Israel's latest attacks on Gaza.

Selkies

quad_red wrote: »

Human Rights Watch said that during past hostilities both sides have failed to take adequate steps to remove civilians from areas where there was fighting, putting them at unnecessary risk. A senior IDF legal advisor recently told Human Rights Watch that it is still standard procedure for IDF troops to detain civilians in houses in which the IDF deploys, thus exposing them to danger of attacks from Palestinian forces.'

Wow that is disgusting, I mean they probably have some military advantage to doing that but these are innocent civilians, not military equiptment!

I'd like to see the pro Israeli folks on the boards show their true colours on this one and admit that in this case at least, the IDF are commiting a war crime.

Selkies

concussion wrote: »

Raven, is that what the paper says? If so, they're wrong, the treaty states no such thing. What it (The 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons) states is that "incindiery weapons are those which are primarily designed to set fire or burn persons through flame or heat, such as napalm and flamethrowers."
You cannot attack civilians with incindiery weapons and you cannot attack military facilities within civilian areas with air-delivered incindiery weapons.

If its designed for creating smoke screens or for marking/signalling then there's nothing stopping it's use.

So is the smoke screen actually causing harm, like say it blew into a civilian population?

concussion

Selkies wrote: »

So is the smoke screen actually causing harm, like say it blew into a civilian population?

The smoke itself isn't toxic, phosphoric acid is formed in moist air but this would only cause minor skin irritation (Coca Cola contains this acid). In high concentrations it could cause lung irritation or worse, but thats the same for anyother kind of smoke really.

raven136

concussion wrote: »

Raven, is that what the paper says? If so, they're wrong, the treaty states no such thing. What it (The 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons) states is that "incindiery weapons are those which are primarily designed to set fire or burn persons through flame or heat, such as napalm and flamethrowers."
You cannot attack civilians with incindiery weapons and you cannot attack military facilities within civilian areas with air-delivered incindiery weapons.

If its designed for creating smoke screens or for marking/signalling then there's nothing stopping it's use.

yep thats a direct quote from the times and its a leader on the website also.Didnt know myself just threw it out there to see what people thought

BlaasForRafa

quad_red wrote: »

Again, I think any moderate commentator realises that many Palestinian factions exaggerate death tolls for the sake of publicity.

You haven't even bothered to say whether or not the IDF is guilty of war crimes. You've just off hand dismissed Palestinian claims.

There are numerous documented incidents of appalling behaviour. Yet you seem only capable of thinking one side capable:

by groups such as Human Rights Watch:
'
The IDF's last major ground operation in Gaza, from February 27 to March 3, 2008, killed 107 Palestinians, more than half of whom were civilians, and wounded more than 200. Two Israeli soldiers died.

Human Rights Watch's detailed field investigation of that operation found serious violations by the IDF, including the killing of a wounded man getting treatment in an ambulance, the shooting deaths of two civilians on donkey carts, and the shooting and wounding of two men in IDF custody. In two cases, tank crews opened fire on unarmed civilians. All of these incidents took place in an area that was firmly under the control of the IDF. Palestinian medics and ambulance drivers also faced restrictions on their ability to treat the wounded and dead - both civilians and combatants - and came under fire that killed one medic.

In February-March 2008, as on other occasions, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups placed civilians at risk by firing rockets and mortars from densely populated areas and storing weapons in civilian structures. Those acts, too, violate the laws of war.

Human Rights Watch said that during past hostilities both sides have failed to take adequate steps to remove civilians from areas where there was fighting, putting them at unnecessary risk. A senior IDF legal advisor recently told Human Rights Watch that it is still standard procedure for IDF troops to detain civilians in houses in which the IDF deploys, thus exposing them to danger of attacks from Palestinian forces.'

I don't discount the fact that Israeli's may have committed war crimes, what I do dispute is the bias of palestinian claims and those of some NGOs

Human rights watch seem to have a lack of understanding of urban based warfare. Its an unfortunate fact that if Hamas uses civilians as human shields that sometimes the shields will get killed or injured.

Also they seem to be unaware that Palestinians use ambulances to transport fights and munitions whereas Israel does not use ambulances for this. Palestinians break the rules of war routinely yet rarely get criticised yet when Israel is even suspected of something there is a huge outcry.

BlaasForRafa

mrboswell wrote: »

The Arab forces had little appetite for war and it this was even further quenched by the brutal murdering of innocent civilians by the israeli forces - check that out to see how little YOU know.

People with any conscience certainly wouldn't want to donate anything to israeli monsters who pretend to want a lasting peace. Maybe if they got out of Palestine and removed the "security walls" to let them live in peace we might have a start there...

stop talking nonsense and then come back and perhaps we can talk. Until then go back to the la-la land you seem to exist in.

Call Me Jimmy

dlofnep wrote: »

Israel is America's largest recipient of military aid in the world.

He said "combined aid" of the other countries.

quad_red

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I don't discount the fact that Israeli's may have committed war crimes, what I do dispute is the bias of palestinian claims and those of some NGOs

To be fair, I think that you were pretty much dismissing that possibility. Your posts have poured ire on any 'palestinian claims'. You don't discount the fact that Israel 'may' have committed war crimes. My friend - if you are unable to concede that the IDF have committed quite a considerable many of what would be considered war crimes, with

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Human rights watch seem to have a lack of understanding of urban based warfare. Its an unfortunate fact that if Hamas uses civilians as human shields that sometimes the shields will get killed or injured.

I think the reality is that Hamas
A) Don't seem to care how many civilians are killed
and
Given the limited territory available and the overwhelmingly superior weaponry and logistical support, Hamas is de facto in the middle of civilians whether they want to or not.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Also they seem to be unaware that Palestinians use ambulances to transport fights and munitions whereas Israel does not use ambulances for this. Palestinians break the rules of war routinely yet rarely get criticised yet when Israel is even suspected of something there is a huge outcry.

Your claim re ambulances - beyond claims by IDF spokesmen (which carry as much weight as claims by Hamas spokesmen), where is the independent verification of this?

Isolated instances of soldiers hijacking ambulances does not justify the widescale and consistent hampering of the movement and provision of medical services to a million and a half people. And it certainly does not justify the documented instances of ambulances being deliberately targeted for doing no more than attempting to help injured people.

munchester29

quad_red wrote: »

Again, I think any moderate commentator realises that many Palestinian factions exaggerate death tolls for the sake of publicity.

You haven't even bothered to say whether or not the IDF is guilty of war crimes. You've just off hand dismissed Palestinian claims.

There are numerous documented incidents of appalling behaviour. Yet you seem only capable of thinking one side capable:

by groups such as Human Rights Watch:
'
The IDF's last major ground operation in Gaza, from February 27 to March 3, 2008, killed 107 Palestinians, more than half of whom were civilians, and wounded more than 200. Two Israeli soldiers died.

Human Rights Watch's detailed field investigation of that operation found serious violations by the IDF, including the killing of a wounded man getting treatment in an ambulance, the shooting deaths of two civilians on donkey carts, and the shooting and wounding of two men in IDF custody. In two cases, tank crews opened fire on unarmed civilians. All of these incidents took place in an area that was firmly under the control of the IDF. Palestinian medics and ambulance drivers also faced restrictions on their ability to treat the wounded and dead - both civilians and combatants - and came under fire that killed one medic.

In February-March 2008, as on other occasions, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups placed civilians at risk by firing rockets and mortars from densely populated areas and storing weapons in civilian structures. Those acts, too, violate the laws of war.

Human Rights Watch said that during past hostilities both sides have failed to take adequate steps to remove civilians from areas where there was fighting, putting them at unnecessary risk. A senior IDF legal advisor recently told Human Rights Watch that it is still standard procedure for IDF troops to detain civilians in houses in which the IDF deploys, thus exposing them to danger of attacks from Palestinian forces.'

The Human Rights Watch is known to be biased towards the Palestinians, so their report should be taken with a pinch of salt same as the Palestinian reports should.

munchester29

quad_red wrote: »

Isolated instances of soldiers hijacking ambulances does not justify the widescale and consistent hampering of the movement and provision of medical services to a million and a half people. And it certainly does not justify the documented instances of ambulances being deliberately targeted for doing no more than attempting to help injured people.

The Israelis do not deliberately target ambulances.
Doesn’t matter if you repeat it a thousand times – it will still be untrue.

I would love to see links that support your claim – any kind of official Israeli document giving such orders, incidents where IDF targeted ambulances deliberately, etc.

quad_red

munchester29 wrote: »

The Human Rights Watch is known to be biased towards the Palestinians, so their report should be taken with a pinch of salt same as the Palestinian reports should.

Says who? You? Because it actually documents these instances? From what I've read, it is attacked by both sides for perceived bias by both sides.

And that's always seems the de facto response to anyone trying to report abuses anyway. You're lying! You're pro-Israeli/pro-Palestinian!

Taken from the Human Rights Watch Website:

For its part, Hezbollah launched thousands of rockets on cities, towns, and villages in northern Israel, using a variety of unguided surface-to-surface rockets. These rockets killed 39 Israeli civilians and injured hundreds more. Hezbollah packed some of these rockets with more than 4,000 anti-personnel steel spheres (“ball bearings”) that shoot out upon impact, causing many of the civilian deaths and injuries. Hezbollah also fired Chinese-made cluster rockets, each containing 39 explosive submunitions as well as deadly steel spheres. At least 113 such cluster rockets hit Israel, causing one death and 12 injuries, according to Israeli police. The rockets also caused damage to civilian homes, businesses, the natural environment, and the economy. While Hezbollah appeared to target some of its rockets at military objectives, in some cases hitting them, many of its rockets hit civilian areas, far from any apparent military target. Such attacks—at best indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas and, at worst, deliberate attacks against civilians—violated the laws of war.

concussion

quad_red wrote: »

Human Rights Watch said that during past hostilities both sides have failed to take adequate steps to remove civilians from areas where there was fighting, putting them at unnecessary risk. A senior IDF legal advisor recently told Human Rights Watch that it is still standard procedure for IDF troops to detain civilians in houses in which the IDF deploys, thus exposing them to danger of attacks from Palestinian forces.'

Consider that, if they had not left before the fighting reached them, civilians may be more secure in their houses rather than running through the streets during a firefight, especially when one of the forces may be wearing civilian clothing and has a history of using suicide bombers.

Interesting to note that a 2002 Human Rights Watch report said Hamas leaders had committed war crimes for its repeated attacks on civilians.

munchester29

It’s

quad_red wrote: »

Says who? You? Because it actually documents these instances? From what I've read, it is attacked by both sides for perceived bias by both sides.

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/human_rights_watch_in_political_bias_against_israel_continues_despite_wider_middle_east_focus

Need I say more?

mrboswell

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

stop talking nonsense and then come back and perhaps we can talk. Until then go back to the la-la land you seem to exist in.

Eh... the massacre at Lod....when confronted by something that they viewed as remorseless as that from a race - the Jews - that suffered so many deaths could do this - is it any wonder that resident people fled and showed little resistance to the advancing army?

For someone that claims to know their stuff you are falling short.

I will admit that I'm not an expert and I try to read as much as I can fine that appears not to be biased to either side. I try to form an opinion from a human rights point of view. But as I have said previously I don't necessarily agree with Hamas, but do understand their driving force.

You go back to your "la-la land" you seem to exist in as in your case a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

quad_red

munchester29 wrote: »

It’s

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/human_rights_watch_in_political_bias_against_israel_continues_despite_wider_middle_east_focus

Need I say more?

Wow. That's pretty damning. NGO Monitor says that Human Rights Watch has a political bias against Israel. Despite reading through the Human Rights Watch site, and seeing clear and repeated references to Palestinian violations, overall, it's still not enough. It's anti Israeli.

And who are NGO Monitor?

Well, I took a flick around there. And the Economist (and if you call the Economist pro-palestinian, i'll laugh) calls it pro Israel.
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9804231

From the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/dec/11/selectivecriticism

However, as panellist Arik Ascherman from Rabbis for Human Rights pointed out, NGO Monitor "is only concerned with those organisations that oppose Israeli policies, and thus their own propaganda is in fact disingenuous"

quad_red

munchester29 wrote: »

The Israelis do not deliberately target ambulances.
Doesn’t matter if you repeat it a thousand times – it will still be untrue.

You dismiss, out of hand, reports of incidents where IDF personnel have attacked indiscriminately?

munchester29 wrote: »

I would love to see links that support your claim – any kind of official Israeli document giving such orders,

Are you joking? The only way you would accept that IDF personnel may have targetted medical worker in combat circumstances is if you see a specific Israeli document outlining their intention to do this?

mrboswell

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

He said "combined aid" of the other countries.

This combined aid includes the building of settlements on land that israel has stolen from many passive palestinian citizens, that they have taken and built security walls around for "security reasons". The settlers then come over, have accommodation built and receive "special" loans that if they stay there for a certain period of time then the debt is wiped.

Where do the Palestinian people go when they are replaced? Apparently its not israel's problem.

A US peace activist - Rachel Corrie - who was protesting at the demolition of a palestinian house, for "security reasons" in 2003, was run over and killed by an israeli bulldozer - eyewitness account http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2003/03/17/the-closest-eye-witness-account-on-the-murder-of-rachel-corrie/
Israeli efficiency for you - not a sign of remorse.
Even when the murder was brought up in the US senate it was swept under the carpet!

Incidentally, and don't quote me on this, I read somewhere that America gives approximately 2 billion dollars in military aid to israel each year....

munchester29

quad_red wrote: »

You dismiss, out of hand, reports of incidents where IDF personnel have attacked indiscriminately?



Are you joking? The only way you would accept that IDF personnel may have targetted medical worker in combat circumstances is if you see a specific Israeli document outlining their intention to do this?

Seriously, try to think about it logically for a second – why the hell would Israeli soldiers target ambulances intentionally, especially considering the PR disaster such incidents bring on Israel?
You really think that all Israelis are evil doers who just want to kill people all day long?
They have nothing better to do then to target ambulances? No terrorists left in Gaza?

I have heard unsubstantiated stories. I haven’t seen an official report blaming Israel with targeting ambulances as a matter of policy.

munchester29

quad_red wrote: »

Wow. That's pretty damning. NGO Monitor says that Human Rights Watch has a political bias against Israel. Despite reading through the Human Rights Watch site, and seeing clear and repeated references to Palestinian violations, overall, it's still not enough. It's anti Israeli.

And who are NGO Monitor?

Well, I took a flick around there. And the Economist (and if you call the Economist pro-palestinian, i'll laugh) calls it pro Israel.
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9804231

From the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/dec/11/selectivecriticism

However, as panellist Arik Ascherman from Rabbis for Human Rights pointed out, NGO Monitor "is only concerned with those organisations that oppose Israeli policies, and thus their own propaganda is in fact disingenuous"

I was hoping someone would see the irony with NGO monitors:D

quad_red

munchester29 wrote: »

Seriously, try to think about it logically for a second – why the hell would Israeli soldiers target ambulances intentionally, especially considering the PR disaster such incidents bring on Israel?
You really think that all Israelis are evil doers who just want to kill people all day long?
They have nothing better to do then to target ambulances? No terrorists left in Gaza?

I have heard unsubstantiated stories. I haven’t seen an official report blaming Israel with targeting ambulances as a matter of policy.

I think there's a misunderstanding here. I don't think there's a cabinet decision to blow up ambulances. But I think there's a callous disregard, on the ground, for innocents.

I think your mind is made up that all of the stories about appalling abuses committed by IDF forces are, by default, false unless they admit it.

With respect, I think you mind is totally clouded and that whatever the merit of any situation, you will favour the Israeli point of view regardless.

quad_red

munchester29 wrote: »

I was hoping someone would see the irony with NGO monitors:D

I'm not sure how that is ironic?

I cited serious and disturbing claims about the callous disrespect IDF troops show for non combatants.

You dismissed the claims by this respected NGO. An NGO that, as can be seen from their site and their annual reports, are equally damning about crimes committed by Palestinian forces.

And you based this dismissal on accusations from an unabashedly pro-Israeli group whose executive director appears to be a consultant for the Israeli Department of Foreign Affairs and National Security Council.

How is it ironic that you would reference this group?

Evd-Burner

This is all thick, Hammas fired rockets as an attack and Israel are defending themselves... It is that simple... They shouldnt have voted them in...

munchester29

quad_red wrote: »

I think there's a misunderstanding here. I don't think there's a cabinet decision to blow up ambulances. But I think there's a callous disregard, on the ground, for innocents.

I think your mind is made up that all of the stories about appalling abuses committed by IDF forces are, by default, false unless they admit it.

With respect, I think you mind is totally clouded and that whatever the merit of any situation, you will favour the Israeli point of view regardless.

The stories I could tell you about the atrocities Palestinians commit every day...
Should you believe all of them with no proof?

I would argue that your mind is clouded - you will favour seeing the Israelis as brutal murderers, and even ignore common sense when you hear the terrible stories.

munchester29

quad_red wrote: »

I'm not sure how that is ironic?

I cited serious and disturbing claims about the callous disrespect IDF troops show for non combatants.

You dismissed the claims by this respected NGO. An NGO that, as can be seen from their site and their annual reports, are equally damning about crimes committed by Palestinian forces.

And you based this dismissal on accusations from an unabashedly pro-Israeli group whose executive director appears to be a consultant for the Israeli Department of Foreign Affairs and National Security Council.

How is it ironic that you would reference this group?

The irony being that both Israelis & Palestinians blame the UN, the media, human rights groups, etc that they are biased towards the other side.
Both supporters of Israel and supporters of the Palestinians can provide endless links to articles and papers and reports that enforce their claims, and when you check a little deeper…

concussion

In nearly any conflict, but especially one in which a terrorist/subversive/paramilitary/insurgent force is a belligerant you are going to see civilians, aid workers and emergency personnel caught up in it. You are, from time to time, going to see hospitals, aid centres and ambulances fired upon, whether due to the 'fog of war' or for more sinister reasons. Tragic as it is, it happens.

Now I'm not interested in who's wrong, or wronger, but I'll just put this out there - would a professional soldier deliberately target clearly marked ambulances if he believed there were only civilians inside??

munchester29

I know it's off topic a bit, but I'm curious (also, please excuse the simplicity; I have to run along...)

Does anyone think that by supporting either side in this conflict, we actually contribute to lengthening the conflict and the suffering both Israelis and Palestinians go through?

If you support the Palestinians, then you actually support suicide bombings, rocket firing, the notion of Jihad against Israel, etc (feel free to virtually add to this list anything you want - doesn't really matter).
If you support Israel, you support a blockade; a suffering Palestinian population, etc (also, feel free to virtually add to this list anything you want - doesn't really matter)

The way I see it - if none of the involved parties in the conflict want the UN to help resolve things (I'm talking about the Israeli & Palestinian governments, not the people), then they should be left alone to fight it out, until at least one side actually requests help from the UN.

When that happens, the UN should get involved, but then the UN can actually set terms for both parties as agreed by the world's nations, terms such as - no rocket firing, no suicide bombers, no hits on individuals, no increase in settlements, etc.
A party which doesn't agree to the UN conditions should then be handled with all severity by a combined UN force.

Point is - as long as both sides seem to want nothing more than to fight each other, how exactly are we helping by supporting to parties that have violence on their minds?

Interested to know what you think...

Manic Moran

A senior IDF legal advisor recently told Human Rights Watch that it is still standard procedure for IDF troops to detain civilians in houses in which the IDF deploys, thus exposing them to danger of attacks from Palestinian forces.'

I'm not sure the IDF legal advisor said the 'thus' bit.

It seems to make the most sense and be the safest for both parties. Particularly if you're in the middle of a fight, the last thing you need are people you don't know roaming freely behind you. It tends to make you jumpy. Even within the same squad there's a lot of shouting and communications between the soldiers as they move from room to room to make sure nobody shoots the guy who just came in the door. On the other hand, if you turf the residents out into the street, well, they're in the open. Not very safe for them. Smartest thing to do is to corral all the residents into one back room and put a one-man guard on them until it's time for you to move on.

NTM

quad_red

munchester29 wrote: »

Does anyone think that by supporting either side in this conflict, we actually contribute to lengthening the conflict and the suffering both Israelis and Palestinians go through?

I think blindly supporting either side facilitates demagogues on both sides. It appears many Palestinian militants have zero interest in addressing the day to day suffering the Palestinian civilian population suffers and the Israeli government can claim self defense to justify any action.

munchester29 wrote: »

The way I see it - if none of the involved parties in the conflict want the UN to help resolve things (I'm talking about the Israeli & Palestinian governments, not the people), then they should be left alone to fight it out, until at least one side actually requests help from the UN.

There would be only one winner. Israel is backed by the greatest military power the world has ever known. The US shields it from international criticism, gives it access to state of the art weaponry and gives it billions of aid to allow it buy these weapons. Shorn of this support, it would be overwhelmed immediately. With this support, it remains untouchable.

munchester29 wrote: »

When that happens, the UN should get involved, but then the UN can actually set terms for both parties as agreed by the world's nations, terms such as - no rocket firing, no suicide bombers, no hits on individuals, no increase in settlements, etc. .

In terms of the UN setting anything - the UN is a lame donkey which will never impose any settlement when a superpower is involved.

And the terms that you mention, again, totally relates your own bias. You think a settlement should involve (rightfully) an end to rocket firing and suicide bombings. Basically, an end to the armed insurrection against what they see as the loss of all their lands and rights.

And, in return, Israel will stop 'hits on individuals' (euphemism for assassinations) and stop increasing settlements....

Er - where is the compromise there? What will Israel genuinely give up, in terms of territory, to make a two state settlement realistic and viable?

trentf

i wouldn't say it remains untoucable i mean if iran gets a nuke and they are well on their way to doing that its game over for israel and probably some of europe too...

Israel knows this and has been frantically upgrading its submarine fleet to dolphin class subs which carry nuclear warheads for this threat. I mean if israel gets hit they are planning on using this fleet to wipe out whoever launched the threat or just blanket nuke a known list of enemy countries.

trentf

i wouldn't say it remains untoucable i mean if iran gets a nuke and they are well on their way to doing that its game over for israel and probably some of europe too...

Israel knows this and has been frantically upgrading its submarine fleet to dolphin class subs which carry nuclear warheads for this threat. I mean if israel gets hit they are planning on using this fleet to wipe out whoever launched the threat or just blanket nuke a known list of enemy countries.