Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumExclusive: Schabas’ own colleague, human rights icon Aryeh Neier, calls for him to quit UN Gaza prob
GENEVA, September 30 – A top figure in the human RIGHTS world has called for William Schabas to “recuse himself” from the new UN probe on Gaza, undermining Schabas’ claim that the only people who believe he should go are critics of the UN. The statement was made last week by Aryeh Neier, founding director of Human RIGHTS Watch, former head of the ACLU, and President Emeritus of George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, and revealed today in a Wall Street Journal interview with UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer.
In a lecture at the SciencesPo Paris School of International Affairs, where Neier teaches together with Schabas, the former said that commissions of inquiry are one of the few good things to come out of the UN Human RIGHTS Council. Turning to Schabas, Neier called him a well known and leading scholar. However, given Schabas’ statement on bringing Netanyahu to ICC, Neier said that “Schabas should recuse himself.”
Neier said that “any judge who had previously called for the indictment of the defendant would recuse himself.” Schabas’ appointment gives Israel a perfect excuse to denounce the UN commission of inquiry, said Neier. “Why make it so easy for Israel to do so?” he asked. Neier went on to say that the sheer quantity of resolutions against Israel at the UN Human Rights Council gives Israel the ability to cast the HRC as “anti-Israel” and therefore to “justify its own rejections of the HRC.”
The revelation comes one day after a similar call by Mordechai Kremnitzer, a top Israeli LEGAL scholar who serves on the Public Council of the human rights group B’Tselem. “The damage to the inquiry is redoubled when its chair has already declared his desire to see the prime minister of Israel in the dock at the International Court of Justice,” wrote Kremnitzer in an op-ed. “He cannot be perceived as an unbiased investigator.”
http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2014/10/01/exclusive-schabas-own-colleague-human-rights-icon-aryeh-neier-calls-for-him-to-leave-un-gaza-probe/
Video at Link above.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)He'll be a member of a fact-finding team, the role of which is to collect evidence which will then be used by the United Nations to determine what, if anything should be done. Rather a different thing from sitting in judgement.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Schabas has already tainted this report to make it meaningless already . What's he hanging around for ? Ego ?
The reports already written and Schabas' signature renders it worthless , already.
Goldstone at least gave his report heft until he retracted it and thus rendered it all useless noise.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)No, my friend, Goldstone was the devil too, because he was on the board of Human Rights Watch. The chief Rabbi of South Africa, Warren Goldstone insisted that because Richard Goldstone had expressed shock at the war in Gaza, that he was too biased for consideration - this is the same Rabbi who would later lead efforts to bar Goldstone and his family from religious observances. Your friends over at NGO Monitor insisted that Goldstone's membership on the HRW board 'tainted" him because Human Rights Watch had accused Israel of war crimes (that it had also accused assorted Palestinian factions seems o have been missed, because, well, that spoils the "Goldstone is the devil" narrative.)
"heft" you say? No, it was exactly the same smear campaign we're seeing against Schabas, and for the same reasons - fascists who can't stand the thought of Israel's nastiness being exposed to the UN. Not that anyone there doesn't already know, but providing an avenue to bring it into the open, oh, well, can't have that!
Also, I can't help but notice there is no ranting and raving about Christine Chinkin, Hina Jilani, or Desmond Tavers. Just Richard Goldstone.
Nor am I hearing any complaints about Amal Alamuddin, or Doudou Diène. Just William Schabas.
Out of seven people engaging these fact-finding missions, only two are ever attacked. And boy they are beign attacked savage;y. Goldstone and his kids got death threats. Schabas is being compared to the leaders of IS. Both are having their illustrious careers mauled and dragged through the mud. And one just can't help but notice that these two men have something in common, a trait that is not shared by the other five.
The campaign against Goldstone and now Shabas, is a Jew hunt, Dave. One that you and Shira are - of course - happily joining in on.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Goldstone retracted most of his report as he realized it was all bogus.
Schabas has already written his report.
These are the facts
Jew hunt ?Again what's with your obsession? It's become ridiculous .
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)No, he didn't. Nothing of the sort, in fact. What he said was that had Israel participated, and provided the information that it did after the report was concluded, the report probably would have been different... in regard to Israel's intents in the operation. That's not a retraction. Also, "retraction" is formal movement to attempt to excise the work from the record. Goldstone never did this. Nor did the other three participants. Nothing was ever retracted.
But it makes you feel better to believe so, clearly. Especially now that it's pretty established that Goldstone's report was i nthe right all along and that israel does intentionally target civilians.
Has he? Do you have a PDF I could read?
Well, when it is the just the Jews who are singled out and attacked for their participation on these fact-finding missions, misrepresented, threatened, bullied, and hounded... By people who are very prone to using such terms as "self-hating" or "disloyal" to describe Jews critical of Israel, or who like yourself or Rabbi Goldstone, are prone to "disowning" such Jews from the community?
shira
(30,109 posts)The main conclusion of the report was that Israel attacked civilians as a matter of policy. Ergo, war crimes charges against the state of Israel. The entire point of the witch-hunt from the very beginning was to defame Israel, insult all its supporters, and bait Jews with modern blood-libel charges.
IOW, he retracted and the whole report turned to shit. It's in the dustbin of history and no one mentions it anymore as a result.
Goldstone grew a conscience and retracted. HRW and Amnesty were making the same unfounded charges, and then claimed after Goldstone retracted that they never did. A cover-up, hoping no one would take notice of the fact that they were bullshitting from day one with their Israeli gov't war crime charges.
It wasn't enough to argue that some rogue soldiers or units may have been guilty of war crimes. They over-reached and they knew it. ANYONE objective knew it. From Israel's supporters to gutter anti-semites.
The other non-Jews were criticized as well. Maybe you need to consider that the UN put 2 Jews in charge of the last 2 commissions, for obvious reasons; trying to deflect charges of antisemitism and bias. Of course they'll receive the lion's share of criticism. If they had been minor role players, they'd be just as invisible as the other participants.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)lol@ at a cover up. That is the best one I have seen you try and sell to date.
shira
(30,109 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)come from you as we get closer to the current reports coming out.
I can't wait for your next installments.
King_David
(14,851 posts)He was praised and critisized for that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/world/middleeast/03goldstone.html?_r=0
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Schabas was asked whether Hamas would be investigated and he said he didn't know.
It's on video. We discussed it in this very forum, remember?
Really, a proud moment for proponents of this pro-fascist commission.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Love your hyperbole, just think how much time you have left to work on it before
they're done, shira.
shira
(30,109 posts)You don't see a problem with that?
Guess not.
You're very supportive of the inquiry as it stands.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)“I cannot tell you what the commission is going to do in terms of interpreting its mandate. I am only one member and I have not had a meeting with the other commissioners,” Schabas said.
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Head-of-UNHRCs-Gaza-probe-disputes-claims-hes-anti-Israeli-370850
You have no respect for any human rights group. You still have not provided any report from that
nonsense of a group you named more than a week ago. There would be past reports from them
about their assessment of Israeli policy in the occupied territories....at least one, annually.
Your opinion is without merit on human rights.
shira
(30,109 posts)....as thoroughly as we will investigate Israel". How could he NOT know the answer to such a simple question? The answer was 'NO'.
A commission doing an inquiry only on Israel while absolving Hamas of all blame has no credibility. Only the unhinged would stick to their guns defending such a pro-fascist inquiry while accusing others of being against any and all criticism.
==============
Israel is arguably the most self-critical nation on earth. This is a strength of theirs that leads to such a tiny nation making such big strides (in all fields) in such a short time period. I'm against demonization of Israel, not reasonable criticism of Israel. The UN makes a mockery of human rights and you know it. And THAT is legit criticism. Of course you don't think that's reasonable at all....
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)....to hold your support for such an inquiry until such time it's made clear they will investigate both sides with equal vigor?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I've read the report. You clearly have not. And as someone who endorsed death threats against the man, I'm not sure you're really hte person who ought to be claiming he "grew a conscience." One, because a half-apology made after threats and intimidation isn't exactly a personal development, and two, because i'm not sure you actually know what a "conscience" is.
shira
(30,109 posts)All bullshit, all the time, 24-7-365.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)There were numerous conclusions in the report, shira. Israel's intents in some of its targeting choices were just one of several dozen conclusions (I don't have the document on hand, can't remember the exact number - over forty). And that conclusion was reached entirely by the evidence at hand. it wasn't made-up. It wasn't malicious. It was what the evidence led to. What's more, when Israel released its own findings, the vast bulk of the Goldstone report was corroborated by that.
As Goldstone stated, had israel provided its own evidence to the report, that conclusion would have been different.
One would think israel would be eager to engage such investigations in the future, in order to prevent such problems from arising again...
But instead, they're again refusing and insisting on engaging in a Cossack-style Jew-hunt against William Schabas. Just as they did against Goldstone.
You want to talk about cover-ups? Might want to look at the knesset, instead of HRW.
shira
(30,109 posts)That's the main conclusion.
Duh.
The main conclusion was retracted and THAT's why no one mentions that farce of a report anymore. Israel didn't participate b/c they knew in advance what bullshit it would be. From the start of Goldstone, the UN made it clear they were only targeting Israel, letting Hamas off the hook. Game over from day one. Fascist friends of Hamas shot their wads, just as they're doing now ever since Schabas admitted on live TV he was unsure whether Hamas would be investigated for this summer's activities. Truly a proud moment for the human rights community when they side with the fascists of Hamas...
There definitely was a cover-up. HRW and Amnesty parroted Goldstone's main charge - that Israel deliberately targeted civilians due to policy - and then they denied afterword that they ever did. In fact, the UN report was largely crafted from Amnesty and HRW reports. They were in it neck deep. They accused Israel of deliberately targeting civilians due to policy too, before denying they ever did. Their statements and reports that are easily available on the internet prove it.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Again, stay on the same page as the rest of the class.
shira
(30,109 posts)...that neither the Goldstone or Schabas commissions were charged with investigating Hamas war crimes? Goldstone had to practically beg for some small semblance of balance. Schabas has yet to do so.
No decent person in their right mind would legitimize such a Kangaroo court.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)This covers all of the above, Shira.
shira
(30,109 posts)....for some semblance of balance, in order to say his commission investigated both sides.
Are you unaware of this?
Schabas was interviewed over a month ago and didn't know whether Hamas was being investigated at all.
“I cannot tell you what the commission is going to do in terms of interpreting its mandate because I’m only one member and I haven’t had a meeting with the other commissioners. We will have to agree on the interpretation…
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Make it an actual source if you please, not some J-po blogger's strained op-ed interpretation, if you can.
shira
(30,109 posts)On 3 January 2009, in response to the Gaza War, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference's executive committee asked the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to send a fact-finding mission to Gaza.[17] On 12 January, the council adopted Resolution S-9/1, deciding "to dispatch an urgent, independent international fact-finding mission, to be appointed by the President of the Council, to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression, and calls upon Israel not to obstruct the process of investigation and to fully cooperate with the mission"[1] Upon being asked to lead the Mission, former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson expressed disappointment with the mandate and refused to head the Mission for that reason. She stated that the resolution adopted by UN Human Rights Council was one-sided and "guided not by human rights but by politics". She later expressed full support for the report.[18] Richard Goldstone initially refused the appointment for the same reason, calling the mandate "biased" and "uneven-handed". In January 2011, Goldstone said that the UNHRC "repeatedly rush to pass condemnatory resolutions in the face of alleged violations of human rights law by Israel but fail to take similar action in the face of even more serious violations by other States. Until the Gaza Report they failed to condemn the firing of rockets and mortars at Israeli civilian centers".[19]
Following Goldstone's objection, the mandate was informally widened to cover activities by Palestinian militants as well, and this was the formulation quoted by the final report.[2][20] Its mandate was "to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after. Speaking at Brandeis University, Goldstone noted that the widened mandate was presented by the president of the UNHRC to a plenary session, where it did not encounter a single objection.[21] He later described as "tiresome and inept" allegations forwarded by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the mandate had not been broadened to cover violations by all parties.[22]
Despite Ambassador Martin Uhomoibhi's verbal commitment that there was no objection to the revised mandate,[23] the Human Rights Council never voted to revise the mandate, and resolution S-9/1 remained unchanged.[24]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Conflict
I am afraid the resolution is not balanced because it focuses on what Israel did, without calling for an investigation on the launch of the rockets by Hamas. This is unfortunately a practice by the Council: adopting resolutions guided not by human rights but by politics. This is very regrettable.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)In this article, he says "If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html
DanTex
(20,709 posts)They've made it well known that if you speak a sentence of truth about Israel's war crimes, then for the rest of your career there will be a well funded and organized effort to destroy you. The painful irony is that the vengeance from Israel's propaganda machine directed towards Jews is the strongest of all, not only will they go after your career, but also call you self-hating and treasonous to your people and so on.
The world's human rights community has done an admirable job standing up to Israel's immense propaganda efforts, thanks to many brave souls who are willing to subject themselves to withering personal destruction campaigns in order to speak truth to power.
The entire point of the commission was to drag Israel to the dock for deliberate, intentional war crimes due to policy decisions.
Goldstone retracted and admitted what EVERY objective person knew all along; namely that Israel did NOT have some policy to deliberately target or kill innocents. He had no business making such a libelous charge (Amnesty and HRW did it too). Guess they weren't as "careful" and "admirable" as you make them out to be. It was Jew-baiting, extremely insulting to Jews worldwide who support Israel, and it led to more irrational hatred of Israel and of individual Jews around the world, who always suffer due to historic blood libels. I'd say THAT was deliberate, but I'm careful not to go that far...
You realize that neither the Goldstone or Schabas commissions were tasked with investigating Hamas war crimes? How do you feel about such pro-fascist inquiries?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Which is too bad, because that means it's impossible to determine how much of his retraction was really a response to new information. It's notable that the rest of the authors of the report rejected his retraction. Like I said, Israel smears Jews who speak the truth more than anyone else.
Your conspiracy theories about the world's leading human rights experts all being "out to get" Israel are nothing new. Nobody serious believes that, the only real consequence of you posting stuff like that is the hit to your credibility.
shira
(30,109 posts)...is not legitimate, nor credible. Why is this so difficult to comprehend?
We went over this in another thread where human rights groups went out of their way defending Hamas war crimes. Neither the Goldstone or Schabas commissions were tasked with investigating Hamas war crimes. Goldstone was a Kangaroo court from the start and HRW and Amnesty were all too eager to play, being the fair and objective professional rights advocates they claim to be. Goldstone should have known better to involve himself with that crap. Any objective, decent person would have turned the UN down.
Sorry, there's simply no defending either inquiry. Amnesty and HRW should have screamed foul the moment they found out Hamas wasn't being investigated during Goldstone. Same with the Schabas inquiry. If they had any credibility, they'd have separated themselves from such an inquiry until such time they found out the commission is doing its best to investigate both sides. Is that too much to ask?
It'll be a cold day in hell before that happens. Their credibility is shot and has been for a long time.
And to boot, HRW and Amnesty walked away from the charge that Israel deliberately targeted civilians as soon as Goldstone did. So were they full of shit making such a charge or lying once they later agreed with Goldstone's retraction? You may claim Goldstone crumbled under the pressure but what about HRW and Amnesty?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Yes, we did go over this in another thread. And there was a total of zero evidence to support that allegation -- they routinely call out Hamas for targeting civilians, etc. The Goldstone commission investigated and found violations from both Israel and Hamas. As have Amnesty and HRW and everyone else.
shira
(30,109 posts)....with Goldstone or with Schabas.
This is a fact.
Goldstone had to beg the UN to let his commission look somewhat fair and balanced by investigating Hamas. Schabas recently admitted he didn't know whether Hamas was being investigated at all by his commission. See video in post #35.
This is the shit you support.
Own it.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Amnesty investigates both. HRW investigates both. Is there anyone who doesn't investigate both?
Personally, I don't necessarily see why every investigation into Gaza needs to look into all parties at once. There could be an investigation specifically into Hamas's terrorist activities and I don't think either you or I would object. There could also be an investigation into how Israel treats civilians in the territories it occupies and I wouldn't object (but of course you would).
shira
(30,109 posts)Did you know that?
Goldstone was in the very same situation 5 years ago before he realized he'd look like an ass if he only investigated Israel and not Hamas. Schabas hasn't figured that out yet.
Given this, can you see why Israel wouldn't cooperate with such a kangaroo court? Goldstone accepted his position BEFORE he was finally given permission to investigate both sides.
Who would fucking do that?
And the UN isn't known for passing resolutions and starting emergency sessions on Hamas actions, so that shit won't fly. In fact, they don't do that at all. I know you have a defense for that one too. Can't wait for it...
DanTex
(20,709 posts)OK, you might be right. Human rights specialists are generally more concerned with human rights than PR.
Why more resolutions about Israel? Well, you'd have to ask them. I can give a few guesses. First, Israel is a member of the UN, Hamas is a terrorist group/political party. Second, the world by and large acknowledges that they are terrorists. For example, the US and the EU and a bunch of others have officially designated them as such. Whereas Israel is "offically" a law-abiding member of the international community. If the US and EU officially designated Israel as a nation that commits war crimes and ethnic cleansing, I bet you'd see a lot less UN resolutions.
shira
(30,109 posts)HRW and Amnesty should withhold all support for such an inquiry until both sides are to be investigated in the same manner.
They should be generally more concerned with human rights than PR. Sadly they're not...
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)The findings of the committee headed by New York Judge Mary McGowan Davis, which tracked the implementation of the recommendations in the Goldstone report, were published last month. According to Goldstone, the McGowan Davis report findings indicate that Israel did not have an explicit policy of causing intentional harm to civilians. This is the "retraction" everyone is rejoicing over.
However, reading the final UN report reveals that the committee didn't come anywhere near that conclusion. On the contrary. The committee states repeatedly that according to the information presented to it, "Israel does not appear to have conducted a general review of doctrine regarding military targets" (i.e. Israel did not discuss at all on which targets it is legitimate to open fire and on which it is not ).
Goldstone's op-ed seems to imply that the committee of experts, as opposed to his commission, was afforded the cooperation of the Israeli authorities. It turns out this is untrue. The American judge was not treated any differently by Israel and she even complains of this in the report. She notes that because of this she had to rely solely on public government reports, which relied on human rights organizations.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/what-exactly-did-goldstone-retract-from-his-report-on-gaza-1.355454
King_David
(14,851 posts)You should take what Shaktimaan said to heart .
It's becoming ridiculous .
( I don't even know that Schabas is Jewish I'll have to google it maybe , I don't really care but you seem very concerned which is the point ....)
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And I'm sure you didn't know. I find it amazing how very little you seem to know about the subjects you engage in, always after being exposed. Sort of like how you "didn't know" Kenneth Meshoe's position on gay people. Or how you "didn't know' that that one Australian news owner you cited was a screaming racist. Or your cute habit of "tldr" posts and the like.
So. Are you going to give me a link to Schabas' pre-written report or not?
King_David
(14,851 posts)Or whatever else your writing there.
Huh ?
"Targeting of Jews" ? Again with Jews Scootaloo ? WTF ?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Anyway. Are you going to give me a link to Schabas' report or what? C'mon Dave, you said it was already written, I wanna see it.
King_David
(14,851 posts)You know your getting very brave posting such shit on DU.
DU is meant to be a safe place for "people like me ".
Unbelievable.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And yes, people like you; people who target, attack, abuse, and exploit Jews in order to protect their own violence and bigotry against Palestinians.
Response to Scootaloo (Reply #21)
King_David This message was self-deleted by its author.
King_David
(14,851 posts)And that's being extremely polite.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)C'mon, you say it's been written. I want to see it.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)That must be very frustrating.
So. where's this report?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Amal Alamuddin rejects UN offer to investigate possible war crimes in Gaza
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/amal-alamuddin-declines-un-offer-to-investigate-possible-war-crimes-in-gaza-9663336.html
Goldstone Report veteran, Mary Davis, will take her place.
http://forward.com/articles/204629/ny-judge-mary-mcgowan-davis-named-to-gaza-war-crim/
shira
(30,109 posts)The White House revealed on Tuesday that its usually strict rules of engagement, intended to prevent civilian casualties of US airstrikes, have been relaxed in the current offensive against the Islamic State and other radical Islamist groups.
National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden told Yahoo News in an email that a much-publicized statement last year by President Barack Obama that US drone strikes would only be carried out if there is a “near certainty” of no civilian injuries would not APPLY to the US campaign against jihadi forces in Syria and Iraq....
http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-iraq-syria-us-lifts-rules-meant-to-protect-civilians/
shira
(30,109 posts)....more hand-wringing than what they do with Israel.
It's now clear that US policy is to deliberately target civilians.
Where's Goldstone and Schabas?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Come out into the DU general population. Catch some fresh air.
shira
(30,109 posts)...now that the US is relaxing its standards when it comes to civilian lives.
Lots of poutrage WRT Israel.
Think we'll see anything approaching that level here? I doubt it. And neither will the "world community" on human rights react to this as violently as they did regarding Israel.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)If you did, you would know that US foreign policy and military action is harshly criticized. Drone strikes, bombings, Gitmo, the war in Iraq, etc.
I kinda think you don't, because you keep bringing up the talking point that "nobody complains when the US does bad stuff", even while being a member of a discussion board that complains about this non-stop.
shira
(30,109 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)If you want, post the story in GD, and see what happens.
shira
(30,109 posts)Isn't there someone else here who believes this is important enough to post? If it was Israel...
DanTex
(20,709 posts)If you want to test your theory that people think "it's OK if the US does it", go right ahead.
shira
(30,109 posts)....in attempting to demonstrate how Israel has a policy to deliberately targets civilians. HRW and Amnesty too. This would have been their smoking gun evidence, exhibit A, back in 2009.
Now it's crickets b/c it's not Israel.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)A change in the rules of engagement, is that what we're talking about?
shira
(30,109 posts)What the US is doing is arguably more egregious than what Israel can be accused of doing. At least Israel had its own civilians it was protecting from attacks. They have an excuse to be more desperate & less careful. The US cannot use that excuse as ISIS poses no threat to the US mainland.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)It's not exactly busy, but I attribute this to two factors - there are people like myself who really have nothing besides "told you so" to add to the thread, and then there are people who respond to such posts with harebrained shrieks of outrage claiming we all 'love putin" or something. Rhetorical exhaustion on one side, and reactionary trolling on hte other.
But please, I'd love to see some commentary from Shira on something outside the realm of Israel apologia.
shira
(30,109 posts)...what do you think I believe about this relaxation of US policy on civilians during combat. Think I'm for or against?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I would have to guess you're absolutely "for."
shira
(30,109 posts)If the US military has higher standards protecting civilians, they should stick to them. Same with Israel. Thing is, I know Israel does this and they've proven to be more careful with civilians than any other country. That's being proven once again, now. I doubt US coalition partners in Iraq/Syria are any more careful with civilians.
However, I'm not for war crimes investigations, a UN inquiry, etc.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)With its 4:1 civilian:combatant kill ratio in Gaza. They were equal back in 2008, with the US invasion and occupation of Iraq having a 3:2 ratio, and Cast Lead also having a 3:2 ratio.
Neither are especially good.
back in 2005, Israel had a ratio of 1:10. You should be arguing and pushing for Israel to get that back, rather than constantly lowering your own standards to defend the ever-increasing number of civilians killed in Israel's operations.
As for the United States, the bigger problem than just our willingness to lower standards of targeting - that's a big problem, but there are bigger - is our "final goal" in the operation. Our declared goal is the overthrow of Assad, and then... and then... and then...? Yeah, there's nothing past that. Sort of like Ghaddafi, we just want the dude with the name gone and then we declare victory and go home and let hte locals figure that shit out.
And that has gone so well in Libya, hasn't it? The US' stated preferred outcome in this scenario is something that will likely turn Syria into Afghanistan circa 1990. That... is going to cause a lot more problems than just lowering our already flimsy standards on firing on civilians.
shira
(30,109 posts)...I'm with you on bombing the shit out of ISIS. It's so fucked up that the US is asking for support against ISIS from Turkey and Qatar. And they actually sponsor ISIS, so what are we doing? Yeah, that'll work out. Makes no damned sense to me.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)The Pentagon, of course, has a clearly vested interest in self-validation and ass-covering, don't you think? Liiiike... Its utter obfuscation of information regarding drone strikes. or the siege of Fallujah.
of course, the Pentagon is hardly alone in this. Pretty much every military spokesperson, in any nation around the world, is going to tll you that their nation is "the best," that there are no or negligible civilian casualties, that those casualties are all necessary, or dismissible, or some other stuff like that. because these organizations of course have an obvious interest in making themselves look good.
This includes the Israeli Defense Ministry. As I've showed you, they achieved their 1:1 ratio from Cast Lead by including police officers as combatants. The problem with that is, international standards count the police as civilians, unless they are actually engaged in combat. Given that Cast Lead was an air assault rather than a ground operation, it's really not credible to claim the police were engaged in combat. especially when over a hundred of them were killed while inside a precinct building
That is, the IDF is cooking the numbers to make itself look better. Sort of like how the Pentagon tried to cast every male person killed in Fallujah as a "combatant" - and claimed that all the women had fled, thus supposedly generating a 100% combatant kill ratio. Laughable.
This is what military authorities do. Pakistan, India, china, the Us, the United kingdom, Israel, Colombia, Egypt, Australia, basically everywhere in the world that engages in military activity lies its pants off about what, exactly, it is doing.
This is why there need to be such investigations, and why nations need to clearly and transparently work with the investigations.
shira
(30,109 posts)They confirmed that which the IDF claimed; that the police officers were part of their terror group. They were both militants as well as police officers. The IDF claimed over 700 combatants killed during 2008-09 and Hamas came up with the same figure more than a year later.
It's no coincidence the police station was one of the very 1st deliberate targets during OCL. Hamas TV claimed immediately afterwards and repeatedly that they were militants. I gave you or someone else all the links last time this was debated.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)During the conflict Israel targeted numerous police facilities in Gaza. Many of these attacks occurred during the first minutes of the operations resulting in the deaths of 99 policemen and nine other members of the public. The attacks on Police during the first day of the operation included the bombing of a police cadet graduation ceremony, killing scores of police cadets along with family members who had come to attend the celebration. Police cadets killed in the incident included traffic police and musicians in the police orchestra.The UN fact finding mission established that approximately 240 Gaza policemen were killed by Israeli forces during the course of the conflict constituting over one sixth of the total Palestinian casualties.
This page was last modified on 27 September 2014 at 23:48.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_War_%282008%E2%80%9309%29
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)That's international standards. And i had the distinct pleasure of pointing out to you that Hamas called the police officers police officers.
The IDF lied to you. it's done so very frequently I'm sure, but this instance is just staggeringly obvious.
shira
(30,109 posts)“They say the people suffered from this war, but is Hamas not part of the people? On the first day of the war Israel targeted police stations and 250 martyrs were killed, from Hamas and other factions,” he told the paper.
“In addition to them, between 200 and 300 fighters from the Al-Qassam Brigades (Hamas’s armed wing) and another 150 security forces were martyred.”
His numbers roughly match the 709 “terror operatives” the Israeli military said it had killed during the fighting, which included members of the Hamas-run police force that has patrolled Gaza since the group seized power in 2007.
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/displayarticle.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2010/November/middleeast_November13.xml§ion=middleeast&col=
shira
(30,109 posts)Hamas TV: 180 killed are from Hamas armed forces
Among those killed Hamas Police Commander, Tawfik Jaber
Hamas TV acknowledged this morning that the vast majority of those killed are from the Hamas military. A news ticker running repeatedly from 10:00 AM announced:
"More than 180 Palestinian policemen were killed including the Commander, General Tawfik Jaber."
In the background Hamas TV is repeatedly broadcasting the same scenes of dozens of bodies of the uniformed Hamas soldiers who were killed in Israel's first attack yesterday when Israel hit the Hamas officer's course graduation ceremony.
Hamas TV, Dec. 28, 2008
http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=2678
shira
(30,109 posts)EARLIER: From AP GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip — Israeli warplanes rained more than 100 tons of bombs on security installations in Hamas-ruled Gaza on Saturday, killing at least 230 people in one of the bloodiest days in decades of the mideast conflict. The government said the open-ended campaign was aimed at stopping rocket and mortar attacks that have traumatized southern Israel.
More than 400 people were also wounded. Most of the casualties were security forces, but Palestinian officials said at least 15 civilians were among the dead.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/27/israel-launches-air-strik_n_153664.html
230 killed. 15 of whom were civilians. They were Hamas militants.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)not all Palestinian officials in Gaza are now or were in 2008 Hamas and considering the subject and timing had it been a Hamas statement it most likely would have said so
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)benefit from it for their governments wrongs. Nice job, shira.
shira
(30,109 posts)Example # 13,087
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)they never have.
shira
(30,109 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)The US relaxes its standards regarding civilians in combat and you yawn.
If it's Israel...
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)own. This state is given political cover for the brutal occupation it perpetuates with the complicity of the US.
You have no evidence to support your contention that I excuse my government of its resposibilities to respect
its obligations under the laws of war...none. You post in one group and one group exclusively...to support and further the justification
of the oppression of the Palestinian people. You fool no one.
shira
(30,109 posts)It's insulting and hurtful whenever you or your like-minded friends intentionally defame it with lies and exaggerations. There are practically NO supporters of Israel who support or justify the oppression of Palestinians.
OTOH, I can say w/o any doubt whatsoever that the vast majority of hostile Israel bashers support and justify Palestinian oppression, and I can supply one example after the next proving it. In fact, it is these folks who prove to hate and loathe Palestinians significantly more than anyone who is pro-Israel.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)your words and the hideous sources you rely on, continually.
shira
(30,109 posts)....who are hurt and insulted each and every time they see Israel intentionally defamed and slandered.
Most of your sources are expert at doing that, and hideous.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)decades.
You respect no human rights groups, they do reveal the hideous truth..so I understand that about you.
shira
(30,109 posts)Last edited Thu Oct 2, 2014, 02:50 PM - Edit history (1)
You support an open letter published by the Lancet and authored by at least 2 of David Duke's admirers. A third author supports terror attacks on innocents. These are the defamers and their ilk whose slanderous, hateful bile you post here regularly. Their view on human rights mirrors your own, so...
1. What does that hideous truth say about your contempt for human rights?
You support a UN commission headed by Schabas that has no mandate to investigate Hamas war crimes. But you support the mission nonetheless. Hamas supports the UN commission b/c it absolves them of all blame this summer, so....
2. What does that hideous truth say about your contempt for human rights?
You support Schabas despite representatives from B'tselem and HRW saying he should step down. Despite Schabas stating that Assad's use of chemical weapons is not technically a war crime. So...
3. What does that hideous truth say about your contempt for human rights?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Aryeh Neier is no longer with HRW, he has an opinion, stop making false statements about his role.
Mordechai Kremnitzer, is on the public council at B'Tselem, he is not speaking for the human rights
group. He is one of many, you're once again misrepresenting B'Tselem.
http://www.btselem.org/about_btselem/public_council
HRW and B'Tselem have issued no statement on Schabas.
Your false statements about Dr Ang were already debunked, she never justified suicide bombers, ever.
The video interview from the BBC makes this clear.
Post where I supported anything to do with this Lancet issue you made up. I have no idea
what you're talking about. How many times can you say David Duke, shira, while supporting Israel? hmm.
Your main source in this OP is UN Watch a small group who does not criticize Israel, ever.
One of your last failed attempts to bash liberals was debunked at your source which proudly
stated, Don't Divide Jerusalem, as a category. I can post the link you left for it, if need be.
You're a very desperate individual and transparent as glass.
shira
(30,109 posts)There are many liberals concerned about human rights who have a problem with Schabas. I note you're silent about Schabas' mandate not mentioning Hamas. Doesn't bother you a bit, does it? And your defense of someone as loathsome as Dr. Ang is noted.
You posted this about the open letter, so I assume you're in favor of it. If you're against, why? Did you change your mind? Maybe due to Mads Gilbert being involved? He went beyond justifying terror....he explicitly supports it! Wonderful humanitarian there. Another proud moment for you.
The person who called for not dividing Jerusalem (Lozowick) is a liberal. I realize anyone not as radical as Amira Hass and Gideon Levy are rightwing to you, but that doesn't take away their liberal status. No elected Democrats in office hold your fringe views, but they're liberals.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)or Lesson of this war: The Jews will defend themselves even if it means killing children
that sort of liberal? and on not dividing Jerusalem his piece was anti Geneva initiative because Israel would have to give up part of Jerusalem but to you that's liberal no peace agreement that doesn't grant Israel 100% of Jerusalem and killing children is okay well if it's Jews defending themselves that is?
Lozowick on Jerusalem
The folks who agreed on the Geneva Initiative have gone to a lot of effort to make detailed maps of the various sections of town and who they'll belong to; compare their polished output to my slap-dash ones and you'll be impressed, I assure you. The whole 10-piece series is here. Their lines are pretty much what Clinton had in mind, and I expect his wife and her boss agree. So my task in the coming posts will be to show what the reality will look like, and why you wouldn't want anyone you know to have to live in it.
http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/2010/04/dont-divide-jerusalem-context.html
but then again on the killing children in defense Jews (Lozowick's own words)
shira (22,637 posts)
40. I agree with Lozowick. n/t
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=80126
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)That's how you judge the merits? No Wall Street lobby either, nor oil companies lobby power.
Your Lancet issue, I'll take it then you're non supportive of Physicians for Human Rights too, that
would be 4 for 4 now, under the bus. You do not support one human rights group, none.
A writer with a blog with a category, Don't Divide Jerusalem, is not expressing a liberal viewpoint.
Dr Ang never said what you claimed she did, you know where that leaves you.
You're as transparent as glass.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)At the Kampala Review Conference, held in June 2010, amendments were adopted extending the same provisions to non-international armed conflict. The amendments have only been ratified by a few States and obviously not by Syria, which is not a State Party to the Rome Statute, nor by some of the States that are accusing Syria of committing war crimes through the use of chemical weapons in a non-international armed conflict. But they also haven’t been ratified by some of the States that are now condemning Syria.
Even assuming that these provisions do apply, in a general sense, to the conflict in Syria, – the consequence of a Security Council resolution, for example – do they prohibit chemical weapons?
http://www.thetower.org/0877-new-head-of-un-gaza-probe-syrian-chemical-weapons-not-technically-a-war-crime/
In fact it sort of reminds me of 'someone' who argued that it perfectly okay that the Haganah and other Jewish resistance groups hid weapons in Synagogues, schools, nurseries, and hid fighter among civilians during the days of British occupation because the law that prohibited such acts did not exist until a year after the occupation ended
the conversation starts here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=71836
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Earlier this week, Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) and Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) led 86 other senators in a letter to John Kerry urging him to take steps to prevent Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas from seeking investigation of or redress for Israeli war crimes through the UN Human Rights Council and the International Criminal Court or a UNSCC resolution setting a clear date for the end of Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank.
The commitment of such senators to "peace," defined in any meaningful way, should be viewed as suspect given their support for continued military aid for Israel even as the IDF attacks on hospitals, schools, and other aspects of civilian infrastructure in Gaza.
With 88 signers, that just leaves 12 who did not attach their name to the letter.
One of those was Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who does not traditionally sign letters.
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Tom Harkin (D-IA), and Pat Leahy (D-VT), as senior committee chairs, often do not sign either. Harkin and Rockefeller are also retiring.
That leaves three members of the Democratic caucus—Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)—and five members of the Republican caucus—Tom Coburn (R-OK), Bob Corker (R-TN), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Rand Paul (R-KY), and Jeff Sessions (R-AL).
I'm not sure about Coburn, Corker, Murkowski, and Sessions. The others--Baldwin, Paul, Sanders, and Warren--all seem like people who could be responsive to pressure from those seeking a more humane foreign policy. I know Warren and Sanders have both faced some backlash from their progressive constituents for their support from Israel's attack on Gaza.
Getting someone to not sign a letter, of course, is quite a baby step. But any long-term strategy to change US foreign policy will require such steps and a knowledge of whatever leverage points exist.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/28/1332643/-88-Senators-Urge-Kerry-to-Shield-Israel-from-Any-Accountability-at-the-UN
MFM008
(19,805 posts)Dont commit war crimes.