.

Say ... my brother and I have a history of animosity. Say our parents are away and I expand my 'territory' into his bedroom, blockading him in a small corner and limiting his access to food, water and other services and necessities. If he fights back by lobbing spitballs at me, is it his fault or mine? Can I murder him with a baseball bat because he hit me with a spitball while I occupied his territory?

Once again...there are no Israeli settlers in Gaza and there hasn't been since 2005.

[Moonbox]

Say ... my brother and I have a history of animosity. Say our parents are away and I expand my 'territory' into his bedroom, blockading him in a small corner and limiting his access to food, water and other services and necessities. If he fights back by lobbing spitballs at me, is it his fault or mine? Can I murder him with a baseball bat because he hit me with a spitball while I occupied his territory?

This is a terrible analogy because it ignores most of the issues at hand...

Let's expand upon your analogy shall we?

First, let's say your brother is older than you. He had the room all to himself at first. Then you were born, and your parents moved you into the room and split it between the two of you. Since then, your brother has on numerous occassions beat on you for being there but interestingly enough but you took self defense class and learned to defend yourself. Last time he tried to take over your half of the room you sent him back with his tail between his legs and you built a fort (on his side) to keep him out of your half of the room. Since then, he has filled his room with school children and has been lobbing snot rags over the fort into your half of the room. Unsurprisingly, the ladies you bring home are unimpressed. As retaliation, you throw snot rags back at his half of the room. Unfortunately, the school children also get hurt, but what are you supposed to do about that?

[dub]

This is a terrible analogy because it ignores most of the issues at hand...

Let's expand upon your analogy shall we?

First, let's say your brother is older than you. He had the room all to himself at first. Then you were born, and your parents moved you into the room and split it between the two of you. Since then, your brother has on numerous occassions beat on you for being there but interestingly enough but you took self defense class and learned to defend yourself. Last time he tried to take over your half of the room you sent him back with his tail between his legs and you built a fort (on his side) to keep him out of your half of the room. Since then, he has filled his room with school children and has been lobbing snot rags over the fort into your half of the room. Unsurprisingly, the ladies you bring home are unimpressed. As retaliation, you throw snot rags back at his half of the room. Unfortunately, the school children also get hurt, but what are you supposed to do about that?

lols.

great analogy.

you must be krusty's retarded little brother.

[dub]

poor analogies aside; israel is breaking the law with their illegal settlements, which cannot be claimed to be a measure of self-defense. they're also breaking international law by applying collective punishment on the palestinian civilians either by military or economical actions. israel continues to violate international law by annexing east jerusalem and other land that does not belong to them as set by international law.

you can keep making excuses, but you just cannot get around the fact that israel violates international law like other rogue states have.

[Moonbox]

lols.

great analogy.

you must be krusty's retarded little brother.

Sometimes the best way to respond to a stupid analogy is to provide an equally stupid analogy from the opposite perspective. It helps clarify the vast logical errors and omissions made. Analogies are a generally weak form of argument regardless, especially when they're dumbed down to this level.

All of this, and the sarcasm intended, were lost on you, which speaks volumes about who is 'retarded' around here.

Don't see why the insults were necessary.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Moonbox

[Moonbox]

poor analogies aside; israel is breaking the law with their illegal settlements, which cannot be claimed to be a measure of self-defense.

In some cases you can. Border outposts are extremely useful for surveillance, checkpoints and buffers.

they're also breaking international law by applying collective punishment on the palestinian civilians either by military or economical actions.

The 'punishments' are not directed at palestinian civilians and it's foolish to indicate as such. They're directed at militants (Hamas etc) that insist on launching attacks from WITHIN civilian populations. When retaliatory attacks end up hitting civilians, the vast majority of the time it's because of Hamas' use of human shields. The civilians have Hamas to blame, and themselves. Hamas for hiding behind them, and the Palestinians at large for doing nothing to curb their militants.

israel continues to violate international law by annexing east jerusalem and other land that does not belong to them as set by international law.

International law is a subject generally open to interpretations. The land itself has no real and rightful sovereign owner, and it hasn't for almost 100 years. It was largely taken from Jordan and the Jewish settlers are not forcibly being transferred there. It would be a pretty shakey argument to suggest that Israel would be wise to give these lands up without any firm commitment to peace from the other side.

you can keep making excuses, but you just cannot get around the fact that israel violates international law like other rogue states have.

Like I said, International Law is a pretty fluffy concept. I can't argue that Israel hasn't broken a number of International Laws, but the other side is certainly not operating from within that framework and you can't even pretend they are. Two wrongs don't make right but the hypocrisy is galling when people focus exclusively on Israel's violation and ignore that they ARE INDEED being attacked and the other side is committing widespread violations themselves.