Israel PM: State Protection for War Crimes in Gaza

[Evo]

Art, from Amnesty International, your link.

During the same period, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups continued to fire indiscriminate rockets into residential areas of southern Israel, killing three civilians.
Direct attacks on civilians and civilian objects, disproportionate attacks and indiscriminate
attacks are war crimes.

 

[Art]

A non-governmental independent group that states that they are but provide no evidence. Like I said...

Your derision of Amnesty International does you no credit but why not read the report first then comment.

It is resplendent with evidence eg

Amnesty International delegates found fragments from 120mm tank rounds all over Gaza,including in homes where these munitions had killed children and other civilians. Tank rounds are precision munitions. The killings of so many civilians, many in their homes, indicates that these munitions were – at best – used in a reckless or indiscriminate manner. In Jabaliya, north Gaza, at the home of Dr Izz al-Din Abu al-‘Eish, a gynaecologist who works in an Israeli hospital, Amnesty International delegates found fragments of the two 120mm tank shells which were fired by Israeli soldiers into the bedroom of Dr Abu al-‘Eish’s daughters on the afternoon of 16 January. Three of the doctor’s daughters and his niece were killed on the spot and another daughter and niece were seriously injured.

to say AI did not provide any evidence is untrue and yet more blatant misinformation. Not only have they detailed descriptions of the alleged war crimes they have pics of the munitions involved.

 

[kyleb]

That I thought Hamas had been legitimized after the violent takeover?

Again, my question is; what motivates you to present such misinformation in your ardent defense of Israel's conquest over Palestine? In other words; what compelled you to think that Hamas first took Gaza over by force then held an election while putting the electorate in fear of their lives, in direct contraction to reality?

Art, Amnesty International is a group of people that gather for a cause...

What point were you attempting to make by stating the obvious here?

I read the Amnesty International article Kyleb posted and even they did not go so far as to claim "murder".

So your argument is simply one of semantics?

 

[Art]

Art, from Amnesty International, your link.

I have never said otherwise. One wrong does not justify another wrong, especially one magnitudes of orders worse. And that is not just my opinion that is international law!

I do not support Hamas' indiscriminate attacks on Israel in the slightest though I suspect if someone would supply them with guided missiles they'd be quite happy to aim only at military targets in Israel.

 

[OAQfirst]

Amnesty International delegates found fragments from 120mm tank rounds all over Gaza,including in homes where these munitions had killed children and other civilians. Tank rounds are precision munitions. The killings of so many civilians, many in their homes, indicates that these munitions were – at best – used in a reckless or indiscriminate manner. In Jabaliya, north Gaza, at the home of Dr Izz al-Din Abu al-‘Eish, a gynaecologist who works in an Israeli hospital, Amnesty International delegates found fragments of the two 120mm tank shells which were fired by Israeli soldiers into the bedroom of Dr Abu al-‘Eish’s daughters on the afternoon of 16 January. Three of the doctor’s daughters and his niece were killed on the spot and another daughter and niece were seriously injured.

I have to ask, how can anyone look at this scene and reconstruct the events, leading to any conclusions at all about intent? Wouldn't we expect this from militants mixing with civilians?

 

[Evo]

So your argument is simply one of semantics?

Stating that Israel intentionally and with premeditation singled out civilians as targets is ridiculous, IMHO.

Do you have any proof to back up your belief that they did this?

 

[Art]

I have to ask, how can anyone look at this scene and reconstruct the events, leading to any conclusions at all about intent? Wouldn't we expect this from militants mixing with civilians?

WW2 covered a much wider area over a much longer time frame and yet it was possible to reach conclusions and to bring the perpetrators of war crimes to justice. More recently in the former Yugoslavia investigators were able to reconstruct events leading to successful prosecutions of war criminals on all sides.

What is needed in the ME now is a UNSC sanctioned investigation into alleged war crimes by ALL sides followed, where justified, by criminal prosecutions.

 

[Art]

Stating that Israel intentionally and with premeditation singled out civilians as targets is ridiculous, IMHO.

Do you have any proof to back up your belief that they did this?

By inference you are saying the IRC, HRW, UN and Amnesty International, who have all accused Israel of deliberately targeting civilians, are all part of some vast and secret anti-Israel conspiracy as it beggars belief that they could all be simply mistaken. Why do you think they would do that? What in your opinion is their motivation for 'fabricating' stories about Israel? Are they acting alone or in concert? Or do you entertain the thought that perhaps your reading of the situation is very wrong? Occam's razor suggests the latter.

 

[OAQfirst]

WW2 covered a much wider area over a much longer time frame and yet it was possible to reach conclusions and to bring the perpetrators of war crimes to justice. More recently in the former Yugoslavia investigators were able to reconstruct events leading to successful prosecutions of war criminals on all sides.

What is needed in the ME now is a UNSC sanctioned investigation into alleged war crimes by ALL sides followed, where justified, by criminal prosecutions.

Conclusions on intent can be reached in this case where militants are reported as mixed with civilians? Do examples of this exist from WW2?

 

[kyleb]

Stating that Israel intentionally and with premeditation singled out civilians as targets is ridiculous, IMHO.

Do you have any proof to back up your belief that they did this?

I have the evidence of many international observers and investigators reporting as much, in detail. Am I to take it all you have is your opinion? If so, you aren't rightly demonstrating humility here.

 

[OAQfirst]

Amnesty International delegates found fragments from 120mm tank rounds all over Gaza,including in homes where these munitions had killed children and other civilians. Tank rounds are precision munitions. The killings of so many civilians, many in their homes, indicates that these munitions were – at best – used in a reckless or indiscriminate manner. In Jabaliya, north Gaza, at the home of Dr Izz al-Din Abu al-‘Eish, a gynaecologist who works in an Israeli hospital, Amnesty International delegates found fragments of the two 120mm tank shells which were fired by Israeli soldiers into the bedroom of Dr Abu al-‘Eish’s daughters on the afternoon of 16 January. Three of the doctor’s daughters and his niece were killed on the spot and another daughter and niece were seriously injured.

I'm very curious about this report. I watched a video somewhere here that showed a Hamas fighter and, those guys move. Even I can explain this report with speculation alone: Hamas fire from one room, move to another, civilians do their best to get away from them (as targets), but are fired on in that room the militants moved out of for obvious reasons. I just don't see how any conclusions can be made about intent based on this report.

 

[Art]

Conclusions on intent can be reached in this case where militants are reported as mixed with civilians? Do examples of this exist from WW2?

Numerous examples. German reprisals against the French resistance the Greek resistance and just about every other nationalist resistance group which existed within the civilian populations in occupied Europe.

Somehow I don't think trained investigators will find it too hard to get to the bottom of each and every allegation made re Gaza.

 

[Art]

I'm very curious about this report. I watched a video somewhere here that showed a Hamas fighter and, those guys move. Even I can explain this report with speculation alone: Hamas fire from one room, move to another, civilians do their best to get away from them (as targets), but are fired on in that room the militants moved out of for obvious reasons. I just don't see how any conclusions can be made about intent based on this report.

You picked a really, really bad example to make your case. I suggest you google this for Israeli press articles for more information.

This guy was very popular in Israel, he specialised in fertility treatment, and the Israelis were horrified by how he and his family were treated, how initially the IDF tried to deny any involvement (later retracted due to the mountain of evidence found) and how investigations showed there was zero militant activity near his home which was targeted very precisely by a tank.

 

[numb]

The exceptionalist stance: Israel targeted civilian housing and dropped WP shells on UN schools, and bombs on UN warehouses; except those Hamas militants move really fast (I saw it on TV), so Israel must have been legally targeting them; the use of WP in civilian areas is a war crime, but Israel has no choice; UN warehouses were probably being used by Hamas to store weapons (since that's what I heard an Israeli militant say, on the TV); there might be some problems, except Israel only wants peace (like they keep saying on the TV)...

 

[OAQfirst]

You picked a really, really bad example to make your case. I suggest you google this for Israeli press articles for more information.

This guy was very popular in Israel, he specialised in fertility treatment, and the Israelis were horrified by how he and his family were treated, how initially the IDF tried to deny any involvement (later retracted due to the mountain of evidence found) and how investigations showed there was zero militant activity near his home which was targeted very precisely by a tank.

Well, I wasn't making a case. I'm just trying to understand how a conclusion about intent can be based on that report. But I'll google it anyway.

 

[OAQfirst]

I'm coming up dry. Can you kindly provide a link with the report that there was zero militant activity near his home?

EDIT: Hold on here. This is one incident of several reported. Even American GIs committed atrocities in both WWs. So I think this amounts to nitpicking. I'm already of the assumption that crimes were committed on both sides. Now I'm wondering what the intent is with all of this. Prosecute war criminals, sure. But stay focused on the bigger picture.

Sounds about right.

 

[Art]

I'm coming up dry. Can you kindly provide a link with the report that there was zero militant activity near his home?

But on Friday night, Dr Aboul Aish's scheduled live interview with Israeli Channel 10 television was conducted minutes after three of his daughters were killed by an Israeli shell. His raw anguish forced Israelis to take their first real glimpse of the suffering and death caused to Palestinian civilians.

Shlomi Eldar, the Channel 10 correspondent, his own voice choking with emotion, repeatedly noted Dr Aboul Aish's connection to Shiba Hospital as he held out his mobile phone, allowing viewers to hear the physician cry and sob: "My daughters, they killed them, Oh lord, God, God, God."

"I want to save them but they are dead," Dr Aboul Aish said. In a video of the interview, available on YouTube, the physician can be heard imploring for help while a shaken Mr Eldar pleads on air for anyone in the army who might be viewing to let ambulances reach the Aboul Aish home in the Jebalya refugee camp. "Maybe something can still be saved," he said.

Because of the publicity, another of his daughters and a brother were evacuated quickly to Israel for treatment. Other Palestinian civilians have gone without medical care for days.

But it was not just the death of his three daughters, Bisan, Mayar and Aya, 20, 15 and 12 respectively, that left Dr Aboul Aish in anguish yesterday. It was the feeling among some Israelis that he, like many other Gazans who have suffered in the violence, is being blamed for his own tragedy. At Shiba Hospital near Tel Aviv, where a surviving daughter, Sheda, 17, is being treated for shrapnel in the eye, the doctor repeated yesterday that there were no Hamas gunmen firing from his house, as the army suggested yesterday, when two shells hit a bedroom. The army is also saying the UN compound and the hospital were used by gunmen or they were nearby.

"I had left the room seconds earlier. How would gunmen have reached the roof? From where would they have entered?" he asked. The physician, who did his residency at Soroka Hospital in the Israeli city of Beersheba, was adamant he had not allowed his house to be a Hamas firing position. "I have never done anything wrong in my life. If you don't believe Palestinians, ask Israelis who doctor Aboul Aish is. They should just admit they made a mistake. There is no shame in making a mistake, but don't deceive the nation," he said in Hebrew.

An Israeli colleague, Carmi Z Margolis, director of the medical school for international medicine at Ben Gurion University, said: "This is a man known as a man of peace for many years. It's a terrible tragedy. I don't know if there was a sniper but I know the man. It needs to be investigated why they shelled the home of a man of peace in Gaza."

The preponderance of civilian casualties among the more than 1,200 Palestinian dead is only now being gently questioned in the Israeli mainstream media, which has generally accepted at face value the army's explanation that Hamas uses civilians as human shields.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...tor-shows-israelis-horror-of-war-1419286.html

You couldn't have tried very hard there are dozens of links to choose from

This was a turning point in the conflict. Mark Regev the Israeli propaganda spokesman first tried to claim it was a Hamas missile hit the house but when journalists found fragments of the shell casings the IDF then tried to claim they thought they saw snipers in/on the house.

The doctor's standing within Israel meant his evidence that there were no snipers was accepted by most Israelis as credible so it at last put a human face on the Palestinian suffering and as the article points out the Israeli public finally began to question their own forces actions.

 

[tiny-tim]

Amnesty International: "War Crimes by Hamas"

Earlier, you selected quotations, and wrote your own summary, of the Amnesty International report, leaving Hamas out completely.

And now you're selectively accusing Israel of murder (by "unlawful targeting and killing of civilians") …

… when they accuse Israel of war crimes and breaches of international humanitarian law then it is perfectly appropriate to say the pressure on Israel to be held accountable is growing and the unlawful targeting and killing of civilians alleged by Amnesty is murder …

More disinformation The accusations made by the IRC the UN, HRW and now Amnesty International that Israel deliberately and indiscriminately targeted civilians resulting in the deaths of those civilians then it is murder, plain and simple.

but not Hamas …

I do not support Hamas' indiscriminate attacks on Israel in the slightest though I suspect if someone would supply them with guided missiles they'd be quite happy to aim only at military targets in Israel.

you go on and on about killing of civilians by Israel being murder (where Israel may or may not have a defence), but as to targeting and killing of civilians by Hamas (to which there would be no defence to a charge of murder), all you have managed to bring yourself to say is that you "do not support" it

 

[Art]

Earlier, you selected quotations, and wrote your own summary, of the Amnesty International report, leaving Hamas out completely.

And now you're selectively accusing Israel of murder (by "unlawful targeting and killing of civilians") …
but not Hamas …you go on and on about killing of civilians by Israel being murder (where Israel may or may not have a defence), but as to targeting and killing of civilians by Hamas (to which there would be no defence to a charge of murder), all you have managed to bring yourself to say is that you "do not support" it

When Hamas kills civilians either deliberately or through indiscriminate rocket fire then of course it is murder.

You seem to have missed the part where I said ALL allegations of war crimes against ALL parties to the conflict should be investigated and ALL people who perpetrated them should be tried and punished.

The difference is absolutely nobody is contesting the point that Hamas' firing of rockets indiscriminately into Israel is a war crime. The reason the discussion is focused so much on Israel is because of the denialists who just will not concede Israel too has committed war crimes. And because of the huge advantage Israel has in weaponry the results of their war crimes in terms of numbers of innocents killed are destined to be proportionally worse.

Just so there will be no future misunderstanding I will state again Hamas militants who kill Israeli civilians are murderers and should be prosecuted as should whoever gives them their orders and the exact same principles shoiuld apply to illegal actions by the IDF and whoever gives them illegal orders.

My belief is international law is the glue that holds the world together and so if we are not to fall back into the pre WW2 mentality of appropriation through conquest then it is vital these laws are upheld. To allow any country to avoid the consequences and repercussions of breaking these laws sets a precedent that others will undoubtedly follow leading to potential world disastor.

 

[OAQfirst]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...tor-shows-israelis-horror-of-war-1419286.html

You couldn't have tried very hard there are dozens of links to choose from

This was a turning point in the conflict. Mark Regev the Israeli propaganda spokesman first tried to claim it was a Hamas missile hit the house but when journalists found fragments of the shell casings the IDF then tried to claim they thought they saw snipers in/on the house.

The doctor's standing within Israel meant his evidence that there were no snipers was accepted by most Israelis as credible so it at last put a human face on the Palestinian suffering and as the article points out the Israeli public finally began to question their own forces actions.

No, I found this article. But might you have something besides a freelance journalist's report?

 

[tiny-tim]

Amnesty International: "War Crimes by Hamas"

You seem to have missed the part where I said ALL allegations of war crimes against ALL parties to the conflict should be investigated and ALL people who perpetrated them should be tried and punished.

That's because it doesn't exist …

you haven't said anything of the sort (in this thread, anyway) …

in this six-page thread you've been selectively quoting from Amnesty International, and selectively accusing Israel of murder but not Hamas …

the one time you chose to comment on Hamas' attacks on Israeli civilian you only said that you "did not support" them …

and now you're not selectively quoting yourself, but actually making up a quote to try to prove that you've not been selective

 

[Art]

No, I found this article. But might you have something besides a freelance journalist's report?

The Independent is a main stream UK newspaper as big in the UK as the NYT in in the USA. Here's a BBC report echoing the same. http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_7878000/7878752.stm Though I suspect this is a case of if you can't challenge the content then challenge the source.

 

[Art]

That's because it doesn't exist …

you haven't said anything of the sort (in this thread, anyway) …

in this six-page thread you've been selectively quoting from Amnesty International, and selectively accusing Israel of murder but not Hamas …

the one time you chose to comment on Hamas' attacks on Israeli civilian you only said that you "did not support" them …

and now you're not selectively quoting yourself, but actually making up a quote to try to prove that you've not been selective

See and read post #77 and then apologise.

 

[OAQfirst]

The Independent is a main stream UK newspaper.

In recent years, [The Independent] has had critical, editorial-style front pages on George W. Bush, Tony Blair, and Israeli government policies. In 2006 Robert Fisk reported soil sample evidence that Israel might have used a "secret new uranium-based weapon" during the 2006 Lebanon War.[7] United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) experts determined that as of February 2007 there was no evidence of depleted-uranium-ammunitions.[11][12]

Which is why I'm asking for a different source.

 

[Art]

Which is why I'm asking for a different source.

? There was a UNEP investigation which found no evidence of DU use. Are you saying the Independent was biased in some way for reporting that allegations had been made? If so that is ridiculous. Every newspaper carried the initial allegations and every newspaper reported on UNEP's findings. That's their job.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz also covered the allegations. One could hardly accuse them of being biased against Israel for doing so.

 

[OAQfirst]

The Independent is a main stream UK newspaper as big in the UK as the NYT in in the USA. Here's a BBC report echoing the same. http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_7878000/7878752.stm Though I suspect this is a case of if you can't challenge the content then challenge the source.

Isn't that how it works? If I can't trust the source, then why should I give weight to the content from that source?

But it just comes down to a matter of belief. I don't believe that this report alone is enough to confirm intent. Not that it matters a whole lot. I'm certain there are crimes in this conflict on both sides at every level. I'm just afraid that focusing on the war crimes will divert attention from the bigger picture.

BTW, I really appreciate you taking time to share this with me.

? There was a UNEP investigation which found no evidence of DU use. Are you saying the Independent was biased in some way for reporting that allegations had been made? If so that is ridiculous. Every newspaper carried the initial allegations and every newspaper reported on UNEP's findings. That's their job.

Eh, that's what the article is saying. I see wikipedia quoted left and right here.

 

[tiny-tim]

See and read post #77 and then apologise.

hmm … post #77 … on page 5 …

WW2 covered a much wider area over a much longer time frame and yet it was possible to reach conclusions and to bring the perpetrators of war crimes to justice. More recently in the former Yugoslavia investigators were able to reconstruct events leading to successful prosecutions of war criminals on all sides.

What is needed in the ME now is a UNSC sanctioned investigation into alleged war crimes by ALL sides followed, where justified, by criminal prosecutions.

hmm … I see no allegation by you there that Hamas is guilty of murder or indeed anything …

I repeat … throughout this thread (until your post #89, after my criticism) you have selectively specified Israel as war criminals and murderers (not just alleged murderers), and have not mentioned Hamas at all, except to say that you "did not support" their killings.

 

[Art]

hmm … post #77 … on page 5 …hmm … I see no allegation by you there that Hamas is guilty of murder or indeed anything …

I repeat … throughout this thread (until your post #89, after my criticism) you have selectively specified Israel as war criminals and murderers (not just alleged murderers), and have not mentioned Hamas at all, except to say that you "did not support" their killings.

Are you completely incapable of honesty?

You accused me of making up a quote. I provided the reference now try and be man enough to admit your error and apologise.

Originally Posted by Art View Post

You seem to have missed the part where I said ALL allegations of war crimes against ALL parties to the conflict should be investigated and ALL people who perpetrated them should be tried and punished.

Originally Posted tiny-tim

That's because it doesn't exist …

you haven't said anything of the sort (in this thread, anyway) …

Originally Posted by Art

What is needed in the ME now is a UNSC sanctioned investigation into alleged war crimes by ALL sides followed, where justified, by criminal prosecutions.

I'd have thought falsely accusing someone of lying would be a breach of forum guidelines particularly when you have spurned the opportunity to correct your error so I'll settle for reporting you.

 

[tiny-tim]

You accused me of making up a quote.

I had very good reason (in my post #91) to believe you had made it up (in the second paragraph of your post #89, on page 6).

You didn't quote it, and gave no reference for it.

It contained the words "investigated" and "punished", so I did a word-search for each word (separately) on each of the 6 pages of the thread, and also for "Hamas", and of course found nothing.

It is you who should apologise for putting me to all that trouble.

Even if I had found the quote in post #77, the remainder of the criticism in my post #91 would have been exactly the same, and is still correct …

in this six-page thread you've been selectively quoting from Amnesty International, and selectively accusing Israel of murder but not Hamas …

the one time you chose to comment on Hamas' attacks on Israeli civilian you only said that you "did not support" them …

… a criticism of your selectivity which (approximately) repeats the criticism in my post #88, which you had avoided replying to, and still haven't replied to …

except of course for the quote we're discussing, from your post #77, which confirms my criticism, since it did not accuse Hamas of anything.

 

[OAQfirst]

Hey, folks. I've got some EgoTastic brand ego protection spray for $12 a can. PM me for ordering info.

 

[jreelawg]

Israel has used the claim that their actions are justified because Hamas is indiscriminate while israel has highly precise weapons and is doing everything they can to prevent civilian casualties. However, only 3/13 of Israelis killed are civilians, while 1285 were reported killed on the other side 895 being civilian deaths. So, in reality, Israel has been far more indiscriminate about who they kill. In addition to this, as a result of Israeli air strikes and artillery, tens of thousands of Gazans have been made homeless, and about 400,000 left without running water. All the while, Israel insists here is no humanitarian crisis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict

 

[jostpuur]

Since Amnesty accuses both Hamas and Israel for targeting civilians and committing war crime, then in particular Amnesty accuses Israel for targeting civilians and committing war crime. There should not be disagreement about this simple logical fact.

 

[tiny-tim]

However, only 3/13 of Israelis killed are civilians

During eight years* of artillery bombardment of southern Israeli towns, all the Israelis killed were civilians.

(that's why Israel applied economic sanctions and finally took the recent military action)

How do you make that 3/13?

* to be precise: since 2001 … though i notice the wikipedia article you referred to in its http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Background" section says 2005

Since Amnesty accuses both Hamas and Israel for targeting civilians and committing war crime, then in particular Amnesty accuses Israel for targeting civilians and committing war crime. There should not be disagreement about this simple logical fact.

There's no disagreement that Amnesty International accuses Israel for targeting civilians and committing war crime …

what makes you think there is??

where in this or any other thread do you claim anyone has said Amnesty International doesn't accuse Israel of that?

 

[jreelawg]

During eight years* of artillery bombardment of southern Israeli towns, all the Israelis killed were civilians.

(that's why Israel applied economic sanctions and finally took the recent military action)

How do you make that 3/13?

"Israel has stated that 13 Israelis were killed during the fighting,[4] including three civilians.[7] "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict

 

[tiny-tim]

"Israel has stated that 13 Israelis were killed during the fighting,[4] including three civilians.[7] "

Are you saying that eight years of artillery bombardment isn't fighting?

Why are you being so selective?