"War criminals" leak strikes at heart of Israeli society

[Bonam]

Theres nothing necessarily "low" about arresting war criminals.

Yeah, "war criminals", that's what these soldiers are. Right. When you've got an official ruling, from a court that has valid jurisdiction, finding these individuals guilty of specific war crimes, get back to me. Until then, it's nothing but worthless anti-Israeli propaganda.

First of all, that characterization is debatable in some circumstances. But even if it were accurate you can still commit war crimes in "defense of your nation".

Like the allies committed during WWII?

That just seems like sloganeering on your part. Israel has signed various treaties and by doing so has assumed legal responsibilities. They should be held to account if they fail to deliver, just like anyone else should.

Again, talk of individual legal responsibility on the part of individual soldiers is nothing but libel until and unless an authorized court actually finds them guilty of war crimes.

By the way, according to the article, the names leaked are of just some 200 soldiers that participated in the 2009 incursion into Gaza. If any crimes were indeed committed (which it has not been shown that there were), it would have been by a small fraction of soldiers, and likely very few, perhaps none, of the 200 on this list would have been the ones who committed any such acts. Most of these soldiers are heroes who placed their lives on the line to protect their country and their fellow citizens, and deserve no less respect than we have for our own troops, which are performing not dissimilar duties in Afghanistan.

Of course, people like dub don't care about such things. They just want Europe to start arresting and harassing Jews again like it did in ye good ole days. Guess we'll see whether you, unlike him, can notice the distinction.

Edited November 24, 2010 by Bonam

[dre]

Yeah, "war criminals", that's what these soldiers are. Right. When you've got an official ruling, from a court that has valid jurisdiction, finding these individuals guilty of specific war crimes, get back to me. Until then, it's nothing but worthless anti-Israeli propaganda.

Like the allies committed during WWII?

Again, talk of individual legal responsibility on the part of individual soldiers is nothing but libel until and unless an authorized court actually finds them guilty of war crimes.

Yeah, "war criminals", that's what these soldiers are. Right. When you've got an official ruling, from a court that has valid jurisdiction, finding these individuals guilty of specific war crimes, get back to me. Until then, it's nothing but worthless anti-Israeli propaganda.

I dont know if they are or not. That was my whole point. Like you say... at this point nobody has been determined guilty of ANYTHING. Before guilt can be determined you need to collect some evidence, arrest somebody and bring them to trial.

Again, talk of individual legal responsibility on the part of individual soldiers is nothing but libel

Its not liable because Im not making any allegation against any person. Im speaking to the concept and what would constitute a crime. Infantrymen and junior officers cannot use the fact they were ordered to commit acts as a way to avoid liability.

I have personally seen no evidence at all, and I dont accuse any of those people of anything. I would need a whole lot more information to do that. Youd literally have to look at things on a case by case basis.

Edited November 24, 2010 by dre

[Bonam]

I dont know if they are or not. That was my whole point. Like you say... at this point nobody has been determined guilty of ANYTHING. Before guilt can be determined you need to collect some evidence, arrest somebody and bring them to trial.

Actually first you need to have a court that has jurisdiction agree to hear a case. The only courts that could have jurisdiction in this case are Israeli courts, and the ICC. Courts of European countries have no jurisdiction in this case.

Its not liable because Im not making any allegation against any person. Im speaking to the concept and what would constitute a crime. Infantrymen and junior officers cannot use the fact they were ordered to commit acts as a way to avoid liability.

No, what you said is not libel. It's the list of 200 soldiers names, most of whom are heroes, claiming that they committed war crimes without even a shred of evidence to back up the statement, that is libel.

I have personally seen no evidence at all, and I dont accuse any of those people of anything. I would need a whole lot more information to do that. Youd literally have to look at things on a case by case basis.

You don't go out accusing people of things and releasing lists of names based on "no evidence at all". And yet, that is exactly what is being done in this case by anti-Israeli propagandists.

[dre]

Actually first you need to have a court that has jurisdiction agree to hear a case. The only courts that could have jurisdiction in this case are Israeli courts, and the ICC. Courts of European countries have no jurisdiction in this case.

Not true. Countries can and do subject people in their custody to the law of the land regardless of where a crime might have been commited. When those european countries signed treaties like the Geneva convention what they were really commiting to is rolling the lanaguage of those treaties into domestic law. The courts of ALL signatory nations enforce international treaties. War criminals have actually been caught this way lots of times before. Sometimes the arresting country will prosecute based on its own courts legal obligation to enforce international treaties or sometimes it will extradite the person to a more relevant jurrisdiction.

Its hard to say what would happen here because nobody has even been arrested yet. But in theory the ICC would enforce the same laws that the arresting country would, and both can claim jurrisdiction. But domestic law has to allow for the honoring of international treaties.

Atricle 27 of the Vienna Convention says...

A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.

So in reality... not only do European signatories to treaties Israel may in breach of have the RIGHT to arrest suspects but they have the legal obligation to do so. When those countries signed those treaties they became part of the enforcement mechanism defacto.

Heres an excerpt from an ICRC publication that answers that exact question.

On becoming party to the Geneva Conventions, States undertake to enact any legislation necessary to punish persons guilty of grave breaches of the Conventions. States are also bound to prosecute in their own courts any person suspected of having committed a grave breach of the Conventions, or to hand that person over for judgment to another State. In other words, perpetrators of grave breaches, i.e. war criminals, must be prosecuted at all times and in all places, and States are responsible for ensuring that this is done.

International law doesnt require a central court like the ICC. Every signatory of a treaty has jurrisdiction and those treaties are enshrined in domestic law.

Edited November 24, 2010 by dre

[bloodyminded]

European countries that have fallen so low as to arrest Israeli soldiers for defending their nation are in a lot worse trouble than Israel, and their people deserve only our pity.

The point isn't about "defending the nation," as is perfectly clear.

The Serbian rapists couldn't clearly be given a pass for "defending their nation" either. The actual performances are at issue here.

[M.Dancer]

you're taking a comment made by one person, before the first report was even released as "CEANA is believed to have done a piss poor job".

richard goldstone has participated in some of the biggest international investigations and and prosecutions in the past 3 decades, yet you're still trying discredit him and his ability to handle the job. you are simply pathetic.

you and your approach to debating are an embarrassment.

Of course Naomi...

[Bonam]

Not true. Countries can and do subject people in their custody to the law of the land regardless of where a crime might have been commited. When those european countries signed treaties like the Geneva convention what they were really commiting to is rolling the lanaguage of those treaties into domestic law. The courts of ALL signatory nations enforce international treaties. War criminals have actually been caught this way lots of times before. Sometimes the arresting country will prosecute based on its own courts legal obligation to enforce international treaties or sometimes it will extradite the person to a more relevant jurrisdiction.

Its hard to say what would happen here because nobody has even been arrested yet. But in theory the ICC would enforce the same laws that the arresting country would, and both can claim jurrisdiction. But domestic law has to allow for the honoring of international treaties.

Atricle 27 of the Vienna Convention says...

So in reality... not only do European signatories to treaties Israel may in breach of have the RIGHT to arrest suspects but they have the legal obligation to do so. When those countries signed those treaties they became part of the enforcement mechanism defacto.

Heres an excerpt from an ICRC publication that answers that exact question.

International law doesnt require a central court like the ICC. Every signatory of a treaty has jurrisdiction and those treaties are enshrined in domestic law.

Blah blah show me a precedent where soldiers of another country, with absolutely no evidence against them whatsoever, get arrested and held in a European country. These allegations are trumped up and have no weight behind them. You do not seem to understand that the list of 200 names has no correlation with people who may have actually done anything wrong. Reread the original article if you are confused about it.

[dre]

Blah blah show me a precedent where soldiers of another country, with absolutely no evidence against them whatsoever, get arrested and held in a European country. These allegations are trumped up and have no weight behind them. You do not seem to understand that the list of 200 names has no correlation with people who may have actually done anything wrong. Reread the original article if you are confused about it.

Blah blah show me a precedent where soldiers of another country, with absolutely no evidence against them whatsoever.

Hey... all I did was point out that you made up a fake claim (about jurrisdiction), and that you dont understand what international treaties are and how they work.

You do not seem to understand that the list of 200 names has no correlation with people who may have actually done anything wrong

The article says they participated in the Gaza invasion. Some people would argue thats wrong and unlawful. But all we are talking about is potential arrests here... theres very little proof required at that point. Actually convicting these people would be a lot harder and thats where evidence would come into play.

[Bonam]

The article says they participated in the Gaza invasion. Some people would argue thats wrong and unlawful.

And those people would be idiots. To say that every soldier who participates in such a military operation carried out by a sovereign state is a war criminal is utterly ridiculous. Is every Canadian soldier in Afghanistan a war criminal also then?

Edited November 25, 2010 by Bonam

[dre]

And those people would be idiots. To say that every soldier who participates in such a military operation carried out by a sovereign state is a war criminal is utterly ridiculous. Is every Canadian soldier in Afghanistan a war criminal also then?

To say that every soldier who participates in such a military operation carried out by a sovereign state is a war criminal is utterly ridiculous.

Technically only some of them would be. Soldiers arent allowed to follow unlawful orders, then use the fact they were ordered as a defense... they call that "defense of superior orders" and it doesnt get soldiers off the hook since before nuremburg. You could successfully prosecute them but youd have to demonstrate they KNEW their orders were unlawful and still followed them anyways.

It seems unlikey to me though that anyone would be convicted for just being part of the operation, although its legally possible. A more plausible scenario would be detaining these people for questioning as material witnesses and to try to identify bigger fish to fry and learn more about went on there.

[Bonam]

Technically only some of them would be. Soldiers arent allowed to follow unlawful orders, then use the fact they were ordered as a defense... they call that "defense of superior orders" and it doesnt get soldiers off the hook since before nuremburg. You could successfully prosecute them but youd have to demonstrate they KNEW their orders were unlawful and still followed them anyways.

It seems unlikey to me though that anyone would be convicted for just being part of the operation, although its legally possible. A more plausible scenario would be detaining these people for questioning as material witnesses and to try to identify bigger fish to fry and learn more about went on there.

There is nothing unlawful about these soldiers entering Gaza in response to terrorist attacks. I really don't know wtf you are talking about. I'm still waiting for the arrest warrants on Canadian soldiers serving in Afghanistan. They can be held as material witnesses about Canadian war crimes abuses I'm sure.

[dre]

There is nothing unlawful about these soldiers entering Gaza in response to terrorist attacks. I really don't know wtf you are talking about. I'm still waiting for the arrest warrants on Canadian soldiers serving in Afghanistan. They can be held as material witnesses about Canadian war crimes abuses I'm sure.

There is nothing unlawful about these soldiers entering Gaza in response to terrorist attacks.

Depends what they did once they got there. The UN investigated and concluded that war crimes were committed there. Your subjective assessment means literally nothing.

I'm still waiting for the arrest warrants on Canadian soldiers serving in Afghanistan.

Im still waiting for a relevant example.

[Bonam]

Depends what they did once they got there. The UN investigated and concluded that war crimes were committed there. Your subjective assessment means literally nothing.

The UN has zero credibility.

Im still waiting for a relevant example.

You had one and ignored it. Canada is accused of having committed human rights abuses in Afghanistan. Have you not followed news over the past few years at all? Clearly, by your standards, since any soldier participating in any operation which anyone has accused of including any war crime must be immediately detained and held for questioning, so all Canadian soldiers that ever did a tour of duty in Afghanistan should be immediately arrested.

[M.Dancer]

Depends what they did once they got there. The UN investigated and concluded that war crimes were committed there. Your subjective assessment means literally nothing.

Investigation might be overstating what the UN did. Goldstone calls it a fact finding mission.

Calling it an investigation implies there might be a certain level of professionalism which in turn would lead the findings to be used as evidence in a court. Goldstone does not cliam his fact finding mission was up to that standard.

"We had to do the best we could with the material we had. If this were a court of law there would have been nothing proven. ... I would not consider it in any way embarrassing if many of the allegations turn out to be disproved."

http://www.forward.com/articles/116269/

And rightly so. They had no access to physical evidence that was pristine. All physical evidence was handed or shown to him by Hamas. The possibility of tampering one way or another is certain. As well, all testimony given to the fact finding mission was tainted by the possibility of reprisals from Hamas, who has a history of murderous reprisals.

And the questionable application of the law is summarized here.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2009/11/goldstone-gaza-and-disproportionality.php

The Goldstone Commission Report on the January 2009 Israel-Palestinian conflict in Gaza — which comes before the United Nations today, November 4, 2009 — has been accused of failure on various levels. Many commentators argue that the Report fails the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Some say it reflects a failure to understand the deeper historical realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Still others say it fails the originally conceived purpose of the United Nations Human Rights Council and fails the search for objective truth. Its most glaring failure, though, has gone unnoticed. The Report fails the law.

It does so by striking out in applying the law in three key areas. Strike One: the Report incorrectly claims Israel disproportionately attacked civilians. Strike Two: the Report unjustly accuses Israel of a disproportionate response to Hamas's attacks. Strike Three: the Report treats Israel and Hamas disproportionately by holding them to different standards.

[dre]

Clearly, by your standards, since any soldier participating in any operation which anyone has accused of including any war crime must be immediately detained and held for questioning

I guess thats how a person might interperate what I said if they were in the throws on an ether binge.

But really I said no such thing at all. I just dispelled a bunch of your nonsense, thats all.

The UN has zero credibility

Yeah! Now that we have your expert opinion on that maybe we should ask Rufus the Stunt Bum too!

[dre]

Investigation might be overstating what the UN did. Goldstone calls it a fact finding mission.

Calling it an investigation implies there might be a certain level of professionalism which in turn would lead the findings to be used as evidence in a court. Goldstone does not cliam his fact finding mission was up to that standard.

http://www.forward.com/articles/116269/

And rightly so. They had no access to physical evidence that was pristine. All physical evidence was handed or shown to him by Hamas. The possibility of tampering one way or another is certain. As well, all testimony given to the fact finding mission was tainted by the possibility of reprisals from Hamas, who has a history of murderous reprisals.

And the questionable application of the law is summarized here.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2009/11/goldstone-gaza-and-disproportionality.php

And rightly so. They had no access to physical evidence that was pristine. All physical evidence was handed or shown to him by Hamas. The possibility of tampering one way or another is certain. As well, all testimony given to the fact finding mission was tainted by the possibility of reprisals from Hamas, who has a history of murderous reprisals.

Yeah I havent read the report but again... the burden of evidence required to simply detain suspects and witnesses is relatively low... just reasonable suspicion. If anywone was charged though the burden would be high.

Anyhow Im not supporting the idea charging these people for war crimes. Iv already said I dont like the idea, and I dont think its likely there would be any convictions.

[Argus]

?

this could lead to the idf soldiers facing arrests and prosecution when/if they visit certain countries. unfortunately for them, they will not have the luxury of connections that their superiors have had when they were faced with such arrests while visiting some european countries.

You know, by any realistic measure, the methods the Russians used to put down resistance in Chechya were far, far and away worse than anything the Israelis have ever done. They basically lined artillery piece up wheel to wheel and blasted away at cities filled with civilians, killing thousands. Yet oddly, amazingly, no one seems to care. There aren't busy little activists prying into files to find lists of Russian soldiers they can try to arrest if they ever travel abroad.

When Syria put down the Muslim Brotherhood in Hama they basically used the same methods as the Russians, and killed more people in a few days than have died in all the years of the Intifada. Is anyone trying to find and prosecute the Syrian soldiers involved, or the officers or government officials? Nope. Nobody seems to care.

Is anyone trying to find the names of Chinese soldiers who killed people during the Tyannamin square slaughter? Is anyone trying to find the ones who murdered Muslims in Western China or Tibetans during their riots? Nope. Nobody cares. Are any of these so-called human rights activists trying to find the names of Iranian soldiers and officials and prosecute them when they enter Europe? What about the names of individual soldiers in Sudan involved in genocide? Nope.

But of course, anti-antisemitism has nothing to do with it all.

[dre]

You know, by any realistic measure, the methods the Russians used to put down resistance in Chechya were far, far and away worse than anything the Israelis have ever done. They basically lined artillery piece up wheel to wheel and blasted away at cities filled with civilians, killing thousands. Yet oddly, amazingly, no one seems to care. There aren't busy little activists prying into files to find lists of Russian soldiers they can try to arrest if they ever travel abroad.

When Syria put down the Muslim Brotherhood in Hama they basically used the same methods as the Russians, and killed more people in a few days than have died in all the years of the Intifada. Is anyone trying to find and prosecute the Syrian soldiers involved, or the officers or government officials? Nope. Nobody seems to care.

Is anyone trying to find the names of Chinese soldiers who killed people during the Tyannamin square slaughter? Is anyone trying to find the ones who murdered Muslims in Western China or Tibetans during their riots? Nope. Nobody cares. Are any of these so-called human rights activists trying to find the names of Iranian soldiers and officials and prosecute them when they enter Europe? What about the names of individual soldiers in Sudan involved in genocide? Nope.

But of course, anti-antisemitism has nothing to do with it all.

Those are all internal situations. Countries have fairly wide lattitude there and only select parts of international law applies. The occupation in dirt-ville is a different story. Its an ongoing conflict taking place in an occupied territory.

[Argus]

Those are all internal situations. Countries have fairly wide lattitude there and only select parts of international law applies. The occupation in dirt-ville is a different story. Its an ongoing conflict taking place in an occupied territory.

So you're saying that all those busy little activists searching frantically through files trying to identify the names of individual IDF soldiers are driven by -- their indignation over possible legal violations of international law? That all those hyper angry people on the internet, on sites like this, are getting all emotional and calling for boycotts and the like - because they think laws - which almost none of them even understand - have been violated?

[bud]

You know, by any realistic measure, the methods the Russians used to put down resistance in Chechya were far, far and away worse than anything the Israelis have ever done. They basically lined artillery piece up wheel to wheel and blasted away at cities filled with civilians, killing thousands. Yet oddly, amazingly, no one seems to care. There aren't busy little activists prying into files to find lists of Russian soldiers they can try to arrest if they ever travel abroad.

When Syria put down the Muslim Brotherhood in Hama they basically used the same methods as the Russians, and killed more people in a few days than have died in all the years of the Intifada. Is anyone trying to find and prosecute the Syrian soldiers involved, or the officers or government officials? Nope. Nobody seems to care.

neither usa or canada support syria or russia politically and economically the way they support israel.

it never fails that whenever there is criticism of israel, its blind and unconditional supporters will use the same old strategy:

call those who are criticizing israel anti-semites and then compare israel's actions to other regions in the world. "hey! but look at what they're doing in darfur!"

way to lower the bar for the 'only democracy in the region' and 'the most moral army in the world'.

Edited November 26, 2010 by bud

[dre]

So you're saying that all those busy little activists searching frantically through files trying to identify the names of individual IDF soldiers are driven by -- their indignation over possible legal violations of international law? That all those hyper angry people on the internet, on sites like this, are getting all emotional and calling for boycotts and the like - because they think laws - which almost none of them even understand - have been violated?

I think its a component of nationalism. People are conditioned to view the behavior of a state towards its own citizens differently than they view outward acts by the same state.

For example people for the most part dont pay much attention to Russia/Chechnya but when Russia rolled those same tanks and troops into Georgia it was front page news all day... every day. Same goes for Saddams treatment of Iraqi kurds... nobody much cared. But when the Iraqi army rolled into Kuwait then they sure did.

Youre definately right about one thing, and that is that people dont tend to evaluate all these different conflicts in a totally rational and proportionate manner.

Most of Israels PR problems are because the situation there is unique and it has gone on for so long. Very few countries are using military force to conquer new terrority and settle new land in this day and age. People take a dim view of this sort of colonialism now days. If Israels actions were just security related it would probably be different, but Israel is settling the occupied territories and plundering them for the valuable resources there, without any intention of ever assimilating the people. Which is another thing that makes Conflict: Dirtfarm relatively unique. It results in millions of permanently stateless people that are not allowed to participate in the political system of the country that has defacto jurrisdiction over them, and not allowed to create a state of their own either.

The length of the conflict and the frequency of events is a big factor too. People over time pick pet causes for whatever reason which they become very passionate about. As time has gone by the number of people who are passionate supporters of both sides has grown. Its like an echo chamber. Every time people in the west turn on the news they see Conflict: Dirtfarm, because those idiots over there cant even abstain from fucking each other over for long enough for a break in the news cycle.

The longer it bounces around in the echo chamber the louder it will get and the more people will become passionate partisan supports of each side.

I wouldnt even be suprised if Conflict: Dirtfarm even causes civil wars in OTHER countries between supporters of Israel and supporters of Palestinians

Edited November 26, 2010 by dre