One thing that's clear from the recent Gaza conflict is that to many leftists, "violations of international law" is simply shorthand for "a country is engaging in military action that I don't approve of."
A case in point is a statement, via Brian Leiter, by self-styled "American Jewish progressives" (some of whom, I note, seem to assert their Jewish identity only when its useful for bashing Israel) on Gaza. The statement claims that Israel acted "with little or no consideration for human rights or the laws of war."
As usual with such statements, not a single documented violation of the laws of war is mentioned. Say what you will about the wisdom, or even morality, about the IDF's actions in Gaza, the idea that it acts "with little or no consideration for the law of war" is absurd. Not only does the IDF have strict internal rules promulgated by its version of the JAG, but it knows it has the entire international left breathing over its shoulder, looking for any violations of rules that could be exploited for propaganda purposes.
We could review for many paragraphs the various actions Israel took to limit civilian casualties, such as calling people living in Hamas weapons depots (also serving as apartment buildings) to warn them that a bombing raid was imminent, even though this also allowed the "bad guys" time to escape. And I can once again refer to the retired British army colonel who remarked that there has bee "no time in the history of warfare when an army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and the deaths of innocent people than the IDF."
But the argument against such broad indictments of Israel is even simpler. Even Israel's harshest critics claim no more than 1,400 or so deaths in Gaza, with a significant fraction of those Hamas fighters. If Israel truly "little or no consideration for human rights or the laws of war," why were the casualty figures that low? Surely Israel could have unleashed far greater devastation, while also achieving more of its military objectives. Israel could have, for example, demolished Shifra Hospital, which has underground bunkers that served as a command center for the Hamas leadership. That leadership survived the war because Israel wouldn't demolish a working hospital to get at them.
In any event, I'll lay down the challenge to the signators of the statement that one should issue whenever one sees similarly ignorant statements: Precisely what "laws of war" do you claim Israel violated in Gaza, what is your evidence for these violations, what treaties or legal precedents can you cite to support your claim, are you aware of legal authorities that disagree with your interpretation of international law, and under what legal theory is Israel bound by whatever particular international law principle that you are purporting to apply (e.g., if you are citing a treaty that Israel specifically declined to be a party to)? Comments are open below for the signators. [UPDATE: One more: Specifically, what could Israel have done differently in Gaza that would lead you to acknowledge that it had complied with the laws of war. If the answer is, as I suspect for many signators it would be, "not go into Gaza to begin with," then obviously we can go back to the first sentence of this post."]
Near as I can tell, only one law professor signed this statement, but surely he wouldn't have signed it without having answers to those questions readily at hand, so perhaps he can enlighten us. And note, while it's possible (though not yet proven) that there were isolated violations of international law by a unit here or there, such as the controversy over the alleged failure to allow Red Crescent ambulances to reach a certain neighborhood for several days [update: this article suggests that Israel may have known that Hamas was hijacking ambulances to transport its fighters], proof of isolated violations of international law, contrary to army policy, would still not support the claim that there was "little or no consideration," overall, of the laws of war.
I guess you have to run this argument with the Semouni family. As reported on NPR yesterday, one of the children describes the family huddling in a room in the house, an Israeli soldier comes in the door and they see the laser site lights flashing back and forth across the room. Then, an Israeli soldier asks "who is the owner of these orange groves?" The 46 year old father raises his hands and comes up. The Israeli soldier then shoots him point blank. The story goes on to say that in the past at some point Hamas shot off some missiles from in those groves. Even if you assume that the 46 year old was Hamas - a very significant stretch I think - he is a prisoner completely in the custody and control of the Israeli soldier. Also, they say that the Israeli soldiers starting firing at them all but stopped firing when the Semouni women yelled in Hebrew "children! children!"
Amos Guiora who is former IDF wrote a long piece in Jurist about his concerns with the Israeli definitions of what a legitimate military target was.
These are not just leftist things - they should be rightist things also - although the sense one is getting is that for the right is that the official line is always true - see torture.
Best,
Ben
What's wrong with that? Many writers of your ilk commonly use antisemitism to wave away critics of Israeli policy. For someone whose Jewish identity isn't very important to him, it makes sense to bring it up only when criticizing Israel to avoid reflexive cries of anti-semitism, no?
Torture is back? OK. Can you provide a definition of torture that applies to all states?
Yes, David, they should be asserting their Jewish identity when they discuss topics like healthcare reform or tax policy.
Article 1 of the Convention against Torture:
Easy, isn't it?
How do you know any of this? Are you stalking them?
My complaints regarding international law have been very specific. My view on this is largely taken straight from the ICRC web site. 4-day delays in ambulance permissions are not acceptable, among other things, especially against the backdrop of long delays for ICRC-specific medical teams not directly affiliated with the PRCS.
BTW, I am not a Jew, but I have substantial Jewish ancestry (through my father only). Does that help?
I note in passing that said witnesses were not under oath. Sorry to stray so far off the topic, like Benjamin Davis did (though not so far as Elliot123 did).
And as for the ambulance issue, which I acknowledged and the IDF is still investigated, a reiterate that isolated or scattered violations of the rules of war would not prove that Israel acted, overall, with little or no concern for the rules of war. Remember those American soldiers who raped and murdered an Iraqi woman? Violation of rules of war, sometimes awful ones, likely happen in every conflict, but that's different from saying that the nation fighting the war is systematically ignoring those rules.
Identity politics doesn't advance any arguments.
Prof Derrick Pounder, who is part of an Amnesty International team granted access to Jenin, said he has seen bodies lying in the streets and received eyewitness accounts of civilian deaths.
The Dundee University expert said the Amnesty investigation has only just begun but Palestinian claims of a massacre were gaining foundation as the team continued its analysis.
Derrick Pounder
Derrick Pounder: Evidence of a massacre
He said: "The truth will come out, as it has come out in Bosnia and Kosovo, as it has in other places where we've had these kinds of allegations.
"I must say that the evidence before us at the moment doesn't lead us to believe that the allegations are anything other than truthful and that therefore there are large numbers of civilian dead underneath these bulldozed and bombed ruins that we see."
The professor said recovering the bodies would be difficult because many buildings collapsed during bombardment.
He said: "We know there are families who were there and killed and buried.
"We were on the ruins yesterday and two elderly men came forward, each of them pointed to where their houses had been and one of them told us that 10 members of his family were buried under the rubble."
Can you answer DB's question?
So, there can be no criticism of Israel unless they show "little or no consideration" of the laws of war?
I also find it interesting that you criticize commentators who note their Jewish identity when criticizing Israeli policy. It is unfortunately the case that many on the political right immediately attack anybody who criticizes Israel as antisemitic. Therefore, actual Jewish identity seems like a relevant rebuttal to that (all too pervasive) charge. Why can't we just discuss the merits of the policy without policing who is identifying themselves as Jewish or if they are sufficiently Jewish to have a comment on Israeli politics?
American Zionists (of which I count myself one) are running the very real danger of becoming the new Communists--passionately committed, endlessly energetic, and thoroughly, incontrovertibly wrong.
The analogy is imperfect, of course, but the mysterious lack of interest, especially among Zionists outside Israel, in the yawning gap between officially sanctioned ideology and the unpleasant reality on the ground is eerily familiar. For Zionist leftists like myself, it is deeply frustrating that the most basic facts about daily life in the occupied territories never penetrate, and that popular discourse about Israel in the United States is generally limited to Likud talking points. Criticism of Israel, even from a solidly Zionist perspective, is seen as inherently pro-Palestinian, or the unnecessary airing of dirty laundry. Closed-minded systems of thought become closed systems of rule; Judt's critique of Communism is equally applicable to American Zionists' inability to acknowledge Israel's gaping flaws. Being a Zionist means never having to say sorry for Israel.
That sounds very familiar.
This technique is known as "lawfare" and is considered to be a form of asymmetrical warfare by our rivals and enemies. See Unrestricted Warfare published in 1999 by two colonels in the Chinese People's Liberation Army - Qiao Liang &Wang Xiangsui.
Those who practice lawfare in the West against their own countries were called "useful fools" by the Soviets.
You say, "We could review for many paragraphs the various actions Israel took to limit civilian casualties, such as calling people living in Hamas weapons depots (also serving as apartment buildings) to warn them that a bombing raid was imminent, even though this also allowed the "bad guys" time to escape."
The world sees civilians herded into UN schools and refugee camps (within an overall refugee camp that is Gaza) and then Israel bombs them. Deliberate or not, the deed is done and the dead add up.
White phosporus shot in areas where no Israeli soldiers are, thus no justification of it as a smoke screen to clear an area. Hundreds of innocents burned. (infants are always innocents)
Finally, yesterday a farmer living on the border is killed by Israel, allegedly in retaliation for the soldier killed. Israel plays by "eye for an eye" and justifies when it's weapons kill and maim innocents.
OK if Israel's enemies responds in kind? If not, why not? Do you think the world will eventually be immune if Israel begins suffering the deaths and injuries of innocents in the same numbers? Specifically under similar circumstances (bombing schools, and supposedly "protected" areas.)
This recent war was made in an attempt to influence Israel's politics. Children died to make a point, not to defend Israeli children. Let's acknowledge that, and then investigate the deaths and prevent them for happening in the future.
Ben, do you have any particular evidence for this claim outside of Hamas?
Our soldiers in Iraq were routinely and falsely charged with similar "crimes" by the enemy. However, after actual discovery was conducted, the charges were usually shredded at preliminary hearings. The dismissal of charges against nearly every Haditha Marine come to mind in this regard.
Beware being used by enemy propaganda.
There can still be criticism, it just can't be that Israel is violating international law.
So we are supposed to take our moral cues from the Soviets and the Chinese now? I thought the idea of "live free or die" would have some resonance here on VC...
This goes to the heart of the difficulty. How does one tell who the honest critics are when dishonest ones abound? The honest critics have a very quick way to establish their own good will and credibility: they can consistently denounce the dishonest critics. In a quiet logical debate over brandy this would not be necessary. In the practical world of a flood of accusations, it is necessary. I seldom attend to individual criticisms of Israel unless they are bracketed by acknowledgement of its peculiar danger and it's signifcantly better human-right record than its enemies.
Does that mean I will miss some legitimate criticisms of Israel? Absolutely. But it is a remarkably efficient method for those of us who do not want to spend our days weeding through spurious accusations.
Do you disagree that folks who use enemy propaganda to harass their own militaries are both "fools" for believing the propaganda and "useful" to the enemy for doing so?
As far as I'm concerned, the Palestinian people are the least respectible people on the planet and I'm not going to lose sleep over them.
>
>So we are supposed to take our moral cues from the Soviets and the Chinese now?
Reread the posting in question. The claim is that lawfare against the West is a technique endorsed by/approved by the Soviets.
And yet, amusingly enough, you don't see too many Soviets around anymore, do you? It turns out that, for winning the hearts and minds of your enemies, "We have principles that we believe in even when our own countries try to violate them" is just as useful as the Soviets thought, but not in the way they expected.
Every war in history involved dead civilians. Is the standard perfection? And if so, why only with the Israelis? Compare and contrast how the Russians behaved in Chechnya.
Accusing Israel as a state of war crimes requires more than documenting individual acts that violate the law of war.
And its beside the point, but we might also remember that Hamas' entire military strategy is the intentional targetting of Israeli civilians. The fact that they aren't very good at it (for now) doesn't excuse them. Where are the critics calling for war crimes trials for Hamas?
Gee. American principles have some use after all. Amazing.
who'da thunk it?
Here is a useful rule of thumb: Do not give credence to war crimes charges by war criminal terrorists who have a long track record of lying and propaganda unless they present evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reagan never listened to useful fools as he went about the business of dismantling the Soviet Empire.
Actually, before this little exchange gets totally out of hand, let me note that I agree with Berstein that Israel should be judged by the big picture: Was this a just war? Did they generally fight it in accordance with the laws of war? Etc. Individual incidents are not very interesting, unless you happen to live in the neighbourhood.
" An ethical contrast
PALESTINIAN civilians living in Gaza during the three-week war with Israel have spoken of the challenge of being caught between Hamas and Israeli soldiers as the radical Islamic movement that controls the Gaza strip attempted to hijack ambulances.
Mohammed Shriteh, 30, is an ambulance driver registered with and trained by the Palestinian Red Crescent Society. His first day of work in the al-Quds neighbourhood was January 1, the sixth day of the war. "Mostly the war was not as fast or as chaotic as I expected," Mr Shriteh told the Herald. "We would co-ordinate with the Israelis before we pick up patients, because they have all our names, and our IDs, so they would not shoot at us."
Mr Shriteh said the more immediate threat was from Hamas, who would lure the ambulances into the heart of a battle to transport fighters to safety. "After the first week, at night time, there was a call for a house in Jabaliya. I got to the house and there was lots of shooting and explosions all around," he said. Because of the urgency of the call, Mr Shriteh said there was no time to arrange his movements with the IDF. "I knew the Israelis were watching me because I could see the red laser beam in the ambulance and on me, on my body," he said.
Getting out of the ambulance and entering the house, he saw there were three Hamas fighters taking cover inside. One half of the building had already been destroyed. "They were very scared, and very nervous . They dropped their weapons and ordered me to get them out, to put them in the ambulance and take them away. I refused, because if the IDF sees me doing this I am finished, I cannot pick up any more wounded people. "And then one of the fighters picked up a gun and held it to my head, to force me. I still refused, and then they allowed me to leave."
Mr Shriteh says Hamas made several attempts to hijack the al-Quds Hospital's fleet of ambulances during the war. "You hear when they are coming. People ring to tell you. So we had to get in all the ambulances and make the illusion of an emergency and only come back when they had gone."
awesternheart
Sydney Morning Herald - Hamas-tried-to-hijack-ambulances-during-war.
There are plenty who would like to see trials, instead of assassinations, for Hamas.
And we also would like international journalists "permitted" into Gaza to document the details of the injuries and deaths being perpetrated.
Is Israel up to it?
How do you know that they don't assert their Jewish identity at other times? Do you closely track all of their writings, speeches, etc.?
I'm sure we'd all like that. When will the UN be demanding Syria turn over the Hamas leadership in Demascus?
For those who believe that nobody in the Israeli military or government has committed war crimes: what could they have done differently in Gaza that would lead you to acknowledge that they had?
(Note, I'm not asking you to contemplate condemning "Israel". I'm asking you if there is anything that a person, a decision-maker, in the military or government of that nation could do to Palestinians in Gaza, that you would consider worthy of condemnation as a war crime.)
When the Abu Ghraib abuses came out, we found out that there are some supporters of the United States for whom nothing could be done by Americans against Iraqis that they would regard as worthy of condemnation. They believed that "the terrorists" deserved any foul treatment that folks like Lynndie England and Charles Graner could mete out. Fortunately, such people are few in number.
It is my suspicion that such people's notion of right and wrong is driven entirely by (1) loyalty to one's own nation and (2) hatred of the enemy, and not by any sort of level judgment of the law and morality of specific actions. Such people discount entirely any wrong whatsoever if it is done by "our boys" against "those people".
If they make a charge based upon the claims of terrorist war criminals, assume the charge is invalid, demand evidence and cross examine it.
The Red Cross were used by the local terrorists to set up the war crime allegations.
Amnesty repeated the false charges against the Haditha Marines.
However, when the testimony of the alleged witnesses was compared with each other and the physical evidence, the enemy claims repeated by the Red Cross and Amnesty fell apart.
In short, like almost any field of law, international law is (i) complicated, (ii) not easily summarized, and (iii) does not necessarily say what people think it should say or what they want it to say. Further, it demeans and devalues real international laws to invoke them so cavalierly. In the next regional conflict (not necessarily the Middle East) why should either side be punctilious about avoiding violations of international law when they will be accused of violations and potentially prosecuted anyway?
Nothing could be more motivating to the internationalists than to look for war crimes when it's Jews defending themselves.
Merely observe the war crimes scrutiny given to other nations.
Esau hates Yaakov.
Thanks for that story. It never ceases to amaze how many people in zones of conflict are able to set aside a little time to talk to a Murdoch reporter thousands of miles away.
Who says its a good argument? Against what? In favor of what?
I think there's a word for this particular variety of collectivism.
The Palestinians have consistently shown themselves to be a step below the culture and civility of barbarians. Yes, I'm grouping them together in that judgment. But the merits of sympathy to the Palestinians isn't your point. You're indirectly invoking a Goodwin argument, and hence, by the rules of the internet, you automatically lose. Goodbye.
As soon as you stop bombing innocents in Gaza and they can stop with the business of passing resolutions designed to curb the intentional infliction of injuries that burn, maim, blind, and disfigure.
Again I ask: is Israel up to it? Also, if all of the civilian (womena and children) deaths were indeed justifiable, why the need to hide them from the world?
Let the journalists in to cover the blood and guts consequences. And then start arresting and bringing to trial those responsible for the rockets into Israel. Don't kill those not involved in the rocket fire, or their children.
Is Israel up to it?
It is if Israel dropped leaflets urging civilians -- women and children -- to leave their homes and take shelter in UN-designated safe places, like the school that was later bombed.
Another of Israel's strategic errors or no, you put the people there and your bombs killed them. Accept responsibility for their deaths -- the deaths of innocent infants and children -- and justify/spin away, but dead is dead and cause is Israel bombs. (thus, the proof is in the pudding.)
I think this kind of logic, adopted years ago by Israel, rather than any "mistakes" in targeting are more likely responsible for the innocent's deaths that the Palestinians surely will seek justice for.
That's a good question. I suppose that the answer is that there is a generally recognised state of belligerency here, meaning that the Palestinians, even though they are not a state, are subjects of international law with rights and duties. (For example the duty not to fire rockets at civilians.) Because the Palestinians have de facto belligerent status, one would not call for their leaders to be handed over to Israel any more than one would generally call for the leadership of one fighting party to be handed over to the other.
(I write de facto because practice is a bid muddy in this area of the law. Theoretically, recognising an insurgency as a belligerent means that the recognising state has to maintain a degree of neutrality, since neither side has the better claim of sovereignity. During a "normal" insurgency, on the other hand, states are free to support the legitimate government, but not the insurgents. In practice, the Palestinians meet all the requirements for belligerent status:
However, very few countries are really neutral towards the Israel-Palestine conflict. The Arab nations all support the Palestinians in whatever way they can, while most Western countries, vocal protests not withstanding, sell weapons to Israel whenever Israel ask to.)
Me? And you honestly think if Israel stops their attacks on Gaza... even lifts the blockade the UN will physically act against Hamas, either in Gaza or Syria. You know that's B.S. Its absurd. Where was the UN last month when Israel wasn't shooting and Hamas was?
Possibly because 'the world' is happy to spin blood liable against the IDF jeopardizing their ability to carry out the operations they deem necessary to stop rockets and mortars from reigning down on their civilians.
WHO? HOW? Are you out of your mind? How do you arrest the members of Hamas holed up in schools and hospitals with AK-47s? Who are you suggesting do this? The IDF? How would that look any different than the current invasion aside from a heap more IDF casualties and ultimately more Palestinian casualties as Hamas blasts away while the IDF.. what, tries to pepper spray the terrorists? I'm still not clear on how you arrest members of an indigenous guerrilla movement without occupying their base. And again, who are we talking about doing this?
Fine. Try them at The Hague. This is international law we are discussing, are we not?
Wow. You actually believe, with no evidence to support such a claim, Israel adopted as policy to violate international law in order to run up civilian casualties.
I really wonder what makes people so derranged like that. I'm also at a loss as to why anyone would be sympathetic to the Palestinians. I guess certain people are just nuts.
I don't know that Israel's status is relevant as a victim of war crimes. Syria is a signatory and should be obliged to turn over individuals guilty of war crimes, particularly planned on Syrian soil.
Why is a "Murdoch" paper relevant?
BTW, byline is: Jason Koutsoukis in Gaza City
Not thousands of miles away.
Here, there's a small problem. The jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court covers only the territory and the citizens of those countries which have ratified the Rome statute. (Note that the crimes made by an aggressor who has not ratified the Rome statute on the soil of a ICC member state fall under the jurisdiction of ICC.)
Israel has not ratified the Rome statute, for rather simple reasons. (Rome statute defines the settlement of an occupied area by the citizens of the occupying power as a war crime.) Because of this, the ICC cannot try any crimes made on Israeli soil, regardless of their gravity. This applies both to Israeli leaders and soldiers as to denizens of the occupied territories.
There is a way to fix this. The Rome statute allows the UN Security Council to extend the jurisdiction of ICC to conflict zones where it is needed. So, if the US wants it, the ICC can act. However, I believe that the temporal jurisdiction of the ICC would start from the time the Security Council resolution is made. So, this war cannot be investigated by the ICC. The next one could be.
If I'm reading this right, a Palestinian national (Does that even exist? If not, what citizenship would the accused have?) accused of committing a crime in Israel or in the Palestinian territories would normally be outside the scope of the ICC's jurisdiction.
In the long run, Mr. Miller, you make it harder for legitimate criticism of Israel to be heard.
What about crimes carried out (or instigated) on Syrian soil?
AFAIK, International Law differs from most other fields of law by not really existing.
You don't even want to know how many law review articles have been written about people shooting at each other from opposite sides of a border, or how many US court rulings deal with which state has jurisdiction to try someone. Let's just say it is a nightmare. Obviously, there is no ICC caselaw on this matter yet, but I imagine there will be eventually. Until then, I would argue that normally what matters is where the key act took place, i.e. the actual killing.
When it comes to someone shooting from Syria (a signatory state) to Israel (not a signatory state) or vice versa, there may be grounds to argue that either is enough for ICC jurisdiction, but preparatory acts in the furtherance of a conspiracy to commit war crimes taking place on the territory of a signatory state while the rest of the (alleged) crime took place elsewhere probably isn't enough to bring the crime within the jurisdiction of the ICC.
Doesn't Hamas fail to meet those conditions on several fronts? They don't conduct military operations in accordance with the laws of war, and one could certainly argue the "organized groups operating under a responsible authority" as well; under international law, Hamas would have a responsibility to commission officers and have its military wear uniforms, for example.
Stilted writing, so as not to offend:
As soon as ONE stopS bombing innocents in Gaza and UN REPRESENTIVES can stop with the business of passing resolutions designed to curb the intentional infliction of injuries that burn, maim, blind, and disfigure.
Forgot
youSOME are so touchy as to think they personally are being accused of something, so great is the group identity clinging to sever...There are? Where? Substantiate your claim. Are you referring to these protests?
The current war began back in 2001/2002 (the time when Hamas began firing rockets and mortars into Israeli civilian centers), then greatly escalated in 2005 when Israel forced all Jewish settlers out of Gaza - allowing Hamas to take over the place, which they did with a triumphal glee that included internecine crimes against members of Fatah and the PA (e.g., torture, dismemberment, retributions that included summary executions).
So, substantiate your claim, point to all these individuals and orgs who comprise this "plenty" you refer to, hi-lighting their call for the forces of international law to be aligned against Hamas's rockets, mortars, other munitions - virtually all of it directed against Israeli civilian centers.
"And we also would like international journalists "permitted" into Gaza to document the details of the injuries and deaths being perpetrated.
"Is Israel up to it?"
Are you up to some honesty? Are you up to facing some facts? Excerpt:
"At the end of last month, the Telegraph carried this story on its foreign news pages by Ewa Jasiewicz, reporting from Jabaliya refugee camp in Gaza. It was exclusively about the suffering of civilians and children under bombardment by Israeli air strikes. It made no reference to any Hamas terrorists in the camp. Readers were given no indication that Ewa Jasiewicz was anything other than an objective reporter.
"Yet the very next day, she appeared again in the Telegraph’s foreign news pages -- but this time being interviewed by Tim Butcher as an ‘activist originally from Kingston, Surrey’ and the principal source of his story about two children being killed by a bomb from an Israeli warplane, an event which she claimed to have witnessed.
"Indeed, Ms Jasiewicz is not a regular reporter at all. She is a highly partisan, deeply committed, experienced anti-Israeli International Solidarity Movement activist. She is an active player on the side of the Palestinians who are committing acts of terror against the Israelis ..."
That's a single example only. Fact is, one needs to be extraordinarily naive or willfully incurious to not be aware of this problem.
What is the final score?
4,000 to 13? Too much time and retaliation has already been paid to those 13, compared to the thousands dead and now maimed for life. Call me anti semitic if you think pointing that out is unfair.
*In the long run, Mr. Miller, you make it harder for legitimate criticism of Israel to be heard.*
It's "Mrs", and something tells me that efforts to silence people like me in no way portends more legitimate criticism of Israel. Look at the history of this conflice, and the more and more voices speaking out against Israeli aggression that never seems to accomplish its aims, and only needs to be repeated again and again ... with the stacks of innocent bodies adding up.
Own the consequences of your weaponry, and don't deny the deaths.
@Mark Buehner: If I read the Rome statute correctly, any citizen of a signatory state can be brought before the ICC no matter where they allegedly committed their crime. Here's what the ICC website says about jurisdiction. Unfortunately, Syria isn't a signatory state either. (Here's the list.) Jordan is, but Egypt isn't, either.
I think this has implications for how Israel is expected to deal with Hamas. Israel obviously needs to respect international law, much less basic human rights, but on the other hand taking Hamas members into custody with the currently nebulous state of affairs is a no-win situation. They wont have any recourse aside from trying them themselves which most of the international community wont accept, they'll almost certainly end up setting them loose at some point as part of a deal. No matter how terrible their crimes.
If you want to accomplish justice militarily, you have to be prepared to sacrifice your soldier's life for justice. See WWII and how many countries WERE willing to sacrifice for justice. Israel if it wants to be a state is no different.
Sure it's easier to make mistakes that kill civilians, and ethnic cleansing would be a super duper easy answer for Israel. But that won't work either.
I really wonder what makes people so derranged like that. I'm also at a loss as to why anyone would be sympathetic to the Palestinians. I guess certain people are just nuts.*
I think people who cheer the deaths of innocent infants are the ones who are deranged. Or do "you" weep at such mistakes at the Palestinian people's deaths? And why so many errors in targeting their sites anyway -- enough hospitals, schools, UN headquarters stocked with emergency supplies paid for by US taxpayers going up in Israeli smoke...
What's because when you make B.S. claims that Israel intentionally has a policy to cause as much civilian casualties as possible, it's flatly contradicted by the facts. That tends to cause people to think that the "voices speaking out against Israeli aggression" are full of shit in general.
You're not anti-war, you're just on the other side.
Syria is a signatory but hasn't ratified the treaty.
"According to the law of treaties, a state that has signed but not ratified a treaty is obliged to refrain from “acts which would defeat the object and purpose” of the treaty;"
Not sure if that means much.
However, the Security Council reference has to be about "a situation". I'm not sure how detailed they would be allowed to be. The US would always veto any attempt to use this provision to give the ICC jurisdiction over anything Israel did, but I'm not sure if it would be possible to make such a reference for Hamas behaviour only. What is the situation in question? The entire conflict? A specific part of the conflict (certain place, certain time)? Or can the UNSC be more specific, still, i.e. saying "behaviour by X on day Y in region Z"?
Me. My parish. Our community. Americans who believe in the system of justice as a whole. We don't buy into the "kill all the family and neighbors because somebody nearby might have shot off a rocket that fell harmlessly across the border".
Here in America, we call that vigilantism and it is the exact opposite of "justice" in fact. And America has been going strong all these years operating as a democracy (which Israel is not, nor is she "independent".)
I suspect you might have to sever the dual citizenship to understand the superiority of the American system of justice, compared to the killing of innocents by unmanned drones and those who have been herded into schools and other previously identified "safe places."
Because Hamas is using hospitals, schools, and UN headquarters as fire bases. Most of the targetting isn't in error. Its responding to Hamas forces firing at Israelis from those positions.
Don't you have ANYTHING to say about the callousness of Hamas intentionally bringing Israeli fire down on those places?
I find it amusing that Bernstein demands that these critics list a specific incident of a war crime in their letter, when evidence of violations of the laws in the strikes on Gaza are easily found reading the Washington Post. I suppose by focusing exclusively on this one minor point, he hopes to undermine the case the critics make, that Israel's entire campaign against the Palestinians in Gaza is unjust.
Wrong.
I'm for balance. American taxpayers subsidizing Israel is never going to bring them to the concessions needed for Israel to survive.
There is no 2-state solution now; Israel will fall demographically due to her refusal to acknowledge the odds and her unproductive aggression and refusal to stop killing civilians, intentionally or not.
Can this be true?
"Louis Michel, the EU's commissar for development and international aid, has actually blamed Hamas for the situation in Gaza. Somebody, get me my smelling salts.
Even though he was "shocked" by what he saw in Gaza, he had uncharacteristically harsh words for Hamas, which has ruled Gaza since it staged a violent coup there in June 2007.
"At this time we have to also recall the overwhelming responsibility of Hamas," said Michel, according to AFP. "I intentionally say this here: Hamas is a terrorist movement and it has to be denounced as such."
Reuters quoted Michel as criticizing Hamas for its use of civilians as "human shields" and for fighting in populated areas."
Like the Palestinians who cheered over 9/11?
Or do "you" weep at such mistakes at the Palestinian people's deaths?
I don't cheer their deaths, but I don't weep over them either. I have zero sympathy for the Palestinians. None. If innocent Palestinians die, they're victims of their own society and culture. I wish they'd get with the program. The only people to my knowledge who have proudly and publicly cheered over the deaths of innocents are the Palestinians, when they cheered over 9/11, and when they cheer over suicide bombers. Even the Taliban wasn't dumb enough to do that.
Don't you have ANYTHING to say about the callousness of Hamas intentionally bringing Israeli fire down on those places?*
No. Because there is no self-defense argument. Israeli soldiers went in to foreign territory; you have to expect some deaths and the population to fight back.
I find it hard to believe that it was necessary to slay so many innocent children in order for Israeli soldiers to get in, get out, and do their job as military men.
You ask,
But that's a no-brainer: Using poison gas (like Hussein and Assad), using nuclear weapons, using biological weapons, carpet bombing, or, say, firing missiles at random into civlian areas (but, of course, no one would ever do anything so heinous as that!).
I hope you will manage to see your way to agreeing that Israel is doing none of those things.
Now, your turn:
I do. It's a very not nice thing to do. Are you happy?
FYI, why do we accept at face value claims that the IDF were only responding to fire when they blow up schools or apartment buildings that they've herded civilians into? Because it's not possible to imagine that the IDF could operate with indifference to the lives of Palestinians? Shocking, I know.
This is remarkably similar to what bin Laden thinks of Americans who died on 9/11. Actually, it's exactly the same.
Minor? What are the charges? Verdict first, charges after?
And don't mistake justice with law. Israel's actions may be entirely unjust to you (its a subjective term), whether Israel is in violation of the law of war or any other international laws is the question being posed. And ignored by you.
And if I said this about Israeli's, then I'd be called an anti semite, right? (Is there a time limit on playing the holocaust card? Because I do believe your the days of the world viewing Jews as victims may soon be over, and no one will care much when Israeli infants are slain and maimed in the thousands. Loss of humanity, immunity to the deaths of children is a real Bitch, eh?
Rightly, because Bernstein's point is a silly one. And no I will not humor you. It's called Google; try it sometime.
Is it torture when an American DA threatens a suspect with prosecution of his spouse if he doesn't confess?
Is it torture if US authorities question a suspect for hours, thereby inflicting mental distress?
Is it torture if US authorities threaten to put a suspect in a section of a prison where he beleives he will be harmed because of his race?
Is it torture if US authorities lie to a suspect about what they know, say they know he did what they know he didn't, and thereby cause mental distress?
Is it torture when Marine Drill Instructors punish an entire platoon for the actions of one recruit?
If a nation has a law saying flogging is a punishment for scratching a car, and the flogging is carried out, is that torture?
If a flogging is carried out in a nation that does not have any laws imposing flogging, is that torture?
Can an action be torture in one nation torture, while it is not torture in another?
Can torture only be inflicted by authorities?
So you would agree then, that next time (and we all know there will be a next time) Israel would be smarter to hold her fire and not kill/maim so many innocents?
That it is poor military strategy to try and claim that your soldiers were acting only in self defense in killing thousands of civilians, and if so, it was poor planning that put them in such an untenable situation to begin with (where a soldier allegedly had to choose killing innocents where he had previously told via leaflets them to go to assure their safety?)
Come on, any way you cut it, it is stupid to kill children to make a political point, even if your preferred party wins an election because of it.
And how is this incompatible with the idea that the Israeli military operates with indifference to the lives of Palestinians?
Israel would be wise not to drop any leaflets instucting civilians where they can go to be safe, and then later leveling such structures with explosives.
Sure smells like terrorism to me, if those Palestinian children had authentic emotions like fear, which all humans share.
What color is the sky on your world by the way? Do you understand the term 'intent'?
Is it torture when an American DA threatens a suspect with prosecution of his spouse if he doesn't confess?
Not severe enough, or, in the alternative, incidental to lawful sanctions.
Is it torture if US authorities question a suspect for hours, thereby inflicting mental distress?
Conceivably, but not likely.
Is it torture if US authorities threaten to put a suspect in a section of a prison where he beleives he will be harmed because of his race?
Yes. Threatening someone with likely harm in order to get a confession or other information is torture, as long as the harm is likely enough and severe enough.
Is it torture if US authorities lie to a suspect about what they know, say they know he did what they know he didn't, and thereby cause mental distress?
Not severe enough.
Is it torture when Marine Drill Instructors punish an entire platoon for the actions of one recruit?
No desire to obtain information, so no.
If a nation has a law saying flogging is a punishment for scratching a car, and the flogging is carried out, is that torture?
No, that's a lawful sanction. (Well, we're assuming it's lawful, for now.)
If a flogging is carried out in a nation that does not have any laws imposing flogging, is that torture?
Depends on why they do it.
Can an action be torture in one nation torture, while it is not torture in another?
Yes, see previous points.
Can torture only be inflicted by authorities?
Torture in the sense of the CAT can only be committed under the colour of authority. It says so right there in one of the final clauses of the definition.
Because the facts don't back that up. If they did Israel would have carpet bombed Gaza and troops would just come in to clear the rubble. On the other hand, Israel went into Gaza to disarm and defeat Hamas. If Hamas decides to use civilian shields, Israel either has to decide to allow Hamas to do whatever they want, or to accept the civilian casualties that Hamas decision has caused. The former was decided to be intolerable the moment troops crossed the border.
What are you arguing, that Israel goes into Gaza and allows itself to be shot up without firing back? Or that Israel shouldnt go into Gaza at all under any provacation. Ultimately, that's obviously what you are inferring, but don't want to admit. Your logic is inescapable on that point.
Hamas drags innocent civilians to places that guarantees those civilians will become "collateral damage", and you think that's the same thing as what bin Laden said about America? The Palestinian cultue celebrates death and "martyrdom." Hamas leaders kept their wives &children in houses that they knew Israel would be attacking, in order to ensure that civilians died. Their culture celebrates that. Those civilians died because of the sickness of Palestinian society.
I think I made my points, and apologize from trying to explain them to those who demanded further explanation.
Cheers!
I haven't seen a classic case of projection and also the motivation for anti-semitism so neatly wrapped up in a nice little comment before. It's been mentioned that Israel is loathed by Europe because they're tired of Holocaust guilt. I suppose Mr. Miller feels the same way, he's tired of "Jews" being "victims." And then the projectiion: oh, how he can't wait until Israel infants are slain and maimed in the thousands.
Amazing, really.
But it was Israel who dropped those leaflets urging citizens to leave their homes and go to the UN sponsored safe places, that were later bombed.
I've read so many places how "humane" Israel is for giving those warnings, those of whom heeded them may have later been killed. And yet, still we blame the Hamas boogeyman...
The more dead civilians, the better.
If the IDF were killing no civilians, Miller and his parish would have to invent some, with, of course the help of Hamas and the media--see al Dura and Jenin.
WRT the idea of sacrificing soldiers's lives for justice, Miller makes one side of the point but deliberately ignores the other. You can send your grunts against their grunts, but if theirs are in a school surrounded by kids, the kids will die. He wouldn't accept that, either, even if he had to say the IDF shouldn't have put Hamas in a position where they had to kill their own kids to make a statement.
Miller knows exactly what he wants; IDF paralysis.
Wow. Your strategy is remarkably like the Israeli military: refuse to allow voices to speak truth, and then when they are out of the way, spin spin spin until others buy your "facts".
Please don't respond to my comments further as my hands are now tied in that I cannot legitimately respond to your allegations about me here. Thank you!
please do not speak about my comments here, when I am not able to clarify and defend my words.
It's unfair, and dishonest to "debate" like that, when only one side of the conflict is represented.
No defense is necessary.
I've paid my dues in peacemaking in a sideline Protestant church (PCUSA). I've been on mailing lists for those who are supposed to be on the inside.
I get the picture.
I got an article once, from somebody who thought I was a True Believer. Sarah (Sally) Miles on Low Intensity Conflict. The upshot was that LIC worked and did not kill very many civilians. So those of "us" who use massive casualties to raise the consciousness of the American people....will have to think of something else.
Sorry, sport.
It's just not secret any more.
For the record, I 100% deny this statment that Mr. Aubrey claims I advocate:
"The more dead civilians, the better."
100%. No dead Jewish babies. No dead Persian, Muslim, Arab, or American babies.
In Gaza, the "police" (the Executive Force or Tanfithya) is a paramilitary force, not a civilian police in our sense. As Jane's describes it: "The force, which is commanded by Colonel Abu Obeida al-Jarah, a former Hamas operative, often co-ordinates its activities with the Izz ad-Din Al-Qassam Brigades."
Hamas has no army. It calls its armed forces a police, so as not to openly contest the nominal authority of the PA President. War allows the targeting of actual soldiers, no matter what they may happen to call themselves for political purposes.
You're forgiven, but don't let it happen again.
the ubiquitous Hamas militants apparently have fired rockets from sewage treatment plants, the crazy devils.
What evidence is there for and against this sequence of events? Does any of that evidence indicate that, for example, Israel believed in good faith that those places would remain safe havens, but nevertheless Hamas was able to enter them and mount attacks, drawing inevitable retaliation? That seems to me the most plausible sequence, but maybe it didn't play out that way.
It is not. Anyone firing from such UN-designated safe places is committing a war crime and is responsible for civilian casualties caused by return fire.
It is not a war crime to return fire. The exception is if disproportionate force is used, such as using a 10,000 pound bomb when a 500 pound bomb would to. But, there is zero evidence of that.
First you must establish that indeed there was firing from that UN school.
The initial reports of footage Israel relied upon was proven to false. Just because you claim something is true does not make it so...
Shelby:
link here
No doubt in time, a full and honest investigation will tell us how and why those civilians taking refuge were somehow killed erroneously. IF we are brave and honest enough to search for the truth, and not to deny it if it turns out innocent children indeed were targeted based on their ethnicity. Whether Palestinian or Israeli.
Jeez. That brings back a memory, barely.
Is that the one containing "may his tribe increase"?
Ref yr last. Right, but imagine the technical depths of figuring out "would do".
I recall seeing a couple of guys almost come to blows over whether the M2 carbine was an assault rifle. Seems it had a straight cartridge, not a necked-down cartridge. This was worth ending a friendship?
In some circles.
Theoretically, I suppose, you could have a 10,000 pound bomb which was a bunker buster, 9500 pounds of super-hardened steel casing and 500 pounds of charge. And the guys on the ground need help and that's the only one nearby, on the way to someplace else, and it works as advertised and all the bad guys, plus the civilians thereabouts fall into the hole on account of it hit a UN compound and detonated the underground magazine.
Or perhaps the same policy that said it was wrong to exterminate the Jews because a small number of them engaged in activities harmful to an entire country. That a person should not be punished for what others of the same race have done. The death of innocent people is never an acceptable end that justifies the mean.
Have you ever noticed that the Jewish people have engaged in acts much like the Gaza incident, that causes the world forces to combine efforts to put an end to the Jewish State... time and time again. Was any loss of life preventable? Yes. Did that matter? No.
This is one of the most ignorant posts I've seen in a very long time. Facts:
1) England bombed Germain civilians on purpose, killing hundreds of thousands of them. This was done by "the greatest generation."
2) US European night bombing was so inacurate that many thousands of innocents died, while we used incendiaries on civilian targets in Japan, killing hundreds of thousands.This was done by "the greatest generation."
3) Israel has used great restraint in Gaza, Lebanon, and the West Bank - especially given some of the outrageous provocations (such as the suicide bombings of the Intifada). Israel DID risk it's soldier's lives in Gaza. It could have stayed back and used just bombing and artillery, but that would have killed too many civilians. It didn't have to drop warning leaflets, use automated telephone warnings and other procedures to protect civilians, KNOWING that those procedures would tip off the enemy to their intentions. But they did take those precautions, just the same.
Amazingly, Xanthippas writes:
Why should we seriously even consider that Israel would be intentionally indifferent to the lives of Palestinian innocents, given their long history, their ethical system, their internal politics, and their actions in this and other conflicts?.
To even assert that Israel might have been indifferent to innocent Palestinian lives is simply deranged.
Israeli soldiers went in to foreign territory; you have to expect some deaths and the population to fight back.
You've said things above, e.g., the quote above, that indicate that you think that Israel assumed the risk, by going into Gaza, and consequently should bear the risk of innocents being killed.
What about Hamas? They started the war - did they assume the risk? If they fire rockets, do they assume the risk that Israel will fire back? Or is just fine for a person who claims to want "peace" to mean that you only want one side to be doing the murdering?
Like the immediate aftermath of this cease-fire, where Israel ceased and Hamas just fired by bombing the fence. There's something twisted about the reportage that comes out of this when it talks about "straining" a cease-fire instead of abnegating it.
Stevie, I followed the link. The article it goes to is so poorly written (i.e. mis-spellings and the like) as to damage its credibility, not to mention the inflammatory one-sided language it uses. I've done a little bit more searching around, and it appears there are "allegations" on this issue but very little solid evidence. I've seen nothing to indicate my guess about the sequence of events was mistaken.
In short, it seems (at present) an awfully thin thread from which to hang a strong claim that Israel committed a war crime. I do look forward to seeing the results of a full investigation.
Wow.
Again, if you are going to later bomb the places you tell the civilians are "safe", it would be wiser and nicer not to drop any leaflets, period.
German civilians in WWII, and many other ethnicities, were killed in the name of victory.
In case you haven't noticed, no progress for Israel ever comes from these skirmishes. No "victory" from killing children. None.
And remember, Germany invaded and occupied lands that were not theirs. Thus, their soldiers had to fight and die to try and claim victory. And, they lost.
*If they fire rockets, do they assume the risk that Israel will fire back?*
Sure, fire away. Across the border from Israel. Sounds like a fair fight to me.
Just don't invade, herd civilians into supposedly safe UN compounds, then claim your soliers -- your trained fighting force -- either were so endangered that in self defense that had to kill/maim thousands of innocents, or that they misread/mistargeted the GPS coordinates. Because it just smells funny the 15th time one apologizes for such a mistake, then makes it again and again and again.
Sound fair? That way, innocent lives are not lost, and you can concentrate on targeting the bomb throwers and Hamas militants, not infants women and children.
I suspect if you are going to deny facts based on misspelling and not a pretty enough font style, then you are not going to accept the results of a full, complete and honest investigation either. And maybe all those dead children's corpses are a figment: like some claim the stacks of bodies in the Holocaust were (not me.)
It's poor logic. And your guess about people shooting out the windows at IDF soldiers, thus necessitating the bombing. That doesn't pass the sniff test either (that the UN -- not Hamas -- would knowingly endanger civilians like that.)
Could that be the intent? Either way... more real estate becomes available... and the food required to provide aid after killing so many people will definitely be noticeably less.
I see... we're reduced to "smells funny."
And how do you explain the "blue on blue" incident where Israeli's cause half of all Israeli fatalities in the Gaza War.
Please explain how the first appears intentional (or callous) to you in light of the second.
Since you seem to be utterly unaware of how warfare (or any complicated human endeavor) works, let me give you some info:
Stuff happens! Unexpected, unintended bad stuff. Get it?
A little history is necessary here: in the aftermath of the Oslo process and subsequent agreements, Israel and the PNA have developed a relationship of mutual recognition. It's not exactly diplomatic exchange, but it's actually very close. This came about by an exchange of letters between Rabin and Arafat in Sept. 1993.
"In response to your letter of September 9, 1993, I wish to confirm to you that, in light of the PLO commitments included in your letter, the Government of Israel has decided to recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and commence negotiations with the PLO within the Middle East peace process." Rabin to Arafat, 1993.
These commitments were subsequently incorporated by reference in later agreements. See Gaza-Jericho Agreement, May 4, 1994; Transfer of Powers Agreement, Aug. 29, 1994. It's important to note that these agreements conditioned Israeli recognition on a) its own from Palestine, and b) the PLO's compliance with transfer protocol. And through the promulgation of the Palestinian Constitution, drafted in accordance with mechanisms the PLO agreed to, this obligation was met. See Basic Law of Palestine, Introduction (Incorporating the Principles of the Oslo Agreements by reference). This means, in short, that international Israeli obligations toward authorities in West Bank and Gaza exist, but extend only so far as those authorities in the occupied territories are Constitutional per internal law.
Fast forward to the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections. As in many semi-presidential systems, the Palestinian president has the ability (indeed, the Constitutional obligation) to re-form the cabinet if elections produce one that performs short of its legal mandate. (Examples include anything from the mundane--like failing to maintain confidence or supply--to the treasonous--like usrping powers inhering in the Commander-in-Chief). After giving the victorious Hamas government ample opportunity to conform to its legal duties, President Abbas dissolved it, and installed one that would--a Fatah-led coalition.
Of course, this was a bold step. And, frankly, I feel Abbas was a hero for doing it. Alas, Hamas objected.
That leads us to the present. President Abbas, (in my opinion) fully faithful to the Constitution, did everything within his power to abide by and preserve it. And thus, the West Bank government, established in accordance with his powers, derives every bit of authority and legitimacy the Oslo Agreements entitle it, as long as it also upholds its legal duties.
So, basically, if Israel ever attacked the West Bank government, there would be a strong case for holding its conduct to the stringent restraints imposed by international law. But, with regard to Gaza, the claim seems flimsy.
(Of course, note that this conclusion rests on the constitutionality of Abbas' dissolution of the Hamas government. I realize that Hamas partisans could raise the claim that their governance conformed to the Basic Law, or, in the alternative, any deviations therefrom couldn't overcome their due deference sufficiently to trigger a dissolution. But--come on. They maintained an independent army claiming exclusive military authority in Palestine. If that's not textbook ultra vires,I don't know what is.)
Again, President Abbas, I salute you.
So, what are these "facts" I was "denying"? I find few facts, and no denial. I find allegations that are supported only by a few statements, which themselves have no great indicia of reliability. Apparent facts, at this point, include (1) Israel did at times encourage people in Gaza to seek safe haven in particular places (presumably, specific schools, UN buildings, etc.); (2) Israel did on several occasions fire upon, or drop bombs upon, schools, UN buildings, etc.; (3) people who do not appear to have been combatants were killed and injured when this happened (including some who cannot have been combatants, such as infants and small children).
I'm not even aware of strong evidence that the specific schools/facilities hit by Israeli fire were the same ones to which it suggested people go, let alone the more inflammatory things you claim. I do know that Hamas habitually uses such facilities as a base from which to attack. They do not need permission from anyone to do so -- they're the ones with the guns, so they just go in and set up. Although it would be consistent with what I've seen of the UN's operations in Palestine for the employees there to turn a blind eye to such actions, that's not what I suggested.
Thankfully, some of us are not so jaded as to accept "stuff happens". And some of us will never become immune to the deaths of human children.
And some of us understand warfare, and indeed have been studying/practicing it for years, even while Israel was just a dream in the cradle.
What is happening in Gaza is not justifiable "warfare". And "stuff happens" is not an acceptable conclusion. An honest investigation is needed.
Sure, fire away. Across the border from Israel. Sounds like a fair fight to me.
...
Sound fair? That way, innocent lives are not lost, and you can concentrate on targeting the bomb throwers and Hamas militants, not infants women and children.
This is a fascinating juxtaposition that clearly illustrates that you don't know what you're talking about. The precise reason Israel invaded was to not use artillery and thereby kill more relative innocents. In case you're wondering, there's a reason it's called the Hama massacre - when Assad pere literally leveled the town with artillery.
If you're willing to condone Israel firing back with artillery, but not a much more surgical strike, I really don't get your point. Maybe just to throw up a fog of confusion?
Just don't invade, herd civilians into supposedly safe UN compounds, then claim your soliers -- your trained fighting force -- either were so endangered that in self defense that had to kill/maim thousands of innocents, or that they misread/mistargeted the GPS coordinates. Because it just smells funny the 15th time one apologizes for such a mistake, then makes it again and again and again.
Israel often preemptively apologizes, and then investigates and finds out that no apology was appropriate, see, e.g., Mohammed Al-Dura.
W/r/t your silly outline:
Invade
Herd
Endangerment or Misreading
Firing Back
I think I've already dealt with your problem of invading, above. Herding was done for obvious humanitarian reasons. Endangerment was because Hamas folks realized that the herded civilians would make a great propaganda show.
Do you save any of your opprobrium for the folks who decide that their dead children would make a good show? Should people who knowingly endanger their own civilians by firing from nearby have the blame for their actions?
W/r/t misreading - accidents do happen in war. I'm quite sure that there have been more than 15 friendly fire incidents in say Afghanistan. This is just silly.
You only addressed one of Lubin's points (whether the police academy is civillian or military, for which it's a close call in my view). What about his arguments concerning both JAB and JIB? I would add that I disagree with Lubin that the criterion of "last resort" has been met. Diplomacy that might result in a no-rockets, no-blockade, no-weapons smuggling cease fire has not been given a sufficient chance.
Is it incumbent upon one who could respond with superior force, to let its civilians be terrorized and (in small numbers) injured and killed, while it negotiates with its attacker? Or do you envision some other sort of diplomacy?
MARTINNED: No desire to obtain information, so no.
The definition you cited said, "punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed." Punishment does not demand desire to obtain information. So, is the Marine Corps Drill Instructor torturing recruits when he punishes the whole platoon for the actions of one man? If the same behavior were observed in Gitmo, would it be torture?
ELLIOT: Can an action be torture in one nation, while it is not torture in another?
MARTINNED: Yes, see previous points.
This implies whatever is legal in any given state cannot be torture. Is that correct? Therefore there is no standard of behavior that applies to all states. Each can do what it pleases as long as it has a law saying it is OK.
ELLIOT: Can torture only be inflicted by authorities?
MARTINNED: Torture in the sense of the CAT can only be committed under the colour of authority. It says so right there in one of the final clauses of the definition.
Is there torture outside the sense of CAT? Torture that is not subject to that final clause? If so, what is the definition that would apply to all states? CAT appears very limited. Can insurgents torture? Can an out of power political party torture?
How about a prison guard who isn't seeking information, isn't punishing for any act, and whose actions aren't condoned by "a public official or other person acting in an official capacity?" The guy just likes to hurt people. On Monday nobody knows about his flogging, so it isn't torture. On Tuesday, a superior finds out about it, so now it is torture. On Wednesday a law is passed saying it's a lawful sanction, so once again it isn't torture?
You're right, I overlooked that. Still, it wouldn't be torture unless it were severe, and even then one could argue the final clause applies.
This implies whatever is legal in any given state cannot be torture. Is that correct? Therefore there is no standard of behavior that applies to all states. Each can do what it pleases as long as it has a law saying it is OK.
No, it just means that punishment for a crime is not torture, so someone being whipped in Saudi-Arabia is not necessarily being tortured.
Is there torture outside the sense of CAT?
Sure, but that is up to domestic law.
Torture that is not subject to that final clause? If so, what is the definition that would apply to all states? CAT appears very limited. Can insurgents torture?
If they have belligerent status (see above), the can be the subject of obligations under international law.
Can an out of power political party torture?
No.
How about a prison guard who isn't seeking information, isn't punishing for any act, and whose actions aren't condoned by "a public official or other person acting in an official capacity?" The guy just likes to hurt people. On Monday nobody knows about his flogging, so it isn't torture. On Tuesday, a superior finds out about it, so now it is torture. On Wednesday a law is passed saying it's a lawful sanction, so once again it isn't torture?
On Monday, he's a criminal under domestic law (one hopes). On Tuesday, he's still a criminal, but if the superior doesn't do anything, they might be liable to criminal sanction as well. On Wednesday, there would have to be an actual crime and an actual trial for anything to change.
Found by whom? No court or tribunal has ever had the opportunity to examine the evidence and decide one way or the other. (People who win wars don't get prosecuted.)
There is a detailed analysis of the current law on the use of nuclear weapons in the ICJ's advisory opinion on the matter. Most of this law already goes back to the Hague Conventions, i.e. before WWII. One would imagine that the bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would normally be found to be in violation of art. 23 of the 1899 convention, specifically:
As well as article 23 of the 1907 convention:
It is cold comfort to dismiss JAB as irrelevant because international law does not officially recongize it. JAB's principles are worthy of serious legal analysis. Regarding JIB, it could go either way, which gives credence to the legal claims against Israel.
There was an extensive cease-fire period prior to the most recent conflict in which negotiations could have been pursued. There is another such period right now.
I have not intently followed day-to-day events there, but I do know that Gaza launched rocket attacks intermittently throughout the prior "cease fire" (often followed by responsive raids or airstrikes by the Israelis). These escalated toward the end of the "cease fire" and increased dramatically after it ended. Israel warned that it would respond aggressively, then did so.
Arguably Israel should have negotiated during the "cease fire", but is it not the attacker (here, Gaza) that has the obligation to negotiate before attacking? I don't want to delve into the whole history of the conflict, but how is it Israel's fault, in this instance, that Gaza attacked without Israel first negotiating?
OK. Would his exact same actions be torture on any day? I presume a criminal can torture.
"No, it just means that punishment for a crime is not torture, so someone being whipped in Saudi-Arabia is not necessarily being tortured."
Can you elaborate on the word "necessarly?" When is the Saudi whipping as punishment for a crime torture?
A nation can make a law against whatever it chooses. It can then assign whatever punishment it chooses to those who break the law. Therefore, I'd suggest the CAT definition actually lets a nation do whatever it chooses without having its actions classified as torture. The more repressive and authoritarian the regime, the easier it is.
Ergo, while no one has said that there can be no criticism of Israel unless they show "little or no consideration" of the laws of war, it should be axiomatic that critcism based on Israel supposedly showing So, there can be no criticism of Israel unless they showing "little or no consideration" of the laws of war is not valid unless Israel did indeed So, there can be no criticism of Israel unless they show little or no consideration of the laws of war.
What part of this do you find confusing?
Ordinarily, on all three days, his actions would be aggravated assault. They would also fall under CAT to the extent that colour of authority/chain of command is implicated.
Can you elaborate on the word "necessarly?" When is the Saudi whipping as punishment for a crime torture?
Never. I wrote necessarily to take into account the possibility that the Saudis might torture someone by whipping them, i.e. not as punishment for a crime.
A nation can make a law against whatever it chooses. It can then assign whatever punishment it chooses to those who break the law. Therefore, I'd suggest the CAT definition actually lets a nation do whatever it chooses without having its actions classified as torture. The more repressive and authoritarian the regime, the easier it is.
That is to some extent true. You will note that most civilised countries feel that the US practice of executing people is a violation of human rights. (Though not torture.)
Then again, the definition in article 1 of CAT is immediately followed by:
Some of what you describe might violate ICCPR guarantees of due process and other similar rights. Also, AFAIK countries that torture usually tend to simply hide that fact, rather than trumping up charges, etc., if for no other reason than that if you're going to disguise torture as punishment, you have to say in advance how many whiplashes, electric shocks or whatever the victim will receive, which is usually not part of the plan with torture.
Torture is negative reinforcement to obtain results. Usually doesn't work well...
Much as I disagree with it, there's a long and highly successful tradition of training animals using "negative reinforcement to obtain results". Similarly, torture can indeed be quite effective in obtaining information. I condemn torture, but dismissing it as not working well is both glib and ignorant, thus weakening your argument.
Fascinating. I was not aware of any movement among German Jews to overthrow that country and slaughter its non-Jewish inhabitants.
Have you ever watched C-Span? I think the answer is definitely YES.
No. I said that your words are remarkably similar to those that would come out of bin Laden's mouth. If you want to justify that with supposed distinctions, that's your business.
And again I ask: is it really so hard to imagine Israeli soldiers operating with reckless indifference to the lives of Palestinian civilians?
You would do well to pay closer attention.
I concede the point that if Israel is not in fact "showing little or no consideration for the laws of war" it would be wrong to criticize them on this ground.
I should have been more clear on my critique of David's post. I found it flip for him to dismiss "proof of isolated violations" because they did not amount to a showing that Israel had "little or no consideration" for the laws of war. Proof of isolated violations (not sure if it was intended to be plural) is fairly condemning.
Sure, you could say that there will always be violations ("contrary to army policy"), but is that a good enough standard to judge oneself by? Should Israel be proud that there are only isolated violations of international law?
We may disagree here, but I appreciate your comment and I hope I clarified my critique.
There were only sporadic rocket attacks from mid-June through early November that were characterized by Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center as being carried by rogue organizations while Hamas was careful to keep the ceasefire.
Thou shalt not Steal
Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's. (Including thy neighbors life.)
A lack of an objective standard does not equate with an absence of law. If it did, we could ignore much of what the courts do. To the contrary, laws work in the presence of vagueness and ambiguity.
Agreed on these points. I haven't said there was a systematic ignoring of rules. However, in these cases, there needs to be some sort of calling to account. Furthermore, I see no reason to see the IDF is very publically forthright in these areas (certainly not as forthright as the US armed forces). For example, considering that the Associated Press says that the IDF individuals told them their internal investigation showed the shelling of the UNRWA school was unintentional, and thus a tragic accident, and the UNRWA claimed the same thing a day before, why is the IDF still claiming, officially, to intentionally bomb a school?
Note the IDF is not disavowing communications with the AP or UNRWA, but rather just contradicting them. Is the IDF any more transparent than the French government? Maybe the official spokesmen really don't know what the investigation showed?
There is another concern though, and I am not at all certain I would raise it to the level of war crimes. Fighting in densely populated areas, like Gaza, is tricky business, and the IDF has exercised reasonable restraint. However, I am surprised by the reliance on artillery and mortars in these areas instead of more accurate guided missile systems. Certainly the former are less expensive, but they also have hidden costs, in the lives of the UNRWA schoolchildren (if the AP reports are to be believed, and the mortar shell that hit the school actually missed its target), and also IDF soldiers (friendly fire accidents with tank shells an the like). While any claim that these are legally disproportionate would hinge on facts I am not privy to, it doesn't seem a wise choice of weaponry.
Once again, the above paragraphs are about politics and competence more than about war crimes per se. But they need to be looked at as well.
OK, I apologize for being mistaken on that point. It's peripheral to my questions (and here), however. After termination of the cease-fire, Hamas/Gaza re-initiated hostilities; doesn't that affect the analysis re negotiation?
Your two paragraphs are directly contradictory. If you know warfare (and apparently you are at lest 75 years old), then you know that, indeed, regardless of the best of intents and care, stuff does indeed happen.
As for jaded, sorry... that's low and wrong. The issue isn't the emotion one feels over the deaths of innocents, the issue is the proper characterization of the actions that led to those deaths.
You sounded pretty immune when you were lusting about the maiming of Israeli innocents earlier.
Suggesting that Gazan civilians be killed in greater numbers so as to stick it to libs and "Euro-weenies", sort of disqualifies you from serious discussion of this issue.
Heh. "Sort of" disqualifies me? You are a weenie. You should've said it ABSOLUTELY disqualifies me! Libs are so predictable...
In any event, I see no downside to Israel for doing exactly that. What's gonna happen? The world will say how bad they are? That's happening already. How would things be any different?
Surgical strikes in Gaza = world comdemnation.
Bomb the hell out of Gaza = world condemnaton.
Why not bomb the hell out of Gaza. The more I think of it, the better it sounds.
Awesome comment.
Meanwhile:
The silence in response to this second Bernstein Challenge is pretty deafening.
Bomb the hell out of Gaza = world condemnaton.
Nuke both Gaza and Tel Aviv = world standing ovation
American liberals, by almost two to one, have more sympathy for Israelis than for Palestinians. Get a grip.
Because Israel is guided more by morality than by world approval. And, thank God, not at all by what sounds good to you.
It doesn't seem to matter. The Jew-haters control the discussion anyway. And Europe is lost to them for sure. So what has Israel to lose by blowing Gaza to smithereens? Seriously - what is the downside?
I'm just an American who's tired of the Palestinian crap and the crap from their pathetic lib allies. If I were actually dealing with rocket attacks on a daily basis, I'd be agitating to turn Gaza into a sea of glass and make Gaza the modern-day equivalent of Carthage.
You know that there's no downside. You just hope they don't do it. But if history is any guide, despite their numbers, the Palestinians are going to get what's coming to them eventually. Keep crying wolf, libs, and you'll see.
It's not hard to imagine the possibility of one or two soldiers being recklessly indifferent. But it's not hard to imagine that being the case for any standing army.
If you're trying to say Israeli soldiers in general are recklessly indifferent, then given that Palestinian civilian deaths number less than a thousand and given that such deaths probably do not even constitute a majority of Palestinian deaths, yes, I do find that hard to imagine. I certainly don't think the US army as a whole has been recklessly indifferent toward Iraqi and Afghani lives, despite less flattering numbers. If Israel is recklessly indifferent, I can't think of a single military conflict in history that didn't involve both sides being recklessly indifferent to civilian casualties. Now, my knowledge is limited to major conflicts, so feel free to correct me.
Just to make sure you're not using anything Israeli:
* Don't use your cell phone (first developed in Israel)
* Don't use any Intel chips based on the x86 architecture (all based on Intel chips developed in Israel) or any AMD chips that are made to be compatible
* Don't use Windows XP (yup, you guessed it)
* Don't use AOL IM or ICQ (ICQ was developed in Israel, AOL IM is based on it) or most any IM client (all based on the ICQ idea)
* Don't pay taxes for many modern American defenses (a lot of our avionics were developed or co-developed with Israel, some missiles, or anti-missile missiles)
* Don't use a lot of medicine, like ingestible cameras (recently developed in, you guessed it, Israel)
FWIW, Israelis have won a widely disproportionate share of Nobels in sciences, so you might not want to do anything that relies on science.
I suppose none of that is a contribution that's worth mentioning. But it compares fairly favorably to the Palestinian contribution:
* Perfected the human bomb (originated by the Tamil Tigers, but the Palestinians really pushed it)
* Improved the usage of human shields
etc...
I can't think of one thing on par with developing cell phones that has come out of the Palestinians, or for that matter, the entire Arab world, apart from oil.
That still doesn't mean I'd advocate bombing them to kingdom come.
Inspect your data: Japan builds all cell phone batteries, Japan builds all steppers which etch chips, Japan alone makes composite materials found in Israeli (US) weapon systems, Japan also makes many components in Israeli (US) weapon systems. Israel could disappear tomorrow, and some guy in Tokyo would still be able to download at 1Gbps at home and 5Mbps on cell phone. Be certain that other peoples have much more advanced weapons technology, and these peoples won't allow vengeful Purge survivors to imperil the entire human race over a few olive trees.
Hamas fights from where? Anyplace it likes. But it owns the results. In this case, it's morally and legally responsible for the deaths of civilians resulting from its decision to fight from among civilians. If there are no places without civilians, it either chooses not to fight, or it accepts the blame.
Stevie:
Did I hear you say that it was wrong to use WP smoke on places there weren't even any IDF soldiers? And did I hear you say you've been studying war?
Oof.
You don't smoke your own guys. It would blind them, allow the enemy to fire into the smoke with a good chance of doing damage, and your guys couldn't manuver out of the smoke without being even more vulnerable.
You smoke the other guy. Blind him, disorient him, he can't see you and you move around as you like.
That's the doctrine since forever.
How do you like knowing that every, single, solitary veteran you ever said this to rolled his or her eyes?
If you won the lottery, I'm afraid a clue would still be beyond your means.
You're talking about making. I'm talking about inventing. Honestly, I'm just providing you a service - since the cell phone, e.g., was first invented there, you might not want to use the current version if you're afraid of the cognitive dissonance of saying Israel is worthless while using something that might provide some value and is from there.
Unless one diagrees with the assessments that the alternative to nuclear weapons would be an invasion of Japan that would cause at least a million American lives and huge civilian casualties, the use of nuclear weapons was neither superfluous nor unnecessary.
Name any significant public figure who believe that. Otherwise, you're just trash talking.
Three words: Mitsubishi Fighter Plane.
Two words: Zero II.
Three words: Mitsubishi Stealth Fighter
I think that Japan is quite capable today of building sufficient armaments to defend themselves and their interests. Only the continued legacy of WWII is slowing that down, but it is not stopping this process.
Such an argument, of course, is naturally and immediately generalized: No one ever deserves credit for anything, because someone else would have done it anyway. Eventually. (Though the evidence to date says that, since at least 1200 AD, it would not have been an Arab.)
but on the other hand ... it's a scene involving dropping bombs from planes on people's houses. You can say "strategic strike" all you want, but when you drop a bomb on someone's house, innocent people are going to die. I get no vicarious pleasure out of the suffering and dying of others in a distant war.
and finally ... the war with Hezbollah in 2006 could not be the last word on the IDF's capabilities vis a vis a hostile semi-army. I've heard Hezbollah is a lot stronger than Hamas, so maybe they're unpersuaded still, but I have to think this war against Hamas will help Israeli's security vis a vis other armed groups such as hezb-allah.
I think that they say "Hey this is the way Jews are supposed to behave". Though there are probably some Guardian readers who squeal with delight.
During the period between renewed hostilities (from both sides) in early November until the expiration of the ceasefire in mid December, Hamas offered to extend the ceasefire if Israel lifted the blockade. Israel rejected the proposal because there were no mechanisms to prevent weapons smuggling. However, that should have been enough progress for a temporary extension to work out the details of a more comprehensive settlement.
Two problems: First, though the Executive Force is paramilitary, that doesn't make it a combatant for purposes of the law of war. It addresses internal security, operating against e.g. armed Fatah and clan groups; operations against Israel are the business of the Qassam Brigades. Second, the Executive Force isn't "the police"; there is a separate civil police force, which is indeed "a bunch of traffic cops and whatnot", and Israel has been targeting it.
Anyway, we have Israeli government spokesmen's word for it that Israel is targeting non-combatants; e.g.:
Because of course, that's exactly what we'd do. Wolverines, anyone?
Indeed, why not?
Your running fast and loose with the term non-combatant. Is a munitions factory in an enemy nation off limits? Can you draw the line where Hamas stops being a terrorist organization and starts being a non-profit? If you do, its arbitrary, because there is no line.
Why haven't you flipped that question over? If Gaza is the one of most densely population regions on earth how can Israel battle the people launching rockets at their civilians without collateral damage?
Are you arguing that no matter the provocation Israel can't bring the fight to Gaza? Isn't that the logical outcome of what you are saying?
Perhaps this could be accomplished by Hamas not lobbing rockets indiscriminately into Israel?
The world sees civilians herded into UN schools and refugee camps (within an overall refugee camp that is Gaza) and then Israel bombs them. Deliberate or not, the deed is done and the dead add up.
Who herded them into these areas anyway? Were they actually 'herded' or did they seek refuge in areas which Hamas then exploited by using as safe havens. In most of these cases, the Israelis claim that they were receiving fire from these areas. Are you prepared to reject these claims out of hand while accepting any Hamas, ICRC or UN claim unconditionally?
White phosporus shot in areas where no Israeli soldiers are, thus no justification of it as a smoke screen to clear an area. Hundreds of innocents burned. (infants are always innocents)
Completely false. This is a statement that could be made only by someone who is totally unfamiliar with the use of smoke on a battlefied. It's main uses are as an obscurant or marker. The rounds could by shot at targets hundreds or thousands of meters away from the nearest friendly unit in order to make it difficult for any elements in the target area to fire at friendly units. It is totally justified to do the same thing so as to mark a target area so that friendly forces can engage in direct and indirect fire to either suppress or destroy the target area.
I simply cannot understand the thought processes and mental gymnastics some of the posts on this board are making.
While those are modern Japanese defenses, I was discussing modern American ones, so I'm not quite sure what your point was. Yes, people other than Israel have made great inventions - I wouldn't dispute that. Yes, they have done so in the field of defense. All I'm saying is that Israel has made significant contributions, and folks who think it hasn't should try to be consistent and not take any of the benefits of using them.
Another fallacy
Look at the history of this conflice, and the more and more voices speaking out against Israeli aggression that never seems to accomplish its aims...
Actually, for 60 years our "aggression" has completely accomplished its aims; we have survived.
We have also made peace with two of our neighbors (Egypt and Jordan), and were in serious negotiations with most of the rest (Syria and the PA) until they were disrupted by Hamas.
The PA, voices across Europe and the muslim world, and in the US find it easy to imagine that Israel planned or carried out the 9/11 attacks.
Face it, some people can and have imagined anything.
[Hint: you can't.]
"... it appears the school wasn’t hit at all. Canada’s Globe and Mail reports that, according to local eye-witnesses, those who died were all outside the school in the street where all three Israeli shells landed:"The claim that Israel had shelled refugees huddling for shelter on the school’s property was therefore totally untrue."
Your running fast and loose with the term non-combatant. Is a munitions factory in an enemy nation off limits?
Nice piece of sophistry there: strawman and red herring in one.
Given the blatant targeting of non-combatant arms (the Executive Force, the civil police) along with combatant arms (the Qassam Brigades), one might wonder whether there are facts unknown to us on which Israel is relying, that those ostensible non-combatants are in reality no such thing. The quotations from Israeli Government spokesmen assure us that it's no such thing; Israel just isn't "making distinctions between the various wings". It doesn't pretend that the civil police are combatants; as far as it's concerned, it's enough that they're "instruments of [Hamas's] political and social control.
What is what we'd do? No idea.
But that's the law. Fight from among civilians, own the results.
Let's consider the concern a given.
Okay?
Concern box checked.
Discussion may now resume.
My concern has more to do with the enabling behavior of those who argue in favor of the parties using human shields.
What kind of incentive do you think your arguments provide Hamas? My belief is that train of thought is the direct cause of more dead children, not less - if Hamas feels the need or desire, manufacturing dead children is pretty easy - particularly in a culture that "values death more than life", and holds that value as a virtue.
If you don't have enough dead kids, Israel might succeed.
Hamas would say: don't worry, we'll make more!
History has shown that winning a war as quickly, powerfully, and effectively as possible saves more lives than a prolonged war running in fits and starts.
Wrong. Morally and legally wrong.
You and your Neocon troll buddy Moore, either respond to argument or shut up.
You discern between this country's legal system and its mores. As this country's laws derive from its mores, should you find the mores inconsistent with its laws, go find another country with laws consistent with your mores.
I am referring to the GC, which is not a creation of the US.
Belligerents are not supposed to take positions among protected parties [civilians, generally]. If they do, the legal blame for civilian casualties in the ensuring fighting falls to them.
Your esthetics may be outraged. That's different from violating a statute.
Your mindreading is not working. Actually, I'm more of a paleo-con. Never, ever was a liberal.
As to the argument - which one of the various postings you have throw out?
Factually wrong as well. Willfully factually wrong.
Cognitis, if Israel were to gas every civilian near Hamas fighters, your argument would not appear as morally obtuse as it does. Given Israel's efforts to hold down civilian casualties even at risk to its own forces, your analogy is not only off base but revolting.
Sounds very familiar? How/why?
I don't know Saul Austerlitz, but just as I give no added weight to harsh critiques of Israel by those who start by observing that they are of Jewish descent, I give no added weight to ones by those who profess to be Zionists, especially when they emphasize that they are also "progressives." Richard Silverstein of Tikun Olam, a signer of that statement found on the blogsite of another "progressive Zionist" (The Magnes Zionist, aka "Jeremy Haber," who regularly questions Israel's legitimacy as a sovereign state deserving to remain one), is an excellent example of why skepticism is warranted. Among his recent fulminations over the fighting in Gaza, Silverstein, who like TMZ peppers his blogging with Hebrew and religious precepts, expressed his earnest wish that Hamas not compromise or otherwise bend to pressure to settle quickly?! He has said many outrageous things in the past, never tasking Israel's enemies for anything, but this one still managed to surprise me, coming as it did from someone who angrily insists he is a Zionist. Silverstein, who cannot stand to be contradicted, banned me last year for telling him that he was as much a Zionist as someone who enjoys a cheeseburger is a vegetarian.
Israel's enemies are most appreciative of Israelis and Jews who are most condemnatory of Israel, no matter their personal bona fides.
If the robbers are shooting at innocents, or even police, they'll be taken down, no questions asked.
cognitis, your dog won't hunt. 1,300 dead constitutes a "bummer," not a war crime, unless the percentage of combatants in the casulty statistics is no higher than it is in the general population.
Before Operation Cast Lead, there were about 13,000 Hamas militants out of a general population of about 1.5 million (about 1%).
So cognitis, you wanna bet that no more than 13 of the 1,300 killed were terrorists?
If not, what are you really doing here?
self-styled "American Jewish progressives" (some of whom, I note, seem to assert their Jewish identity only when its useful for bashing Israel)
What, do REAL Jews assert their Jewish identity at all times, or adamantly refuse to mention it when they're discussing Israel?
Being of Jewish descent neither makes your views on Israel more or less valuable, nor does it tell you whether or not someone is anti-Semitic.
Because Jews can STILL be "anti-Semitic" (like if the oppose the actions of the state of Israel), right? As for the first part, how can you say that with a straight face? Since much of the discussion about Gaza is a discussion AMONG Jews, and Israel is a largely Jewish state, isn't it obviously helpful if those who wish to take part in the discussion identify if they are Jewish - even if you personally find their opinion to be garbage?
As usual with such statements, not a single documented violation of the laws of war is mentioned.
And as usual, you refer to such a customary omission to imply that there are no documented instances to be discussed, when in fact there are plenty.
Say what you will about the wisdom, or even morality, about the IDF's actions in Gaza, the idea that it acts "with little or no consideration for the law of war" is absurd.
I agree that the letter's phrasing is a clear overstatement - as it's obvious that Israel does care at least somewhat about the law of war, not least with a view to towards PR fiascos, which explains why it formed a rather Orwellian National Information Directorate well in advance, prohibited repoprters from getting in, videotaped when it thought it was behaving well, has subsequently prohibited publishing the names of officers involved and apparently promised all IDF members a defense for any war crimes charges.
As for "the wisdom, or even morality, about the IDF's actions in Gaza", let's studiously avoid that, shall we?
As for the English colonel who has said that there has been "no time in the history of warfare when an army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and the deaths of innocent people than the IDF," we start to get to a key point: how can anyone possibly take this argument seriously when it is very clear that the IDF has treated virtually all civilian infrastructure - including UN (and American) schools and food storage facilities - as "military" targets?
I note that while you raise a challenge to the signers of the "ignorant" statements to identify "Precisely what "laws of war" [they] claim Israel violated in Gaza," you conveniently ignore the bulk of their broad criticism of Israeli actions (and US policy) - criticsms of "the mass destruction unleashed by the State of Israel ... following years of Israeli occupation, siege, and deprivation", of "the carte blanche given Israel by the US government" and that Israel's "conduct of the military operation has been unjust", if not criminal - in favor of a narrow focus on whether laws of warfare were broken.
But if you want to discuss law, I note that Jerry Huber, in the comment thread of his post at TMZ that you link to, specifically refers to legal arguments not only by David Luban at Balkinization, but also further and broader arguments by lawyers and academics at the Times.
It seems to me Luban's main point is as follows: The legal arguments raised in the Times involve a broader scope than simply the recent IDF actions:The deliberate destruction of public infrastructure seems to be a common thread. I imagine you have also seen the case that George Bisharat of Hastings College of Law outlined at the Wall Street Journal two weeks ago.
It's nice that you acknowledge that there might have been "possible ... isolated violations of international law by a unit here or there", but there seems to be ample evidence of rather widespread cases, of (1) shooting civilians with white flags (including young children and elderly) trying to leave areas under heavy attack, (2) deciding deliberately to obliterate particular areas despite knowledge of heavy civilian presence (like the slaughter of the Samouni and other families in Zeitoun, where scores were killed in a single house) and (3) refusals to treat injured civilians (like the brother and father of the Middlebury grad), to let ambulances in or allow such civilians to leave.
Anyway, quibbles about "controversies" about "allegations" of misbehavior aside - which we can all be confident that Israel will investigate thoroughly and fairly all by itself - the whole pattern of Israel behavior suggests not that there was "little or no consideration" to the laws of war, but that, indeed, Israel considered such principles very carefully in advance and decided that paying lip service to them was quite important.
I've thought about that and I don't think anybody would be well-served by being ruled by the guys most skilled at hiding among civilians.
YMMV. Obviously does, come to think of it. Or perhaps only as long as it's Jews under the boot. Most lefties I know want that for others, not for themselves.
And as for your, "As for the first part, how can you say that with a straight face? Since much of the discussion about Gaza is a discussion AMONG Jews, and Israel is a largely Jewish state, isn't it obviously helpful if those who wish to take part in the discussion identify if they are Jewish - even if you personally find their opinion to be garbage?," thanks for the signaling. Such patent nonsense boldly announced upfront lets me know that I ought not waste my time with the rest. (We are not conducting an opinion poll here, so it's in no way "helpful" to be told whether the speaker claims to be a Jew or not. The point is reasoned discussion, to which knowledge of whether the speaker does or doesn't claim to be a Jew contributes little or nothing.)
Maybe it's just Israeli propaganda, but I've been hearing a lot recently about how Hamas members' houses have three stories: the bottom story is an armaments store, the middle story is for business meetings, and the family live in the top story. And yet apparently, Israel still calls the family members to warn them that the house (which is 2/3 military) is about to be hit? And the Israelis clearly have some military targets they refuse to hit, despite their great military value, like Shifa hospital, precisely because the civilian collateral damage would be too high.
Perhaps I'm just misinformed, but if any of this is true, it seems pretty asinine to accuse Israel of "targeting civilian infrastructure". Unless of course you're implying that they shouldn't have targeted anything at all.
As far as I know, Israel has a prety strict distinction within its own infrastructure between the civilian and the military. And yet Hamas has targeted Israel's purely civilian infrastrucutre to the almost complete exclusion of its military infrastructure. For instance, they've bombed a number of Israeli schools whose purely civilian status has never even been questioned. And yet that is not considered by anyone to be a war crime. It seems to me that if Israel is guilty of war crimes, Hamas must be guilty of all the same war crimes and then some... I really can't understand how it could be otherwise, but maybe that's why I never became a lawyer.
Just asking, thanks.
What, do REAL Jews assert their Jewish identity at all times, or adamantly refuse to mention it when they're discussing Israel?
I think the implication is that the instances of when they did and when they didn't wouldn't be so glaringly lopsided.
I knew a guy in college who, when applying for grad schools, made a big point about being hispanic because he thought it would help him get admitted. I asked him if he had just made that up and he said no, his grandfather was Mexican. Kinda pathetic, no?
I guess you would say:
What, do REAL Mexicans assert their hispanic identity at all times, or adamantly refuse to mention it when they're applying for schools?
And most Richards I know eat chalk. Think that's a reliable sample we could generalize from?
Still more OT: when the university learned that the family had put one over on them, should they have expelled the matriculant? Would it have been unfair or impermissible to do that? Had they done so, would they have been admitting to something they'd rather not admit to?
Thanks for finally responding to argument rather than just insulting with inanities like "that's wrong". Israel has never before and does not today recognize Hamas as either the legitimate authority in Gaza or the representative of the Palestinians in Gaza; so Israel then could only define Hamas as a criminal and not as a state, similar to the US' defining Mexican drug gangs as criminals and not as invading Mexican armies. Israel observes Gaza's entire coastline, mutual border, Gaza's airspace, and de facto Gaza's border with Egypt; so Israel de facto if not de iure governs Gaza, even if only as a guard. If Israel then needs to apprehend criminals from Gaza, it must function as police and not as military.
Jonathan:
Learn to read. Your argument doesn't pertain to mine: my argument depends on police's culpability denoted by my "exculpate" and doesn't pertain to police procedure denoted by your "they'll taken down".
The family put nothing over on them. Their last name was Hispanic. Legally, that makes them Hispanic.
For fun, my daughter mentioned her Native American heritage (low percentage) on an application to Stanford. The forms that came back would have made Hitler's eugenicists proud!
Also, the student was qualified, although more qualified students were passed over.
Neurodoc, can reasoned discussion ignore that fact that Israel is a Jewish state and that Jews like to talk about it amongst themselves? In a discussional about tribal matters, is signalling whether one is in- or out-tribe impermissible?
I agree that there are reasoned discussions that can ignore ones Jewishness, but this doesn`t seem to be one of them - which is why David and other pro-Israel commenters frequently refer to tribal identity aspects.
Since the discussion is politics and warfare, not Jewish religion or culture, Jewishness contributes nothing. Being Israeli is relevant. Being Jewish isn't. Some Israel critics may announce their Jewish identity to deflect real or imagined criticism of their views, but Jews get no dispensation from other Jews just for being Jewish.
It seems you do a good enough illuminating it on your own, but I belief that the legal argument made about border crossings is that in the case of Gaza they - together with Israel`s control of Gaza airspace and interdiction of commerce by sea (to the extent of shooting at local fishermen) in effect constitute "collective punishment" not permissible under the Geneva Convention.
Gazans and those who provide humanitarian relief pay heavily for this in many ways (lost jobs, high prices, high duties), to the benefit of Israel (as much of what is allowed in is sourced in Israel).
Some of his conclusions?(emphasis added)
The December 14, 2006 decision, concurred in by Justice Dorit Beinisch, now the president of the High Court) and Eliezer Rivlin, can be found in English here. Much of the analysis appears relevant to the decision to attack Gaza and the waging of that attack.
Subsequent reports by Haaretz indicate that the Israeli government has been violating the proportionality and other criteria laid out by the High Court.
I guess I wasn't clear enough. Wrong morally and legally. Ditto factually, as another poster pointed out I missed.
Whatever your parsing of the legal status of the various entities--not that you're right--the fact is that Hamas acts as the government of Gaza and Gaza thus acts as if it were a state at war with another state.
However, to go with your argument. Think of the IDF as a giant SWAT, ramped up because the subjects of the arrest are protected by hundreds if not thousands of trained--partially at least--insurgent fighters armed with light weapons, heavy machine guns, anti-tank weapons, and various kinds of mines and boobytraps. Not to mention the sympathies of guys like you.
How many cops did it take to finish off the SLA? Were there a dozen of the morons in that house? Did they have automatic weapons, heavy machine guns, RPGs?
Sorry, sport. Either way, you lose.
Not only you. People like you who put such store by dead kids give dead kids value. Which motivates the bad guys to kill more of them, stage more fights from among kids, find pix of kids killed by Hamas' own mischances.
No such thing as too many dead civilians.
my argument depends on police's culpability denoted by my "exculpate" and doesn't pertain to police procedure denoted by your "they'll taken down".
Right you are cognitis. I amend:
If the robbers are shooting at innocents, or even police, they'll be taken down, no questions asked, and the police responsible will be given a commendation.
==> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimebag_Darrell
Scroll down to Death section. :)
I've no interest at all in your opinion of Hamas' recognition, but rather I cite the documented fact of Israel's denial to Hamas of any recognition. Israel itself then doesn't define Hamas as either Palestinians' representative or Gaza's government; so, Israel cannot make Hamas responsible for Palestinian civilian casualties, since Israel itself doesn't define Hamas as responsible.
Both your and Jonathan's examples confuse and render incorrectly my example, so I dismiss them without any argument; both of you need to read others' arguments more carefully or don't respond to them at all.
You need to learn how to behave when you lose an argument.
I guess that's one of those "you wish" thingies.
He wishes the IDF would send a couple of guys--preferably women, now that I think about it--into Gaza, in cop uniforms armed with pistols. To "arrest" the perps. Alleged perps.
Cognitis. Ref recognition, non-recognition, etc. Irrelevant. Booooring, even. Point is Hamas acts like a government in geographically defined area and is making war on its neighbor. No parsing of recognition can logically or legally restrict the neighbor's response. If you act like a sovereign nation making war on your neighbor, you can depend on guys like cog to try to give you cover.
Mostly it doesn't work. And the cogs of the world look kind of sketchy trying it.
Point is that Hamas acts like a government of a tightly blockaded penal colony, whose only sustenance is provided by donor nations. Israel is the sovereign nation that has found a great racket in skimming off the humanitarian assistance whose flow it controls (and which it can increase by occasionally putting the colonists "on a diet") and in getting the US to subsidize its efforts to "defend" itself by shunting as many Palestininas as possible into similarly controlled Bantustans, while counting on guys like you to give them cover.
That in these circumstances some Palestinians find that they can improve their own status by objecting violently is hardly surprising, while indeed fortunate for their counterparts in Israel, who profit by returning the violence a thousand-fold. Poor Israelis, forever forced to slaughter Palestinians!
It's possible to be more wrong. But it would be a lot of work.
Take a break.
Or perhaps we shall just second Richard Aubrey's observation.
(Richard Aubrey, nice concision there with your response to New Yorker. Yes, there are those who maintain "terrorism," if they will allow that notion, is a "crime," and thus we shouldn't go to war over it, but rather should leave it to police forces, and those police forces should be restrained in how they go about it too. Wouldn't want Ehud Barak disguising himself as a woman to take out Palestinian "freedom fighters" either.)
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.