Arrest warrant issues for Israeli dignitaries

wes

Overheal wrote: »

But in fact you cited the Goldstone Report as follows: Perhaps you need to clean up this statement then.

My statement is pretty clear imho, I said the Goldstone report shows Israel was indiscriminate in its attacks, and then I conclude Hamas use of Human Shields (assuming it happened) is irrelevant as a defense. I taught I was perfectly clear.

Overheal

Nodin wrote: »

You know that using human shields was standard (and considered legal) IDF procedure for 30 plus years...?

So youre saying the 2009 casualty figure of 929 civilians: they died because they were used as IDF Human Shields?

Im not saying they Didnt use Shields in the Ground Invasion, but the least Im saying is Both sides are guilty of it.

wes wrote: »

My statement is pretty clear imho, I said the Goldstone report shows Israel was indiscriminate in its attacks, and then I conclude Hamas use of Human Shields (assuming it happened) is irrelevant as a defense. I taught I was perfectly clear.

You thought it was clear. It wasnt

Sorry, but you're scenario is so pretentiously disingenuous and hyperbolic, I'm not going to even begin to entertain it.

Lets keep it clean then: a Soldier is firing on UN peacekeepers. The Soldier is using Human Shields. How should the UN peacekeeping force respond?

wes

Overheal wrote: »

Did YOU know, that while I find that interesting Im not sure why thats relevant when discussing the 2009 casualty figures. Where these 926 civilians all being use as IDF Human Shields?

If you read the links to the Goldstone report, HRW report or the Amnesty report above, you will find Israel did use Human Shields during the most recent Gaza conflict and there past extensive use of it is relevant to show what happened in Gaza is not a isolated incident.

The Saint

Hellm0 wrote: »

Despite my interest in cataloging misdeeds, I must ask;

Are these warrants justified?

I think they are, and seeing the English government back down on this is sickening.

The British government had nothing to do with the warrent being withdrawn. The warrent was issued on the basis that Livni was going to travel to the UK. When it became clear that she was not going to travel the warrent expired. Standard practice really.

As for human shields, Amnesty and Goldstone stated that Israel used huan shields in Gaza.

If a high level Hama miliary leader who was involved in commiting war crimes during the conflict was to travel to the UK I would hope that a warrent would be issued for their arrest also. I think this tool should be utilised for all war criminals regardless of the side they are on. It might make leaders think twice about their actions.

Overheal

wes wrote: »

If you read the links to the Goldstone report, HRW report or the Amnesty report above, you will find Israel did use Human Shields during the most recent Gaza conflict and there past extensive use of it is relevant to show what happened in Gaza is not a isolated incident.

I wont disagree with that, I think theyre both guilty and one should not blithely ignore one side's War-Crimes to criticize the other. Which reminds me Dfolnep, not once have you acknowledged Hamas tactics or War-Crimes.

wes

Overheal wrote: »

You thought it was clear. It wasnt

Well apologies if you didn't find what I said to be clear.

Overheal wrote: »

Lets keep it clean then: a Soldier is firing on UN peacekeepers. The Soldier is using Human Shields. How should the UN peacekeeping force respond?

Quick question, was the majority of civilian deaths a direct result of Hamas using Human shields? I have seen no evidence of this, and all the information from the Goldstone report, HRW report, and Amnestys report show that the majority of civilians deaths of Palestinians were not due to the actions of Hamas, and were due to Israelis indiscriminate attacks on civilians.

wes

Overheal wrote: »

I wont disagree with that, I think theyre both guilty and one should not blithely ignore one side's War-Crimes to criticize the other.

I am not ignoring Hamas's war crimes, but I think it fair to say there is a massive scale difference between the 2.

Don't get me wrong if a Hamas leader went to the UK (unless it was diplomatic mission of course), I would applaud any inevitable arrest.

Overheal

wes wrote: »

Quick question, was the majority of civilian deaths a direct result of Hamas using Human shields? I have seen no evidence of this, and all the information from the Goldstone report, HRW report, and Amnestys report show that the majority of civilians deaths of Palestinians were not due to the actions of Hamas, and were due to Israelis indiscriminate attacks on civilians.

I honestly dont know. But when somebody keeps pointing the finger squarely at Israel for those deaths I think its foolish not to look at Palestinian tactics and policy, for instance,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0wJXf2nt4Y

Which is why I am saying, If Hamas on the Contrary, had a policy of telling its civilian bystanders to barricade their homes and stay out of the conflict the casualty figures would have been significantly less. But they dont, they want them in the crossfire, and thats infuriating and retarded. Much more so when Palestinian sympathizers come on here placing all of the blame on anyone but Palestine while choosing to ignore this aspect.

dlofnep

Overheal wrote: »

Which reminds me Dfolnep, not once have you acknowledged Hamas tactics or War-Crimes.

Yes I have. I was the one who originally posted the results of the Goldstone report, and I agreed with it's accusations of war-crimes by both the IDF and Hamas. I find Hamas tactics to be wrong, and they risk the lives of innocent civilians.

The Saint

Overheal wrote: »

I honestly dont know. But when somebody keeps pointing the finger squarely at Israel for those deaths I think its foolish not to look at Palestinian tactics and policy, for instance,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0wJXf2nt4Y

Which is why I am saying, If Hamas on the Contrary, had a policy of telling its civilian bystanders to barricade their homes and stay out of the conflict the casualty figures would have been significantly less. But they dont, they want them in the crossfire, and thats infuriating and retarded. Much more so when Palestinian sympathizers come on here placing all of the blame on anyone but Palestine while choosing to ignore this aspect.

I'd find a better source than MEMRI if you're going to back things up. They've been known for their inaccurate translations before. I'm not saying what you posted is wrong but I wouldn't put much credibility in the source. That video was also put up in March 2008, long before the Gaza conflict. If we are talking about the Gaza conflict we should probably use relevant sources.

wes

Overheal wrote: »

I honestly dont know and im not here to find that Conclusion. But when somebody keeps pointing the finger squarely at Israel for those deaths I think its foolish not to look at Palestinian tactics and policy, for instance,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0wJXf2nt4Y

Memri, eh?

From Sourcewatch.org:
Middle East Media Research Institute - Issues of reliability and veracity

Issues of reliability and veracity

MEMRI is operated by a group closely associated with the Israeli intelligence organizations. Now, in an article in Haaretz, we find that the Israeli Army has sought to plant stories about "terrorism" in the press, and

"Psychological warfare officers were in touch with Israeli journalists covering the Arab world, gave them translated articles from Arab papers (which were planted by the [Israel Defense Forces] IDF) and pressed the Israeli reporters to publish the same news here." --Amos Harel, IDF reviving psychological warfare unit, Haaretz, January 25, 2005.

This should raise a question or two about the reliability and veracity of the stories peddled by MEMRI.

This is what Prof. Juan Cole had to say about this:

"So is MEMRI, which translates articles from the Arabic press into English for thousands of US subscribers, in any way involved in all this? Its director formerly served in… Israeli military intelligence. How much of what we "know" from "Arab sources" about "Hizbullah terrorism" was simply made up by this fantasy factory in Tel Aviv?
As someone who reads the Arabic press quite a lot, this sort of revelation is extremely disturbing.
I also saw an allegation that British military intelligence had planted stories in the US press about Saddam's Iraq.
You begin to wonder how much of what you think you know is just propaganda manufactured by some bored colonel. No wonder post-Baath Iraq looks nothing like what we were led to to expect by the press, including the Arab press!" [2]

Another assessment:

If you rely on MEMRI for your knowledge of Arab discourse, you are really not informed. Arab public opinion, based on MEMRI's releases, is reduced or caricatured to either Bin Laden fans or Bush fans, while Arab public opinion is mosty a fan of neither people. --As'ad AbuKhalil [3]

Although widely used in the mainstream media as a source of information on the Arab world, it is as trustworthy as Julius Streicher's Der Sturmer was on the Jewish world. --Norman Finkelstein [4]

Wafa Sultan

Los Angeles based Syrian/American Psychiatrist Wafa Sultan appeared on an al-Jazeera television show opposite Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouly, a lecturer at Cairo's Al-Azhar University. Memri offered a heavily edited version of the show, and mistranslated several of the exchanges, making it appear that al-Khouly had issued a death fatwa against Sultan. Wafa Sultan became known as someone who had her life threatened because of her "Clash of Civilizations" point of view.

It turns out that Sultan had appeared on a daytime al Jazeera show, roughly equivalent to Jerry Springer, that Western Educated Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouly had not issued a fatwa, and as he is not a recognized Mufti, had he issued a fatwa, it would not be considered in any way, authoritarian.

A secularist blog covering topics broadly related to MENA, named Aqoul, took a tape of the whole show, and translated it, making it available in a PDF file: Transcript Translation: al-Jazeera - The Opposite Direction (26/02/2006). Posts on Aqoul, as well as one on the Winds of Change blog offer a great deal of insight into the distortions:

* Fatwas and Wafa Sultan, Aqoul, March 15, 2006
* On MEMRI & Translations: Winds of Change, a Thread Reply, Aqoul, March 29, 2006
* How to be a Muslim reformer, Aqoul, March 13, 2006
* MEMRI Mendacity, brief thoughts, Aqoul, October 14, 2006
* A Fine Illustration of MEMRI Mendacity, Aqoul, October 14, 2006
* Wafa Sultan: A tale of two transcripts, Winds of Change, March 30, 2006

There hardly known for accurate translations, as can clearly be seen from above.

Again the Goldstone report, HRW, and Amnesty place the blame squarely on Israel for the majority of dead Palestinian civilians. The Israeli's directly attacked civilian targets, and there claims (the Israelis) have been refuted by the Goldstone report, HRW report and the Amnesty report.

**EDIT**
Btw, none of the source I mentioned absolve Hamas of all wrong doing, or anything. I just disagree with you assertion that Israel murder of Palestinians is actually all Hamas fault, there action detailed in all those source, show they targeted civilians infrastructure and other civilian targets.
**END EDIT**

Overheal wrote: »

Which is why I am saying, If Hamas on the Contrary, had a policy of telling its civilian bystanders to barricade their homes and stay out of the conflict the casualty figures would have been significantly less. But they dont, they want them in the crossfire, and thats infuriating and retarded. Much more so when Palestinian sympathizers come on here placing all of the blame on anyone but Palestine.

Again, the actions of Hamas don't work as a defense all that much, when the Israeli's go around attacking civilian targets. Also, how do you propose people stay in there homes for a month or 2? They do need to leave and get food and water, and staying in your house isn't worth a damn if a bomb falls or white phosphorous is dropped on it.

Trying to shift the blame on Hamas doesn't really work, as all the evidence shows that Israel is responsible for its actions and Hamas are not to blame for what Israel has done.

Overheal

dlofnep wrote: »

Yes I have. I was the one who originally posted the results of the Goldstone report, and I agreed with it's accusations of war-crimes by both the IDF and Hamas. I find Hamas tactics to be wrong, and they risk the lives of innocent civilians.

Then you and I have an Accord today.

Btw, none of the source I mentioned absolve Hamas of all wrong doing, or anything. I just disagree with you assertion that Israel murder of Palestinians is actually all Hamas fault, there action detailed in all those source, show they targeted civilians infrastructure and other civilian targets.

I have not in anyway held or expressed that belief to the best of my knowledge.

Trying to shift the blame on Hamas doesn't really work, as all the evidence shows that Israel is responsible for its actions and Hamas are not to blame for what Israel has done.

Thats a rather wordy way of avoiding having to say Hamas is responsible for its own actions, just as Israel is responsible for its own actions. Its wrong of them to use Human Shields as much as its wrong to fire on those human shields. All I have said is I do not in any way find Hamas blameless in those civilian casualties JUST BECAUSE it was at the end of Israeli weaponry. The Israelis fired, and civilians were forcibly placed in harms way.

Nodin

Overheal wrote: »

The Israelis fired, and civilians were forcibly placed in harms way.

A presumption. You've no idea of the extent to which it occurred. Some of the most examined incidents did not take place in that manner.

Nor does this cover Israels targeting of the sewerage system, the only remaining powered mill, and the main hatchery, killing 30,000 chickens. Were Hamas hiding behind the chickens too?

In short, whatever Hamas may have done, Israel committed war crimes again and a warrant is justified.

Overheal

Nodin wrote: »

A presumption. You've no idea of the extent to which it occurred. Some of the most examined incidents did not take place in that manner.

Nor does this cover Israels targeting of the sewerage system, the only remaining powered mill, and the main hatchery, killing 30,000 chickens. Were Hamas hiding behind the chickens too?

In short, whatever Hamas may have done, Israel committed war crimes again and a warrant is justified.

oh youre right. Hamas is so ****ing innocent i should just slit my throat now :rolleyes:

youre pointing at Chickens and proclaiming them innocent? Here: I shot youre dog. Youre no less guilty of running over my cat.

dlofnep

Overheal wrote: »

oh youre right. Hamas is so ****ing innocent i should just slit my throat now :rolleyes:

youre pointing at Chickens and proclaiming them innocent? Here: I shot youre dog. Youre no less guilty of running over my cat.

You're losing track of his point.

His point was that, Israel were firing indiscriminately. He did not say Hamas are innocent. He was pointing out that Israel have committed war-crimes, and thus - the warrant is appropiate.

Hellm0

Overheal wrote: »

oh youre right. Hamas is so ****ing innocent i should just slit my throat now :rolleyes:

youre pointing at Chickens and proclaiming them innocent? Here: I shot youre dog. Youre no less guilty of running over my cat.

Hungry people with limited access to proper sanitation, an on off supply of natural gas, a decreasing share of the available water supply and rolling electrical blackouts do some pretty weird things. Combine that with the theft of your homeland, the murder of your family members and a cultural propensity for religious extremism and you have an explanation (NOT AN EXCUSE) for the Palestinian perspective.

Nodin

Overheal wrote: »

oh youre right. Hamas is so ****ing innocent i should just slit my throat now :rolleyes:.

I never said they were.

Hamas still exist because of the failure of the West, and the secular elements, to address exactly what you ignore - the occupation and colonisation of the West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem, Golan etc. Should they go, another group will emerge. Perhaps the happy go lucky types of Islamic Jihad will start gaining a few more followers......

Of course if you prefer suicide bombers, car bombers and miscellaneous shootings to arrest warrants, sanctions and all that 'paperwork' oriented stuff well and good. Personally I'd rather see Israel in the dock.

wes

Overheal wrote: »

Thats a rather wordy way of avoiding having to say Hamas is responsible for its own actions, just as Israel is responsible for its own actions.

Hamas are responsible for there actions , I never said otherwise. However, there action don't excuse Israel.

Overheal wrote: »

Its wrong of them to use Human Shields as much as its wrong to fire on those human shields. All I have said is I do not in any way find Hamas blameless in those civilian casualties JUST BECAUSE it was at the end of Israeli weaponry. The Israelis fired, and civilians were forcibly placed in harms way.

How often did this happen then? All the evidence I have seen showed that the civilian casualties are the direct result of Israel targeting. Again, the Goldstone report, HRW report and Amnesty report, blame Israel for the most part for the civilian casualties, they certainly don't let Hamas off scot free, but they blame Israel largely from what I can see, and this is due to Israel being indiscriminate in who they attacked.

BlaasForRafa

Hellm0 wrote: »

What, like this?

Have you any evidence that Israel was involved in that operation? No of course you don't, its completely off-topic.

FlutterinBantam

Indeed, Yull Edelstein has refuted all these spurious claims.

BlaasForRafa

Nodin wrote: »

A presumption. You've no idea of the extent to which it occurred. Some of the most examined incidents did not take place in that manner.

Hamas deliberately put civilians in the line of fire. This video shows hamas operatives driving towards civilians as they are being targeted by Idf helicopters knowing that the pilots would have to pull their missiles in order to avoid civilian casualties.

BlaasForRafa

Nodin wrote: »

I never said they were.

Hamas still exist because of the failure of the West, and the secular elements, to address exactly what you ignore - the occupation and colonisation of the West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem, Golan etc. Should they go, another group will emerge. Perhaps the happy go lucky types of Islamic Jihad will start gaining a few more followers......

Of course if you prefer suicide bombers, car bombers and miscellaneous shootings to arrest warrants, sanctions and all that 'paperwork' oriented stuff well and good. Personally I'd rather see Israel in the dock.

What have hamas got to do with the golan?

Also Operation Cast Lead did a great deal to limit palestinian terrorism, at the end of the day Israel proved that it was right to carry it out due to the fall off in attacks since then.

Overheal

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Hamas deliberately put civilians in the line of fire. This video shows hamas operatives driving towards civilians as they are being targeted by Idf helicopters knowing that the pilots would have to pull their missiles in order to avoid civilian casualties.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUeSE3WWX_M

fyp

The Saint

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Also Operation Cast Lead did a great deal to limit palestinian terrorism, at the end of the day Israel proved that it was right to carry it out due to the fall off in attacks since then.

That has to be one of the most bizarre statements and justifications I've seen for the assault.

Even assuming the historical premise for your assertion is correct, that's like saying that a child that was crying and annoying me, I smothered the child, now I'm no longer annoyed. It was therefore a success.

Anyway, it's pretty much off topic.

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Hamas deliberately put civilians in the line of fire. This video shows hamas operatives driving towards civilians as they are being targeted by Idf helicopters knowing that the pilots would have to pull their missiles in order to avoid civilian casualties.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUeSE3WWX_M

A video posted by the IDF?

I think it fair to say that the IDF aren't above lieing e.g. Mark Regev repeatedly denying the use of white phosphorous, and I certainly wouldn't trust them as any kind of accurate source, in much the same way, as I am sure no one here would trust Hamas as a source.

How does this video absolve Israel btw? Even if the video is accurate (big if considering the source), how does this one video refute the Goldstone report, HRW report and the Amnesty report? Don't get me wrong, I am sure Hamas got up to all sorts of criminal behavior, and the Goldstone report, the HRW report and the Amnesty reports all detail it, but there actions hardly absolve Israel, who were caught red handed attacking civilian targets, as detailed in the aforementioned reports.

Overheal

wes wrote: »

A video posted by the IDF?

I think it fair to say that the IDF aren't above lieing e.g. Mark Regev repeatedly denying the use of white phosphorous, and I certainly wouldn't trust them as any kind of accurate source, in much the same way, as I am sure no one here would trust Hamas as a source.

How does this video absolve Israel btw? Even if the video is accurate (big if considering the source), how does this one video refute the Goldstone report, HRW report and the Amnesty report? Don't get me wrong, I am sure Hamas got up to all sorts of criminal behavior, and the Goldstone report, the HRW report and the Amnesty reports all detail it, but there actions hardly absolve Israel, who were caught red handed attacking civilian targets, as detailed in the aforementioned reports.

Nobody is trying to absolve anybody in this thread. I believe he was merely pointing out again that the IDF cant be to blame for all of those civilian deaths. Wait for the IDF to launch Ordnance at you and then charge into a mob of civilians? Unfortunately we dont have an airmen on forum to ask but judging from the clip those targeters use a very high power scope to track and tag the missile target. You can only see the target vehicle and the 3 metres surrounding it.

Manic Moran

How about air-bursting chemical weapons on a civilian population in a built up area?

I do wish whoever started that myth would be dipped alternately into WP and Sarin so that he can tell the difference. WP is no more considered a chemical weapon than a bomb filled with Tri-Nitro-Toluene.

As far as the OP is concerned, it's the most bizarre arrest warrant I've ever heard of. Nobody was saying who requested it, who authorised it, what the grounds are, or even if the CPS approved of it.

NTM

Sleipnir

Manic Moran wrote: »

I do wish whoever started that myth would be dipped alternately into WP and Sarin so that he can tell the difference. WP is no more considered a chemical weapon than a bomb filled with Tri-Nitro-Toluene.

NTM

Fine, so it's not a chemical weapon in the sense that it not an agent that is toxic to humans, but I suppose if you're 13 years old and someone has dropped WP over your house, killing your sister and there's a big lump of it burning a hole in your back, you're not thinking about the actual definition.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2009/jan/19/gaza-phosphorus-victim

WP is a chemical and the Israelis use it as a weapon.

And please don't tell me that they use it as a smokescreen.
If a platoon of troops in the street need a smokescreen you don't call in artillery to deliver it. And you certainly wouldn't air-burst it!
Look at this video and tell me it's being used as a smokescreen and not as a weapon.

Manic Moran

Sleipnir wrote: »

WP is a chemical and the Israelis use it as a weapon.

TNT is a chemical compound, and it's used as a weapon. So is Octol. So is anything else found on the average battlefield for the last few hundred years. The difference is that due to their effects on the human body relying on chemical effect, some have been declared to be chemical weapons. WP relies on the more traditional blunt concept of physically destroying the body instead of interfering with the body's functions.

You're right, having it burn into you probably isn't very pleasant. Neither is having your arm ripped off by a .50 cal heavy machinegun. Slinging weapons around results in many painful ways to get killed or injured.

And please don't tell me that they use it as a smokescreen.
If a platoon of troops in the street need a smokescreen you don't call in artillery to deliver it. And you certainly wouldn't air-burst it!

The expert speaks? Airburst is the fastest way to create a smokescreen. This is why the latest vehicle and hand-held smoke grenades are on a sub-second fuse, so that they burst in mid-air, instead of fizzing around on the ground billowing from the bottom up. Artillery smoke is thicker, lasts longer, and obscures a whole hell of a lot more than smoke grenades. If you're in contact and need smoke, there's a three-stage process. First thing, is throw your own obscurants. That'll get you a minute or two. Then the artillery delivered WP arrives, which replaces the thinning handhelds. The next salvo of rounds to arrive is going to be a mix of WP and High Concentration 'seeding' rounds. And then finally, you'll just have HC Smoke for the rest of the fire mission if you need it to last that long.

Look at this video and tell me it's being used as a smokescreen and not as a weapon.

It's being used as a smokescreen and not as a weapon.

How do I know? I don't. But I don't know it is not either, since there's no indication of the unit calling in the artillery, or what their thought process was. The only thing that video shows are the rounds landing. There is as much evidence to support the one contention as there is the other. Though if I were using WP as a weapon in a built-up area, I'd set it for ground burst, to make sure that the splash went up in through the windows and set the place alight instead of just falling on concrete and roofs with only occasional incendiary effects.

I will also observe some of the comments in the video. The evidence that the WP emissions are toxic are a local saying "It smells poisonous, so must be dangerous". In reality, there is no known incident of anyone being injured or killed by inhaling WP fumes, it's categorised as a mild irritant in the manuals somewhere below exhaust fumes from vehicles. You will also note that the objection from the Human Rights interviewee is that 'It's being used as a weapon against civilians'. If so, then that's not a factor of the weapon. It's considered unlawful to use any weapons against civilians, be it traditional bombs or rifles. And, we go back to the question of what the intent of the strikes were, with no indications one way or the other being provided in that video.

Incidently, there's no flat prohibition on the use of WP as a weapon either. It's quite effective in certain circumstances. 'Shake'N'Bake' being one of the more traditional methods of use.

NTM

wes

Overheal wrote: »

Nobody is trying to absolve anybody in this thread. I believe he was merely pointing out again that the IDF cant be to blame for all of those civilian deaths. Wait for the IDF to launch Ordnance at you and then charge into a mob of civilians? Unfortunately we dont have an airmen on forum to ask but judging from the clip those targeters use a very high power scope to track and tag the missile target. You can only see the target vehicle and the 3 metres surrounding it.

I am sorry, but why should I believe a IDF video? They can easily only show us what they want and make it seem like its something that its not. The simple fact is that the IDF will happily lie if and when it suits then, again the example of Mark Regev on Channel 4 news blatantly denying the use of White phophorous comes to mind. To put it simple, I don't trust the IDF, in much the same way I am sure if I presented anything from Hamas other here wouldn't (rightly) trust them either. Basically, what we have here is one sides propoganda directly presented by them, and we are suppose to take it at face value?