UN probe: evidence of war crimes in Gaza conflict

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"A U.N. investigation into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Gaza has found evidence that both sides committed "war crimes."

The United Nations says the investigation led by former South African judge Richard Goldstone concluded that "Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, possibly crimes against humanity," during its Dec. 27-Jan. 18 military operations in the Palestinian territories.

The global body said the report released Tuesday "concludes there is also evidence that Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes, as well as possibly crimes against humanity," by firing rockets into southern Israel.

Israel refused to cooperate with the investigation, saying the U.N. Human Rights Council that ordered it was biased against the Jewish state."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gmWe_WoQ8DB6K0dpgNV7UVCRIefQD9ANQ4LO0



Full Report


Judge Goldstone and the pollution of argument

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/15/human-rights-gaza-israel

Attacks on human rights groups that probe Israel's Gaza offensive are an insult to reasonable public debate

<snip>

"The despicable attacks on human rights organisations investigating Israel's Gaza offensive in January confirm Churchill's observation: "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." The mission led by the South African judge Richard Goldstone to investigate international human rights and international humanitarian law violations during Israel's offensive, established by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), is the latest victim. His findings are about to be made public. The knives have been out for the mission for months. Now they are being plunged into him and his colleagues. Until the report is out Goldstone can't defend it. So the smears and misrepresentation are left free to pollute public discourse.

The New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) has assiduously responded to a deluge of scurrilous attacks on its credibility and staff, yet totally unfounded allegations – for example, about accepting Saudi government funding and failing to give a critical report to the Israel Defence Forces before releasing it to the public – are constantly being recycled. HRW messed up by failing to see that the nerdy and, to most people, disturbing hobby of its weapons expert Marc Garlasco (he collects German and American second world war memorabilia) could be used to discredit his role as author of highly critical reports of Israel's military conduct in Gaza. But when this story broke last week, the equation implied in some allegations – "Nazi" object-collector plus "Israel-basher" equals "antisemite" – was baseless and defamatory. That he also worked on reports critical of Hamas and Hezbollah was ignored. As another excuse to attack HRW, and deflect attention from its reports' findings, the Garlasco affair was a gift.

The human rights world is not beyond reproach. UNHRC has hardly been impartial on Israel. Goldstone accepted his role only after the council president agreed to the alteration of the mission's mandate to cover all parties to the conflict, not just Israel. But mistrust alone does not explain the extraordinary scale of the attacks on human rights organisations, including all Israeli ones, for their reports on Israel.

In the 1970s, Jewish groups pressing the Soviets to allow Jews the right to leave the USSR worked with the human rights movement and based their arguments on human rights principles. But now the promoters of the concept of the "new antisemitism" – that Israel is the collective Jew persecuted by the international community – hold the international human rights movement largely responsible for it. Unable to face the fact that occupation and increasingly extreme rightwing governments turned Israel into the neighbourhood bully, and misreading the fallout for Jewish communities as abandonment by progressive forces and governments, many Jewish leaders and opinion-formers have become the human rights movement's fiercest critics. With antisemitism framing this attack, reasoned argument becomes nigh on impossible.

Does it then come down to a matter of whose reputation you trust? If so would it be critics of human rights agencies like Alan Dershowitz, the prominent American lawyer who thinks torture could be legalised, Melanie Phillips, a columnist who calls Jewish critics of Israel "Jews for genocide", and Gerald Steinberg, who runs NGO Watch and is an advisor to the Lieberman-led Israeli Foreign Ministry? Or Richard Goldstone, former chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, who is putting his considerable reputation on the line in taking the UNHRC assignment? Frankly, I don't think there is a contest.

By declaring the reports of human rights agencies biased, the attack dogs are reinforcing the damage Israel is doing to itself. They put Israel in the company of serial human rights abusers that make the same complaint. And by refusing to respond to letters from HRW, denying the Goldstone mission entry to Israel, rubbishing testimony from Gazans unless it supports Israel's version of the offensive, and allowing the army to investigate itself, Israel merely shows it cannot even tolerate reasonable criticism. This is a sign of weakness, not strength."

[shira]

1. what a load of garbage

A commitee representing the UN is going against the UN's own definition of "human shield" in order to ideologically and politically single out and demonize Israel - while at the same time being de-facto accessories to Hamas warcrimes.

The UN Glossary of Peacekeeping Terms offers the following definition:

human shield is any person who, under the laws of war is considered a non-combattant and as such protected from deliberate attack (civilians, POWs, etc.) but who is used by one side as a hostage to deter the other side from striking a particular military targetand risking killing the hostages; the side using “human shields” gambles on the otherside’s reluctance to violate the laws of war and on its fear of the moral and politicalopprobrium usually attached to such violations; the use of human shields can take theform of a) placing civilians or prisoners in or near legitimate military targets (bases,bunkers, weapons factories, etc.) or b) placing artillery batteries and other offensiveweapons in the midst of the civilian population, particularly such buildings as hospitals,schools, churches, etc., or residential neighborhoods, or c) for non-uniformed armedgroups, firing at their adversary from among a crowd of civilians

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/glossary/h.htm

The only Hamas war crimes this 600-page travesty points to are Hamas rockets that hit Israel. Nothing about their deliberate human-shielding (which incidentally puts the blame on Hamas for the bulk of Palestinian deaths, not Israel).

Therefore, this UN appointed commitee is deliberately ignoring the UN's own definition of war crimes in order to get their pound of flesh from Israel; in effect condoning Hamas war crimes and guaranteeing that they continue into the future - while blaming Israel and absolving Hamas for the most part.

Congrats UN! It's good to see Palestinian civilian shields can count on you to protect them from Hamas!

==========

And the point of this report is, what? Besides demonization.

Israel is already investigating over 100 IDF incidents from the war.

How much lower can the UN sink? They're disgusting - and what's worse is this crap will be taken seriously by many influential people and organizations.

:puke:

[shira]

5. an example of how atrocious this Goldstone report is

from the report...

493. The reports received by the Mission suggest that it is likely that the Palestinian armed
groups did not at all times adequately distinguish themselves from the civilian population among
whom the hostilities were being conducted. Their failure to distinguish themselves from the
civilian population by distinctive signs is not a violation of international law in itself, but would
have denied them some of the legal privileges afforded to combatants. What international law
demands, however, is that those engaged in combat take all feasible precautions to protect
civilians in the conduct of their hostilities. The Mission found no evidence that members of
Palestinian armed groups engaged in combat in civilian dress. It can, therefore, not find a
violation of the obligation not to endanger the civilian population in this respect.

==========

from Geneva protocol I article 37 paragraph 1...

1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy: (a) the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender; (b) the feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness; (c) the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and (d) the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.

==========

video evidence of terrorist dressed as civilian firing mortar during OCL:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a06_1231310126

==========

Islamic Jihad bragging in "Palestine Today" about blending in with civilians:
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//www.paltoday.com/arabic/News-33008.html&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&tbb=1&ie=windows-1256

==========

video of Gazan militants during OCL in streets dressed as civilians
http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/video/video434432.html

=========

video of Hamas miitant hiding among white-flag waving civilians not wearing military attire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJgfZ9_6miE

[shira]

6. one more example

from the Goldstone report....

474. The Mission’s attention has been drawn to a well-known incident in which women and children followed calls to gather on the roof of the house of a Palestinian man who had been informed by the Israeli authorities that his house would be targeted. This incident has been documented in video footage in the public domain and is referred to in submissions received by the Mission as evidence of the use of human shields. The Mission notes, however, that the incident occurred in 2007. No such incidents are alleged by the Israeli Government with regard to the military operations that began on 27 December 2008. The Mission received no reports of such incidents from other sources. On the contrary, in one case investigated by the Mission, a Hamas official received a phone call from the Israeli armed forces to the effect that his house would soon be targeted. He evacuated the house with his family and alerted the neighbours to the imminent threat so that they, too, were able to leave their homes before the missile did indeed strike.

===========

video of Hamas gathering children to form a shield - January 8, 2009
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=351_1231430391

===========

The UNHRC had a bad reputation with regard to Israel before this report - but they just outdid themselves this time by sinking to a new low.

This report is absolutely ridiculous and much too easy to refute and expose....all that's missing are the "eyewitness accounts" of Israel passing out horny gum to Palestinian youth or firing off penis-shrinking rays that only work against Palestinian men.

What a joke.

It won't take very long at all for organizations to rip this sorry piece of trash to shreds.

Goldstone and company are about to be completely humiliated.

[azurnoir]

7. some liveleak vids constitute proof?

please your fact finding is faulty to say the least, the Goldstone report found fault with both sides not just Israel you seem to be on a personal jihad to try to attempt to discredit every NGO that criticizes Israel but you see most people with IQ's over 85 find AI, HRW, B'Tselem, the UN, PCHR to name a few a tad more believable than Liveleak or CAMERA for that matter

[shira]

10. you're welcome to ignore clear video evidence all you wish - happy delusions!

[Violet_Crumble]

16. So if something's in a video, it must be true?

Sounds weird, but if that's the way you say it is, who am I to argue? I can have some fun with this!

[shira]

18. if you have good reason to suspect the video is false, i'm sure you'll let me know

[Violet_Crumble]

21. You just said a video is clear evidence. I'm just taking yr 'logic' to obvious conclusions...

I've already told you more than several times why I don't waste my time watching crap you-tube style videos. If it hasn't sunk in already, I can repeat it again and again till it does, because I don't care if the vids are designed to make the Palestinians or Israel look bad - unless they're from a reputable source, they all stink. If I have good reason to change my mind, lose a few brain cells and take to watching crap on youtube, I'll be sure to let you know...

[shira]

30. you're deliberately ignoring credible evidence

I could care less about liveleak or youtube, the fact is they are getting these videos from legitimate sources and broadcasting it for the public.

Those sources are Hamas TV, the IDF, German news, Palestine Today, etc.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. No, the problem is you have no clue about what reputable means...

It's pretty rude of you to continually ignore what I say and to go on and on and on and on about it. I've made myself very clear as to why I don't waste my time watching those sort of partisan videos from sources that aren't reputable. I pointed out that yr strange 'logic' can be led to conclusions you'd be very upset at, and fail to see why yr continuing to hound me...

[shira]

9. detailed evidence of Hamas war crimes (human shielding) that the Goldstone commission missed

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Hamas+war+against+Israel/Operation_Gaza_factual_and_legal_aspects_use_of_force_Hamas_breaches_law_of_armed_conflict_5_Aug_200.htm#B2a

[shira]

12. Colonel Richard Kemp on IDF in Gaza - former Commander of British forces in Afghanistan

http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=378&PID=0&IID=3026

HAMAS, THE GAZA WAR AND ACCOUNTABILITY UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

18 June 2009

International Law and Military Operations in Practice

Colonel Richard Kemp CBE

I will examine the practicalities, challenges and difficulties faced by military forces in trying to fight within the provisions of international law against an enemy that deliberately and consistently flouts international law.

I shall focus on counter-insurgency operations from the British and to some extent the American perspective drawing on recent British experience generally and my own personal experience of operating in this environment.

Soldiers from all Western armies, including Israel's and Britain's, are educated in the laws of war.

Commanders are educated to a higher level so that they can enforce the laws among their men, and take them into account during their planning.

Because the battlefield - in any kind of war - is a place of confusion and chaos, of fast-moving action the complexities of the laws of war as they apply to kinetic military operations, are distilled down into rules of engagement.

In the British forces, rules of engagement normally regulate military action to ensure that it remains well within the laws of war giving an additional safety cushion to soldiers against the possibility of war crimes prosecution.

In the most basic form these rules tell you when you can and when you cannot open fire.

In conventional military operations between states the combat is normally simpler and doesn't require complex and restrictive rules of engagement.

Your side wears one type of uniform, the enemy wears another; when you see the enemy's uniform you open fire. Of course there are complexities. The fog of war, sometimes literally fog, but always fog in the sense of chaos and confusion means that mistakes are made. You confuse your own men for the enemy.

The tragedies that have ensued from such chaos and misunderstanding are legion throughout the history of war. We call it blue on blue, friendly fire or fratricide.

And there are other complexities in conventional combat that make apparent simplicity less than simple. Civilians perhaps taking shelter or attempting to flee the battlefield can be mistaken for combatants and have sometimes been shot or blown up.

Enemy forces sometimes adopt the other side's uniforms as a deception or ruse. But in the type of conflict that the Israeli Defence Forces recently fought in Gaza and in Lebanon, and Britain and America are still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, these age-old confusions and complexities are made one hundred times worse by the fighting policies and techniques of the enemy.

The insurgents that we have faced, and still face, in these conflicts are all different. Hizballah and Hamas over here, Al Qaida, Jaish al Mahdi and a range of other militant groups in Iraq. Al Qaida, the Taliban and a diversity of associated fighting groups in Afghanistan. They are different but they are linked.

They are linked by the pernicious influence, support and sometimes direction of Iran and/or by the international network of Islamist extremism.

These groups, as well as others, have learnt and continue to learn from each others' successes and failures. Tactics tried and tested on IDF soldiers in Lebanon have also killed British soldiers in Helmand Province and in Basra.

These groups are trained and equipped for warfare fought from within the civilian population.

Do these Islamist fighting groups ignore the international laws of armed conflict? They do not. It would be a grave mistake to conclude that they do. Instead, they study it carefully and they understand it well.

They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses.

Their very modus operandi is built on the, correct, assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules.

It is not simply that these insurgents do not adhere to the laws of war. It is that they employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. Their entire operational doctrine is founded on this basis.

In Gaza, as in Basra, as in the towns and villages of southern Afghanistan, civilians and their property are routinely exploited by these groups, in deliberate and flagrant violation of any international laws or reasonable norms of civilised behaviour for both tactical and strategic gain.

Stripped of any moral considerations, this policy operates simply and effectively at both levels.

On the tactical level, protected buildings, mosques, schools and hospitals, are used as strongholds allowing the enemy the protection not only of stone walls but also of international law.

On the strategic level, any mistake, or in some cases legal and proportional response, by a Western army will be deliberately exploited and manipulated in order to produce international outcry and condemnation.

And in sophisticated groupings such as Hamas and Hizballah, the media will be exploited also as a critical implement of their military strategy.

Thus in April 2004 as Coalition forces fought to wrest the Iraqi town of Fallujah from Al Qaida's control the media reports screamed of a US bombardment of a mosque.

The reality of that day was that five US Marines were wounded by fire from that mosque and that the Marine commander on the ground exercised great care and restraint, only allowing fire to be directed upon the outer wall of the building.

Despite this, the damage was done and the impression that we had levelled a mosque indiscriminately was firmly established.

In Gaza, according to residents there, Hamas fighters who previously wore black or khaki uniforms, discarded them when Operation Cast Lead began, to blend in with the crowds and use them as human shields.

We have of course seen all this before, in Lebanon, in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

Today, British soldiers patrolling in Helmand Province will come under sustained rocket, machine-gun and small-arms fire from within a populated village or a network of farming complexes containing local men, women and children.

The British will return fire, with as much caution as possible.

Rather than drop a 500 pound bomb onto the enemy from the air, to avoid civilian casualties, they will assault through the village, placing their own lives at greater risk. They might face booby traps or mines as they clear through.

When they get into the village there is no sign of the enemy. Instead, the same people that were shooting at them twenty minutes ago, now unrecognised by them, will be tilling the land, waving, smiling and talking cheerfully to the soldiers.

These same insurgents will mine roads used by British vehicles and tracks used by foot patrols. Many soldiers have lost their legs or their lives in such attacks.

There is of course no question of minefields being marked, as is required under international law. The idea would be preposterous, but although one of the clearest tenets of the laws of war, is rarely if ever commented on by the media.

Like Hamas in Gaza, the Taliban in southern Afghanistan are masters at shielding themselves behind the civilian population and then melting in among them for protection.

Hamas of course deployed suicide attackers in Gaza, including women and children.

Women and children are trained and equipped to fight, collect intelligence and ferry arms and ammunition between battles.

I have seen it first hand in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Female suicide bombers are almost commonplace.

Schools and houses are routinely booby-trapped. Snipers shelter in houses deliberately filled with women and children. Every man captured or killed is claimed as a taxi driver or a farmer.

In Basra, the common plea from captives was that they were police officers. Unfortunately, more often than not, this particular claim proved to be true. They were only involved in terrorist operations as their shift patterns allowed!

I make light of it but the difficulties in fighting an enemy who legitimately own and use the uniforms, vehicles and weapons of a police force, established, funded and trained by us, are self evident.

The British and US armies have grappled with these problem and I hope that we are now finding some solutions. Solutions that allow us to treat those that oppose us according to the laws of war while also defeating them on the battlefield. When an enemy flouts the rules of war then we cannot shy away from hard decisions.

Let me quote from the US military counterinsurgency manual, recently produced under the direction of General Petraeus and using lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan. This pretty much encapsulates the approach that we use as well as that used by the Americans.

"The principle of proportionality requires that the anticipated loss of life and damage to property incidental to attacks", that is, to non-combatants, "must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained. Soldiers and marines may not take any actions that might knowingly harm non-combatants.

"This does not mean they cannot take risks that might put the populace in danger.

"In conventional operations, this restriction means that combatants cannot intend to harm non-combatants, though proportionality permits them to act, knowing some non-combatants may be harmed."

Under our equivalent of General Petraeus' doctrine, when necessary British forces now attack protected locations after weighing up the risk that non combatants might suffer. We respect international norms and the sanctity of holy places. However, when our troops take fire from these locations or roadside bombs stored there are used to murder the innocent, we have no choice other than to act.

British and American troops now routinely search mosques in Afghanistan and Iraq and when necessary we bring down fire on those locations. This is not done, or should not be done, in a trigger-happy or careless manner but rather in a proportionate way and always with the aim of minimising wider suffering. Obviously this kind of action is undesirable - but faced with the enemy we face, there is no alternative.

General Petraeus' manual goes further than the strict requirements of the laws of war. Let me quote again:

"The use of discriminating, proportionate force as a mindset goes beyond the adherence to the rules of engagement."

"Proportionality and discrimination applied in counter insurgency require leaders to ensure that their units employ the right tools correctly with mature discernment, good judgement and moral resolve."

This describes the use of restraint and focused violence as a positive tool in counter-insurgency, not just as humanitarian and legal moderation. It recognises the importance of winning and maintaining the support of the local population, and sometimes even the insurgent himself, perhaps over and above the priority of winning a particular engagement.

Ultimately, in counter insurgency operations the military commander must balance a series of often conflicting and very difficult judgements in addition to the other pressures he faces on any battlefield. The balance is between firstly achieving the mission by engaging and killing the enemy, secondly, avoiding civilian casualties and thirdly, the effect on hearts and minds - the support or otherwise of the civilian population.

There is a fourth judgement as well.

It is often overlooked in media and human rights groups' frenzies to expose fault among military forces fighting in the toughest conditions. The fourth is preventing or minimising casualties among your own soldiers. There will frequently be times when a military commander must make a snap judgement between the safety of his own troops and that of other people.

Human nature dictates that he will often choose his own men. It is hard to see how it could be otherwise. And there is more to it even than the commander's human nature and loyalty to his men. For soldiers to follow their commander into combat - at any level, but especially at the point of battle - they must trust him.

How many soldiers want to die, be blinded, burnt, or have their arms, legs or faces blown off? No soldier will trust, or follow, a commander who is profligate with his men's lives.

Let us not forget that these calculations, judgements and decisions are not taken in an air conditioned office or from the safety of a rearward military headquarters. The commander must weigh these things up in altogether different circumstances.

As a commander you are surrounded by your men yet totally alone. You have the military arsenal of your country or perhaps an alliance like NATO at your disposal. But the most useful weapons in the kind of close combat I am talking about are the rifle and the bayonet.

You have to kill the enemy knowing that you will then need to shake hands and win the consent of the family in the compound that he is occupying. You haven't slept for two days, you are shattered, you are wet with sweat and the chaos of battle reigns all about you.

There are no computers, on your map with your pen you must compute the locations and intentions of the enemy, your flanking forces, and your own troop positions.

You must do this immediately because the CO needs a situation report, your company need a briefing to orient them, and your Fire Support Team commander is about to bring in fast air, helicopters and mortars, and needs to know that the danger-close fire missions are not going to kill your own men. You must assess the situation and give the go in seconds to secure the initiative.

The only advantage for the commander of all this is that it makes you forget the eighty pounds on your back, the water in the ditch that is up to your waist, and the sweat and dirt that streams constantly into your eyes.

The battle manifests itself as a wall of noise that surrounds you, interspersed with the infantryman's most detested sound, incoming bullets cracking above, to the side and below your head.

Every soldier who has been in combat - whether it is Gaza, Lebanon, Afghanistan or Iraq - can testify to the chaos and confusion of war. According to a well-known military adage, ‘no plan ever survives contact with the enemy'.

It is difficult enough to manoeuvre large numbers of troops and vehicles across treacherous and inhospitable terrain, sometimes by night, in dust storms, rain or searing heat, in armoured vehicles with limited external vision against near-impossible time-lines and coordinating with neighbouring forces, ground attack aircraft, helicopters, artillery, engineers and logistic support.

The complexities and potential for confusion are hugely increased when the enemy is trying to prevent you from doing it by killing you and blowing up your vehicles and equipment.

Piled on top of this are the limits of reconnaissance and the frequent inaccuracy or incompleteness of the intelligence picture, sometimes brought about by the enemy's own operational security, deception and disinformation, sometimes by lack of resources or inadequacy of collection systems.

For every intelligence success, even in modern armies, there are a hundred failures. In close combat even the most technologically sophisticated weapons, surveillance systems and communications devices can, and frequently do, fail, especially when you need them most.

Messages are sometimes not transmitted, not received, or garbled. Precision-guided munitions don't always hit the target they're supposed to and sometimes explode when they shouldn't or don't explode when they should.

Especially in close infantry combat, the concept of the precise, surgical strike is more often pipe dream than practical reality. The close combat, urban or rural environment that often exists in Helmand, Gaza or Iraq can also serve to diminish the advantages of technology, frequently putting hi-tech British forces for example on an equal footing with the Taliban.

Then there is perceptual distortion, common in combat situations, which can lead a commander or soldier to comprehend events in a way that is different to reality.

The stresses and fears of battle tiredness and the body's natural chemical reactions including production of adrenalin can lead to excluding or intensifying sounds, tunnel vision, temporary paralysis, events appearing to move faster or more slowly than they actually are, loss, reduction or distortion of memory and distracting thoughts. These affect different people in different ways and can add to the confusion and chaos of battle.

Amid the disorientation, the smoke, the fire, the explosions, the ear-piercing rattle of bullets, the screams of the wounded, the incomplete intelligence picture and the failure of technology commanders and soldiers must work on to achieve their mission, no matter how hard it gets.

These realities apply to any combat situation and the challenges they add are self-evident. But they become that much harder when fighting a tough, wily, skilful enemy one minute shooting at you or setting a landmine to blow up your vehicle the next leaning on the threshold of his compound, smiling at you, dressed indistinguishably from the population.

General Stanley McChrystal, the new US commander of forces in Afghanistan, has said the reduction of unnecessary civilian casualties is one of his top priorities. It should be. That is also a high priority of British commanders in Afghanistan.

I have personally witnessed the efforts that American forces have been making for years in Iraq and Afghanistan to minimise civilian deaths. These have been impressive but of course they have not always worked in either of our armies.

In some cases because of the factors I have mentioned imperfect intelligence, technological failure, poor communications, the fog of war.

There is also another factor that we shouldn't forget. There will always be bad soldiers who deliberately or through incompetence go against orders. We have seen this in the British Army and among the Americans, in well-publicised cases in Iraq and elsewhere.

I have spoken of the considerable British and American efforts to operate within the laws of war and to reduce unnecessary civilian casualties. But what of the Israeli Defence Forces? The IDF face all the challenges that I have spoken about, and more. Not only was Hamas's military capability deliberately positioned behind the human shield of the civilian population and not only did Hamas employ the range of insurgent tactics I talked through earlier. They also ordered, forced when necessary, men, women and children , from their own population to stay put in places they knew were about to be attacked by the IDF. Fighting an enemy that is deliberately trying to sacrifice their own people. Deliberately trying to lure you in to killing their own innocent civilians.

And Hamas, like Hizballah, are also highly expert at driving the media agenda. They will always have people ready to give interviews condemning Israeli forces for war crimes. They are adept at staging and distorting incidents.

Their people often have no option than to go along with the charades in front of the world's media that Hamas so frequently demand, often on pain of death.

What is the other challenge faced by the IDF that we British do not have to face to the same extent?

It is the automatic, pavlovian presumption by many in the international media, and international human rights groups, that the IDF are in the wrong, that they are abusing human rights.

So what did the IDF do in Gaza to meet their obligation to operate within the laws of war? When possible the IDF gave at least four hours' notice to civilians to leave areas targeted for attack.

Attack helicopter pilots, tasked with destroying Hamas mobile weapons platforms, had total discretion to abort a strike if there was too great a risk of civilian casualties in the area. Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military capability were cancelled because of this.

During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. This sort of task is regarded by military tacticians as risky and dangerous at the best of times. To mount such operations, to deliver aid virtually into your enemy's hands, is to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable.

But the IDF took on those risks.

In the latter stages of Cast Lead the IDF unilaterally announced a daily three-hour cease fire. The IDF dropped over 900,000 leaflets warning the population of impending attacks to allow them to leave designated areas. A complete air squadron was dedicated to this task alone.

Leaflets also urged the people to phone in information to pinpoint Hamas fighters vital intelligence that could save innocent lives.

The IDF phoned over 30,000 Palestinian households in Gaza, urging them in Arabic to leave homes where Hamas might have stashed weapons or be preparing to fight. Similar messages were passed in Arabic on Israeli radio broadcasts warning the civilian population of forthcoming operations.

Despite Israel's extraordinary measures, of course innocent civilians were killed and wounded. That was due to the frictions of war that I have spoken about, and even more was an inevitable consequence of Hamas' way of fighting.

By taking these actions and many other significant measures during Operation Cast Lead the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other Army in the history of warfare.

But the IDF still did not win the war of opinions - especially in Europe. The lessons from this campaign apply to the British and American armies and to other Western forces as well as to the IDF.

We are in the era of information warfare. The kind of tactics used by Hamas and Hizballah and by the Taliban and Jaish al Mahdi work well for them. As they see it, they have no other choice. And they will continue to use it.

How do we counter it? We must not adopt the approach that because they flout the laws of war, we will do so too. Quite the reverse. We must be and remain - whiter than white.

Within the absolute requirements of operational security, and sometimes we may need to really push the boundaries of this out as far as we can, we must be as open and transparent as we can possibly be.

There are three lines of attack.

First, we must allow, encourage and facilitate the media to have every opportunity to report fairly and positively on us and on our activities. This requires positive and proactive, not defensive and reactive, engagement with the media. We should bring the media into our training, let them get to know our units before battle, bring them in whenever possible during combat.

Perhaps embed them into combat units as the British forces often do, sometimes for protracted periods, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let them see our soldiers doing their job in as complete a way as we can.

There are risks in all this, big risks which are self evident and do not need to be spelt out. But we must be brave enough to take those risks.

The benefits are great. The insurgents - Hamas in particular - put a human face on war with spectacular success. We must do the same. We must let the field soldiers speak with sand on their boots and with a sweat and dirt-covered human face.

Second, we must show the media in a way they cannot misunderstand the abuses perpetrated by the enemy. Our own units must identify such enemy abuses, and make statements about them, backed up by the hardest available evidence.

Every front line unit must be trained and equipped to collect this information in the same way as they are trained and equipped to collect intelligence on enemy operations.

This is information war.

Third, we must be proactive in preventing adverse media stories about our own units. I am not talking here about distorting the facts. We must look ahead and identify potential problem areas - preferably before they arise. We must have what the British Labour Party used to call rapid rebuttal units.

They should have the ability to establish the facts on the front line very, very quickly. Be absolutely sure of the facts, and ensure they are pushed rapidly to the media. If they are not one hundred percent sure of the facts they must say as much.

Where real problems do occur, where our troops are in the wrong, if possible we should say so as quickly as we can, driving the agenda, pre-empting the shrieks of the enemy or of the UN.

This demands a culture of openness and honesty among commanders and soldiers at all levels, so they are willing to admit their mistakes readily to their chain of command.

For any of this to work, I repeat, our people must be whiter than white. This requires the best of training and the toughest of discipline and it is sometimes even harder among conscript troops and mobilised reservists.

Here I am not just talking about serious abuses and breaches of the laws of war. I include smaller things like graffiti-ing and trashing people's homes that have been taken over, or are searched or cleared. Like being as courteous as possible to civilians. Maintaining control over soldiers who have just seen their best mates blown apart is far from easy, but it is vital.

Where there is genuine concern over our own troops' conduct or action, we must not hesitate to conduct enquiries and investigations, and if necessary bring people to justice. As far as possible, these processes should also be open and transparent.

But this involves of course yet another major complication -because we must not confuse mistakes made as a genuine consequence of the chaos and fog of war with deliberate defiance of rules of engagement and the laws of war.

Mistakes are not war crimes. We must also know how to explain this.

Most armies do some of these things already. But what we need really is a radical re-evaluation of the effort required to achieve the impact we need. This requires a mind-set that is hard to find in most armies around the world. It requires extra resources and a shift in priorities. And it significantly complicates already highly complex military operations.

It does not answer all of our problems by any means. But all the steps I have mentioned are - in my view - essential to countering the strategies and tactics of the insurgents we are faced with today -in Gaza, Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere.

They are also I believe essential in defending our military policies and objectives -and in defending our brave servicemen and women who are prepared to put their lives on the line to defend their country.

Not that it matters to the "Israel is always wrong" crowd, but Colonel Kemp explicitly admits that the IDF in Gaza did more to prevent civilian casualties than any other military in the history of warfare, including his own British troops. And Kemp should know - he led his own British troops and fought side-by-side with the USA.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. I'm betting you haven't even read the report

I mean, in another thread you couldn't even be bothered reading a six page report before trying to comment on it, so I find it incredibly hard to believe that you'd actually sit through over 500 pages of this report, especially since you've been carrying on since the first day the investigation was announced that it was a load of rubbish...

Any rational person can see that the point of this report is to investigate possible war crimes committed by both sides. Zealots would only be happy if the violations committed by their 'side' are totally ignored and the entire report focuses only on the violations committed by the other 'side'...

Anyway, I'm off to start reading the report...

[shira]

19. i've read parts of it as it's nearly 600 pages long

their absurd conclusion - no evidence of Hamas using civilians as shields - which defies the UN's own definition on human shields.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/glossary/h.htm

human shield - any person who, under the laws of war is considered a non-combattant and as such protected from deliberate attack (civilians, POWs, etc.) but who is used by one side as a hostage to deter the other side from striking a particular military target and risking killing the hostages; the side using "human shields" gambles on the other side's reluctance to violate the laws of war and on its fear of the moral and political opprobrium usually attached to such violations; the use of human shields can take the form of a) placing civilians or prisoners in or near legitimate military targets (bases, bunkers, weapons factories, etc.) or b) placing artillery batteries and other offensive weapons in the midst of the civilian population, particularly such buildings as hospitals, schools, churches, etc., or residential neighborhoods, or c) for non-uniformed armed groups, firing at their adversary from among a crowd of civilians

thus, this report is a completely dishonest hoax posing as serious study - as Hamas' clearly illegal battle strategies are rewarded and Hamas takes no blame for civilian deaths (instead Israel does).

it's astounding that you don't immediately recognize the utter dishonesty here.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. What I'm noticing is yr copying and pasting things from blogs...

That's not the UN definition. I think you should look carefully at what you link to. It's a training database glossary, and last time I checked nothing there is official definitions nor overall UN definitions....

I tend to recognise utter dishonesty when it's actually there to see. I haven't read the report yet but nothing you've said leads to a conclusion that we all should be jumping up and down and squealing 'dishonesty! dishonesty!' You lashing out at everything that's critical of Israel doesn't make it utter dishonesty.

[shira]

29. i first looked up any and all info. on Hamas human shields because...

...the way in which the UN team deals with that tells me what to expect throughout the rest of the report. If their treatment of Hamas human shields is ridiculous (and it is) there's little value (other than propaganda and demonization) to the entire report.

As for the UN definition, the fact is that HRW used that precise definition (according to the definition in that glossary) to explain the situation of the LTTE in Sri Lanka, as I showed you previously. They used that precise definition to label LTTE actions as human shielding but they did not use that for the very same Hamas actions.

"In addition to preventing civilians from leaving combat zones, the LTTE has deployed their forces close to civilians, thus using them as "human shields," fired upon civilians trying to flee to government-controlled areas, and recruited children for their forces."
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/03/04/sri-lanka-urgently-evacuate-civilians

Now compare that to the UN training base glossary definition.

It's the same.

However, HRW denies that these same actions constitute human-shielding when committed by Hamas.

What's difficult about this for you? How is this not dishonest?

And why shouldn't the Goldstone commission use the LTTE example of shielding for Hamas?

What's so honest about their claims of Hamas not using human-shields?

[Violet_Crumble]

36. How about you get back to everyone when you've read the report in full?

Given the mistakes you've made when you hadn't first read a six page B'Tselem report recently, I have little faith that what you post is actually a real indication of what's contained in the report.

I'm also rather concerned that you appear to be focused on this belief of yrs that Hamas used human shields to the exclusion of all else. You've decided it happened, and despite investigators who were there not being able to find any evidence, you make out that you know better what went on, which you don't...

I still don't see any dishonesty. It gets a bit tiring how you fling that accusation at anything you don't agree with or understand. I haven't read anything that HRW said about Sri Lanka, and doubt you've read anything much either to put things in their context, so how about you focus on trying to read the Goldstone report and trying to persuade people here that yr reactions now aren't ones that you had ready months ago no matter what the report said?

[shira]

44. how about you help me understand why HRW, AI, and the UNHRC use different standards wrt Israel?

this recent post shows how HRW defined human-shield usage in Sri Lanka, Somalia, and Chechnya.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=286996&mesg_id=287195

....it is well known that HRW, AI, and the UN have stated very clearly that Hamas is guilty of these very same actions, but that these things alone do not constitute evidence of human-shielding war crimes.

===========

Are these examples of clear and dishonest double-standards?

If not, why not?

===========

ETA:

Here we see just a month ago, an HRW member acknowledged Hamas use of human shields:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1249418591408

Of course, HRW as an organization hasn't admitted this.....and neither did the UN committee.

So who is being honest and how can you tell?

[Violet_Crumble]

48. How about you acknowledge and address what I say to you for a change?

Here's the post you were replying to. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=286996&mesg_id=287181 It's getting tiring the way you totally ignore what's said to you. Do you need me here anymore? You may as well just reply to yr own posts...

[shira]

54. i am - you want me to read the entire report - but it's dishonest and therefore not credible

I proved to you why it's not credible, based on sources you trust (HRW) and not videos.

Your silence in response to this evidence from HRW (their double-standards) suggests that you realize the report is not credible.

Why do you put so much stock into a report that's extremely dishonest?

Do you read other 600 page reports that are based on very big, damaging lies?

======

If you want to discuss some of the report's findings, that's fine - fire away! What shall we discuss?

[Violet_Crumble]

56. Reading something before claiming it's 'dishonest and not credible' is a must-do...

It does come across as just a tad 'dishonest and not credible' to make such a claim when what it's being said about hasn't even been read by the person making those claims....

You haven't proven anything of the sort, and as you have a habit of accusing just about anything you disagree with of being dishonest, I will acknowledge that you disagree with a report that you haven't even bothered reading, and that yr now in other threads saying that anyone who 'supports' the report is to encourage Hamas. Just a bit OTT and manic there...

I've only had time to read the first 50 pages, and I have noticed that you don't address what the report says when it comes to whether it's factual or not, but focus very narrowly on what you say is missing. That doesn't make much sense as a basis for an argument, as the report itself states that its findings are incomplete in places, and that so far from what I've read, they're careful to take the circumstances of incidents into account. Considering the massive scrutiny the Mission would have known the report would get, I'm making a safe assumption they would have been very thorough and fair all the way through the report...

The issue on yr part doesn't appear to be that the incidents described in the report aren't factually accurate. The issue appears to be that there's a belief that Israel shouldn't be held accountable for war crimes and violations of human rights, even though that belief doesn't extend to Hamas, militant groups, or even other governments. That latter argument is one that's completely unsustainable, imo....

[shira]

58. reading some of it is plenty to know whether it's dishonest and not credible

I chose to search for parts I was interested in - and number one was the issue of Hamas human shields. The reason is simple - the commission was supposed to investigate responsibility for Palestinian civilian deaths and Hamas' contributions to those deaths was significant due to their shielding. To deny this is abominable.

And your silence WRT this commission's denial of Hamas human shields speaks volumes. You can claim all you want that I haven't proven anything, but you and I both know that's not the case - and you cannot dispute the fact that HRW has clear double-standards as to what constitutes human-shielding.

But it's okay - we can move on now to other issues.

Within the first 50 pages is mention of the Gaza police, which the UNHRC counts as 'civilians'. We had a little conversation earlier about Betselem's definition of the Gaza police and they do not count them as civilians. Do you think they were 'careful' in claiming the police were really civilians?

And the issue is not only is the report dishonest about human-shielding, but it's also dishonest on other facts like the Gaza police force. Let's see what you have to say about that before we move on to more of the report's blatant falsehoods.

=====

Before you speak on my behalf again, I'll state once more that I want the IDF held accountable for its illegal actions. I'm proud of the fact that there have been at least 100 internal investigations so far (and at least 23 are still open). I firmly believe that the IDF needs to try to be as moral as possible - the fact is this conflict will rage on longer and it's in Israel's best interests to learn from its mistakes and do better in the future.

[Violet_Crumble]

60. Yr only copying bits yr finding from those extremely biased 'pro-Israel' blogs you read...

My silence? I'm sorry. I didn't realise I was typing in some invisible font that's impossible for you to read. Should I repost what I've said in fucking huge bold font so you notice it and don't make dishonest comments about what I have or haven't commented on?

I'll sure as hell claim you haven't proven anything, because you haven't. And it didn't take you long to get back to the attempts at mindreading. Speak on behalf of what you know, and shut the fuck up and let me talk for myself about what I know...

I thought the first 50 pages of the report were very clear and meticulous. If you've got an issue with something that's been said, explain why, but don't fire off questions at me about stuff yr possibly confused about....

Before you speak on my behalf again, I'll state once more that I want the IDF held accountable for its illegal actions.

I don't speak on yr behalf. Never said I did, and I'll also say I take much of what you claim you believe with a grain of salt...

[shira]

62. even if that's all I do, that doesn't take away from the fact the report is full of shit

1. Please make your case against my claim about human-shielding and HRW's clear double-standard.

2. The UNHRC claims the Gaza police are citizens. Many of them were and still are Al Kassam Brigades members. You don't have a problem with that?

[Violet_Crumble]

63. To judge if something's full of shit, you'd have to read it all to know...

You've admitted you haven't read it, I doubt you ever will read it, and yet you sit there insisting that you don't need to read something to know whether it's full of shit or not. That's not a particularly logical way of judging something...

1. I don't make cases. I've already said what I think, so how about you go back and refresh yr memory by actually reading my posts?

2. Was there something unclear in what I said in my previous post, or as usual are you ignoring what gets said to you? This is what I said: 'I thought the first 50 pages of the report were very clear and meticulous. If you've got an issue with something that's been said, explain why, but don't fire off questions at me about stuff yr possibly confused about....'

[shira]

65. that's silly - you can read some of something to know whether it's full of shit

1. So what did you say about HRW contradicting itself on shielding?

2. The Gaza Police are mostly Al-Kassam Brigades and claimed as warriors by Hamas. That doesn't make them civilians - not by objective standards, not by Betselem. Therefore, this is an example within the first 50 pages that the UNHRC commission is full of shit.

[Violet_Crumble]

66. No, it's incredibly silly to only read selected bits like you have...

1. I didn't say HRW contradicted itself. I've seen you flailing round a lot going on about double standards and dishonesty, but I've got no idea and probably even less interest in knowing what the hell yr going on about....

2. Actually anyone who claims that police in Gaza were combatants is full of shit. And I'm not at all surprised that after being shown very clearly why B'Tselem don't count them as combatants, yr now ignoring what B'Tselem said and pretending they said something different...

'On 27 December 2008, the first day of the operation, the army bombed the main police
headquarters in Gaza City, killing 42 police cadets who were standing in formation. The same
day, Israel also bombed some 18 police stations in the Gaza Strip. In total, 248 police officers
were killed that day.

Israeli officials stated, in interviews with the media and in official announcements, that
attacks on the police were justified because police officers would in the future take part in
hostilities against Israel, and that every object belonging to Hamas was a legitimate target,
regardless of the actions of the persons attacked.

B’Tselem knows that many police officers in the Gaza Strip are also members of the military
wings of Palestinian armed groups, and might take part in hostilities against Israel. However,
without concrete information on integration of police officers in the combat forces of Hamas,
and taking into account the assumption that persons are deemed civilians unless proven
otherwise, B’Tselem is unable to determine that all the police officers were legitimate targets
and that the Palestinian police in Gaza, as an institution, is part of the combat forces of
Hamas, all of whose members carry out a continuous combat function.

For these reasons, police officers that Israel killed in an attack aimed at police or police
stations were listed in a separate category. Where B’Tselem knows a police officer was
affiliated with an armed group, the fact is noted. If a police officer was killed during combat,
or if he was killed when not taking part in hostilities and not in an attack aimed at police, it is
mentioned that he was also a police officer, if B’Tselem knows this was the case.'

http://btselem.org/Download/20090909_Cast_Lead_Fatalities_Eng.pdf

And here again is the two categories of people who aren't viewed as civilians in conflict...

Based on the findings of the study, the ICRC determined there are two categories of persons
who lose the protection given them as civilians during an armed conflict between a state and
an organized armed group. B’Tselem included both categories under the classification “took
part in the hostilities.”

1. Persons who fulfill a “continuous combat function.” Such persons are legitimate
objects of attack, even if at the moment of attack they are not taking a direct part in
the hostilities. This category includes persons who are involved on an ongoing basis
in the preparation, execution, or command of combat acts or operations. An
individual recruited, trained and equipped by such a group to continuously and
directly participate in hostilities can be considered to assume a continuous combat
function even before he or she carries out a hostile act. On the other hand, persons
who continuously accompany or support an organized armed group but whose
function does not involve direct participation in hostilities maintain their status as
civilians and are not legitimate objects of attack. Thus, recruiters, financiers and
propagandists may contribute to the general war effort, but as long as they do not
directly participate in hostilities, they are not a legitimate object of attack.

2. Persons who do not fulfill a “continuous combat function” but take a direct part in
hostilities (for example, on their way to fir a rocket, during the firing of the rocket,
and on the way back).
The fact that persons wh
o were killed during the operation belonged to an armed Palestinian
group does not constitute, in and of itself, proof that they took part in the hostilities, or that
they lost the protection granted them as civilians. Only persons who carry out a continuous
combat function are deemed to be taking part in hostilities at all times.

And here's what the UN report says about the attack on the policemen:

'33. The Mission examined the attacks against six police facilities, four of them during the first
minutes of the military operations on 27 December 2008, resulting in the death of 99 policemen
and nine members of the public. The overall around 240 policemen killed by Israeli forces
constitute more than one sixth of the Palestinian casualties. The circumstances of the attacks and
the Government of Israel July 2009 report on the military operations clarify that the policemen
were deliberately targeted and killed on the ground that the police as an institution, or a large
part of the policemen individually, are in the Government of Israel’s view part of the Palestinian
military forces in Gaza.

34. To examine whether the attacks against the police were compatible with the principle of
distinction between civilian and military objects and persons, the Mission analysed the
institutional development of the Gaza police since Hamas took complete control of Gaza in July
2007 and merged the Gaza police with the “Executive Force” it had created after its election
victory. The Mission finds that, while a great number of the Gaza policemen were recruited
among Hamas supporters or members of Palestinian armed groups, the Gaza police were a
civilian law-enforcement agency. The Mission also concludes that the policemen killed on 27
December 2008 cannot be said to have been taking a direct part in hostilities and thus did not
lose their civilian immunity from direct attack as civilians on this ground. The Mission accepts
that there may be individual members of the Gaza police that were at the same time members of
Palestinian armed groups and thus combatants. It concludes, however, that the attacks against the
police facilities on the first day of the armed operations failed to strike an acceptable balance
between the direct military advantage anticipated (i.e. the killing of those policemen who may
have been members of Palestinian armed groups) and the loss of civilian life (i.e. the other
policemen killed and members of the public who would inevitably have been present or in the
vicinity), and therefore violated international humanitarian law.

[shira]

67. even reading selected bits is enough to make conclusions on the overall credibility

1. Check out post #44 above with its links. Did you ever really check out those statements and links? And if not, why not? They're not videos - they come directly from HRW so you have no excuse to ignore damning evidence that you don't particularly like.

2. From paragraph #34 that you quoted above:

The Mission finds that, while a great number of the Gaza policemen were recruited
among Hamas supporters or members of Palestinian armed groups, the Gaza police were a
civilian law-enforcement agency.

HAMAS even admitted this on the first day of the attacks in late December 2008:

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

On June 28, 2009 there was this:
The Hamas Minister of the Interior, Hamad Fatahi, and also Haled Mashal himself, admitted that on the first day alone, 400 or 500 "Hamas warriors" had died.

A great number (actually a vast number) of the Gaza policemen were members of terror groups, and that makes them legitimate military targets - regardless whether they also wrote parking tickets and pulled Fatah members over for speeding, meaning they were not civilians by any stretch of the imagination.

http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=442&PID=0&IID=3081&TTL=Palestinian_“Policemen”_Killed_in_Gaza_Operation_Were_Trained_Terrorists

The Connection between the Palestinian Security Forces and the Palestinian Terror Organizations

An analysis of the list of slain Palestinian security forces shows that of the 343 killed, 258 (75.2 percent) were Hamas members, almost all of them members of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas.4 Twelve more were members of the Popular Resistance Committees, eight belonged to the military wings of Fatah, three were members of Islamic Jihad, four were defined as "fighters" whose organizational affiliation is unknown, and one belonged to the "Army of the Umma," an extreme Islamic terror organization identified as an al-Qaeda offshoot.

In the official fatality list published by the Palestinian police, only one policeman was listed as a member of the traffic division, senior NCO Hussein Naim Hussein Abbas, who was also a member of the al-Qassam Brigades.

Another 27 fighters belonged to units undergoing infantry training intended for fighting against Israel. Thus, the total number of terror activists and fighters among those killed from the Palestinian security apparatuses totals 313, or 91 percent of the fatalities.

In the December 27, 2008, attack on an officer training course at Gaza police headquarters, 89 dead were counted, according to the PCHR. Of these, 60 (67 percent) belonged to Hamas and almost all were members of the al-Qassam Brigades. Two belonged to the military wings of Fatah and one to the Popular Resistance Committees. Eighteen came from units that were undergoing infantry training intended for fighting against Israel. Thus, the total number of terror activists and fighters among those killed at police headquarters was 81 (91 percent).

That link should help anyone see how pernicious the Goldstone report is on Gaza police. And before you attack the source as partisan, realize that the Goldstone commission constantly used Hamas spokespeople as 'credible' sources of information (while always shitting on Israeli claims like the ones from the detailed IDF report released in the last 2 months). Link here:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terrorism+and+Islamic+Fundamentalism-/Operation_in_Gaza-Factual_and_Legal_Aspects.htm

=========

ETA:

From their own mouths.....
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/hamas_e067.pdf

6. During and after Operation Cast Lead, it was proven that there was no clear distinction
between internal security servicemen and Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades operatives. Several days
before the beginning of the ground phase of the operation, Hamas police spokesman Islam
Shahwan said that police forces had been clearly instructed by the leadership to fight against
IDF forces. He added that senior police officers had drawn up action plans and that the police
and the security forces were on high alert for any emergency or a ground assault. He further
noted that the police forces had received clear-cut instructions from the leadership to fight the
enemy in case of an invasion into the Gaza Strip (AFP, January 1, 2009). In Hamas reports
about those killed in IDF air raids on December 27, such terms as “shahid of Al-Qassam”
and “mujahed” (holy warrior, commonly used to refer to members of the military wing) appeared
next to the names of many policemen.

7. In an interview granted by Hussein Abu Azra, commander of the National Security in the
Gaza Strip, he elaborated on that service’s activity during Operation Cast Lead. At the end of
the interview, Hussein Abu Azra emphasized that his forces would be part of the
resistance to “any act of aggression against the Gaza Strip” and that they would
defend the civilians using all means possible (Al-Risala, March 3).

8. In an interview about the functioning of the Hamas police in Operation Cast Lead, Hamas
police chief Jamal Jarah said the following: “The police was able to defend the resistance home
front by tracking down agents and arresting them”; “the police took part
alongside the resistance and
helped it defend the soil of Gaza” (Pal-media website, February 22).

[Violet_Crumble]

70. No, it's incredibly stupid to jump to conclusions without reading it...

1. I'm not interested in yr 'look over there!' crap, Shira, and I've got no idea what yr point is, and don't particularly care. Not really sure what's so damning either...

2. You didn't bother reading what I posted in my previous post about who are defined as combatants and non-combatants. Here it is again. This time, don't just ignore it...

'Based on the findings of the study, the ICRC determined there are two categories of persons
who lose the protection given them as civilians during an armed conflict between a state and
an organized armed group. B’Tselem included both categories under the classification “took
part in the hostilities.”
1. Persons who fulfill a “continuous combat function.” Such persons are legitimate
objects of attack, even if at the moment of attack they are not taking a direct part in
the hostilities. This category includes persons who are involved on an ongoing basis
in the preparation, execution, or command of combat acts or operations. An
individual recruited, trained and equipped by such a group to continuously and
directly participate in hostilities can be considered to assume a continuous combat
function even before he or she carries out a hostile act. On the other hand, persons
who continuously accompany or support an organized armed group but whose
function does not involve direct participation in hostilities maintain their status as
civilians and are not legitimate objects of attack. Thus, recruiters, financiers and
propagandists may contribute to the general war effort, but as long as they do not
directly participate in hostilities, they are not a legitimate object of attack.
2. Persons who do not fulfill a “continuous combat function” but take a direct part in
hostilities (for example, on their way to fir a rocket, during the firing of the rocket,
and on the way back).
The fact that persons who were killed during the operation belonged to an armed Palestinian
group does not constitute, in and of itself, proof that they took part in the hostilities, or that
5
they lost the protection granted them as civilians. Only persons who carry out a continuous
combat function are deemed to be taking part in hostilities at all times.
Palestinian police
On 27 December 2008, the first day of the operation, the army bombed the main police
headquarters in Gaza City, killing 42 police cadets who were standing in formation. The same
day, Israel also bombed some 18 police stations in the Gaza Strip. In total, 248 police officers
were killed that day.
Israeli officials stated, in interviews with the media and in official announcements, that
attacks on the police were justified because police officers would in the future take part in
hostilities against Israel, and that every object belonging to Hamas was a legitimate target,
regardless of the actions of the persons attacked.
B’Tselem knows that many police officers in the Gaza Strip are also members of the military
wings of Palestinian armed groups, and might take part in hostilities against Israel. However,
without concrete information on integration of police officers in the combat forces of Hamas,
and taking into account the assumption that persons are deemed civilians unless proven
otherwise, B’Tselem is unable to determine that all the police officers were legitimate targets
and that the Palestinian police in Gaza, as an institution, is part of the combat forces of
Hamas, all of whose members carry out a continuous combat function.
For these reasons, police officers that Israel killed in an attack aimed at police or police
stations were listed in a separate category. Where B’Tselem knows a police officer was
affiliated with an armed group, the fact is noted. If a police officer was killed during combat,
or if he was killed when not taking part in hostilities and not in an attack aimed at police, it is
mentioned that he was also a police officer, if B’Tselem knows this was the case.'

I'm not sure what part of this isn't sinking in for you. Do you need me to go through it with you really slowly? It does still appear that the issue isn't with the credibility or accuracy of the UN report, but that you've still got that habit of labelling anything you disagree with as being dishonest and bullshit.

[shira]

71. if parts of it are completely full of shit, that's usually a tip to objective, rational people.

and that's just from reading some of it - as it turns out, much of the report is full of shit.

1. There is no "look over there" crap happening with HRW's distortions. You are once again ignoring evidence that doesn't fit your particular worldview and this time you have no excuses about videos from shady websites. This time the statements are directly from HRW. What's damning is that they identify actions Hamas is deliberately carrying out as human-shielding in other conflicts, but not for Hamas. And as I pointed out to you, an HRW researcher even admitted Hamas is guilty of human-shielding in the last month (of course HRW as an organization keeps denying this).

2. Yes, I read what you cut-and-pasted from the ICRC and the Gaza police fit the description of those who fulfill a continuous combat function. That's clear from my last post in which I quoted from Hamas officials. Did you bother to read any of my last post on Gaza policmen being Hamas? Or did you ignore it, as you do any evidence you don't particularly like?

to reiterate, from Hamas command themselves:

6. During and after Operation Cast Lead, it was proven that there was no clear distinction
between internal security servicemen and Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades operatives. Several days
before the beginning of the ground phase of the operation, Hamas police spokesman Islam
Shahwan said that police forces had been clearly instructed by the leadership to fight against
IDF forces. He added that senior police officers had drawn up action plans and that the police
and the security forces were on high alert for any emergency or a ground assault. He further
noted that the police forces had received clear-cut instructions from the leadership to fight the
enemy in case of an invasion into the Gaza Strip (AFP, January 1, 2009). In Hamas reports
about those killed in IDF air raids on December 27, such terms as “shahid of Al-Qassam”
and “mujahed” (holy warrior, commonly used to refer to members of the military wing) appeared
next to the names of many policemen.

7. In an interview granted by Hussein Abu Azra, commander of the National Security in the
Gaza Strip, he elaborated on that service’s activity during Operation Cast Lead. At the end of
the interview, Hussein Abu Azra emphasized that his forces would be part of the
resistance to “any act of aggression against the Gaza Strip” and that they would
defend the civilians using all means possible (Al-Risala, March 3).

8. In an interview about the functioning of the Hamas police in Operation Cast Lead, Hamas
police chief Jamal Jarah said the following: “The police was able to defend the resistance home
front by tracking down agents and arresting them”; “the police took part
alongside the resistance and
helped it defend the soil of Gaza” (Pal-media website, February 22).

Did you read that or will you ignore it?

If you want to appeal to authority (Betselem or HRW or the UNHRC) and trust whatever they say despite hard evidence to the contrary, that's up to you - as it appears that like many of them, you're not interested in facts - you prefer fiction.

[Violet_Crumble]

73. You haven't shown that any of it is full of shit. You've shown you don't agree with the report...

...but until the world turns into some horrific place where Shira's opinions suddenly become facts, then there's a huge difference between you disagreeing with something and something being incorrect...

1. It's definately *Look Over There!* when it comes to yr one-sided obsession with human shields. And stop repeating the same crap over and over again. I'm not ignoring anything. I'm just not at all sure what you think yr proving or what's damning, or why this is the most important thing in the world to you...

2. Okay, so you read the definition of who's a combatant and who's not. I didn't see anything that you posted that contradicted this definition...

[shira]

75. on the contrary, I have and you are incapable of refuting it rationally....all you do is personally

attack with your childish ad hominems. It appears that is all you are capable of doing.

1. In those HRW reports, they labeled certain actions as human-shielding. Hamas also partakes in those exact actions, as HRW admits. However, HRW doesn't equate those actions to shielding as they do in other conflicts. That is a double-standard and I don't understand what's particularly difficult about this for you. This human-shielding is important because in other conflicts the party who does it takes responsibility for the civilians they are using as shields. Hamas has made a very significant contribution to Palestinian civilian deaths. They should be held accountable to a great degree, and the human rights organizations you believe are trustworthy are letting them off the hook and encouraging them to repeat their heinous actions against Palestinians you purport to care about. This cover for Hamas is simply monstrous.

2. The quotes I posted again quoting Hamas officials (in my very last response to you 2 posts above) shows that the police were combatants carrying out a continuous function, and therefore they were legit targets and not civilians.

[Violet_Crumble]

77. More words for you to learn the definition of - *ad hominem and rational*

Disagreeing with you isn't personally attacking you. You do really need to get a sense of perspective when it comes to the fact that yr opinions aren't facts...

1. I'm not at all sure what yr point is. There's no *official* HRW glossary, and one investigator not using the exact same definition as another in another country is not double-standards at all. Anyway, yr argument seems to be that you want to blame Hamas for basically all civilian deaths. That doesn't make sense seeing as how the IDF used Palestinian civilians as human shields. How does one lot apparently significantly contribute to deaths while the other lot doesn't?

2. No, what the Hamas official said doesn't make the police combatants. Please read the ICRC definition again and what the Hamas official said again, and you'll notice that according to the ICRC definition they weren't combatants at the time they were attacked....

[shira]

79. reply

1. The point is that in those official HRW reports, they used a definition of human-shielding for the LTTE, etc... that they do not use against Hamas. If it's human-shielding for the LTTE, etc.. it's human shielding with Hamas too. And Hamas is responsible for the vast majority of civilian deaths (of course that would not include any deaths due to alleged IDF shielding).

2. You really need to read the definition of what constitutes under ICRC definitions a continuous combat function, because that's exactly what the Gaza police were doing. Their constant training was directly linked to their military functions.

This category includes persons who are involved on an ongoing basis
in the preparation, execution, or command of combat acts or operations. An
individual recruited, trained and equipped by such a group to continuously and
directly participate in hostilities can be considered to assume a continuous combat
function even before he or she carries out a hostile act.

That is exactly what the Gaza police were doing, thus they were not civilians.

[Violet_Crumble]

81. HRW don't have a glossary of official definitions...

How come yr still going on that they've got an official definition? They don't. Also, why is it that you don't use the word 'alleged' when it comes to yr accusations about Hamas and human shields? You seem to be trying to downplay the IDF using human-shields and making out that using a much broader definition, Hamas definately did it.

2. Um, I didn't just read the definition of what's a combatant. I'm the one who posted that definition when you first appeared to be confused about it. Training police to carry out their role as policemen (that's a civil role) does not make people combatants...

[shira]

83. even if they did, you'd ignore it like you do the UN glossary of definitions, so what's the point?

1. So if HRW doesn't officially define human shields but they use the term in some willy-nilly way, pick and choose according to whatever they like, that's okay with you? Let me ask you - from what you know about shielding now, do you think the IDF doing it is a much greater concern than Hamas? IOW, for the sake of Palestinian civilians - which is worse? Hamas shielding or IDF?

2. The Gaza police weren't just trained to carry out their civil roles - they were also trained to be holy warriors who fight in the 'resistance'. That makes them combatants.

[Violet_Crumble]

84. Huh? That was a training database for peacekeepers, not an official UN glossary...

1. I don't think yr objective enough to be able to get a grasp or any desire to understand that largish organisations do have a habit of sometimes defining similar things differently. It doesn't make them dishonest or lacking in credibility. It makes them largish organisations with a lot of individuals doing a whole lot of different stuff. About yr question - huh? Did I miss something and I've sat through some big lesson on human shields where I've supposed to have learnt something? When did that happen?

2. No, when those police were attacked they were carrying out the role of being policemen, not combatants. I think B'Tselem handled their stats well, counting them in their own category...

[shira]

86. so peacekeepers for the UN are to have one definition of human shielding, but that's....

....really not anything anyone should go by - including the UNHRC? Why then would they include such a definition in one of their UN sponsored projects?

1. It's not that HRW is defining "similar" things differently - the scenarios are identical between the LTTE, Somalis, etc.. and Hamas. In fact, on the LTTE, etc.. HRW and one of their investigators last month use the UN glossary's definition for peacekeepers, and you find that just coincidental or of no import? Come on, Violet.

2. They may have served dual purposes as a police force as well, but they were still part of Hamas' military serving a continuous combat function. I'm really not sure why you and the UNHRC reject anything Hamas says when Hamas admits those police were in fact militants. Here's a news article from the first day of OCL:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/27/world/main4687505.shtml

Israeli warplanes rained more than 100 tons of bombs on security sites in Hamas-ruled Gaza Saturday and early Sunday, killing at least 230 people in one of the Mideast conflict's bloodiest assaults in decades. The government said the open-ended campaign was aimed at stopping rocket attacks that have traumatized southern Israel.

Most of the casualties were security forces, but Palestinian officials said at least 15 civilians were among the dead. More than 400 people were also wounded.

Do you get what that means, Violet? 15 out of 230 were civilians according to Palestinian officials. That's a clear indication the police were not civilians according to Palestinian officials after the 1st day of combat (before all the propaganda started).

Now once again, why should I just ignore what Palestinian authorities, Hamas officials, etc.. say about their own "police" force? Why must I believe they count as innocent civilians - because we must trust HRW or the UNHRC? Help me to understand this line of thinking, Violet.

[Violet_Crumble]

88. All I did was correct yr false claim that it was an official UN definition...

It wasn't, and it's damn dishonest to continue to claim it was, which is what you did.

1. It is that things are being defined differently.

2. According to the ICRC definition, the police weren't direct combatants. The ICRC have a lot more credibility than you do, so there ya go...

But yr always telling everyone what a bunch of liars Hamas are. Not that what they said showed that the police were combatants, but even if they did, how come you suddenly believe every word they say?

[shira]

89. but it's that definition, what you say is not official, that HRW used in its reports on the LTTE, ..

...Somalia, Belgrade. It's that definition that an HRW investigator used just last month when admitting to Hamas human shielding.

It's pretty damned dishonest to pretend that definition within the UN glossary for peacekeepers is worthless, insignificant and shouldn't be used to describe Hamas actions.

1. What's being defined differently? Did you read those HRW articles or the one on the HRW investigator admitting to Hamas shielding? What exactly is different?

2. So because the ICRC says they don't count as combatants - even though Israel does, Hamas does, as do Al-Qassam Brigades, Islamic Jihad, etc...that works for you? It's not that I suddenly believe Hamas - Israel says the same thing. Why on earth would so many Hamas and Palestinian officials say the police were combatants if they really were not?

ETA:
Betselem admits a great number of police were definitely militants. It turns out that at least the vast majority were, if not all, according to Israeli sources. How does this not make the police dept. a legit target if a great number of police were definitely militants - which incidentally verifies Palestinian officials' claims they were all militants.

Also, how many other true civilians did Hamas and Palestinian officials identify as combatants besides the police force? Any? :)

[Violet_Crumble]

90. It's not just that I say it. It's that it's not an official definition...

If you have some sort of proof to the contrary, feel free to show me, otherwise I'm not sure why yr dishonestly claiming that it is an official definition....

1. If you don't know what's being defined differently, then I'm not sure what you think it is yr supposed to be arguing...

2. You got it in one. The ICRC definition carries a lot more weight than yr own personal definition. And I wish you'd read what you copy and paste. What the Hamas guy said did not have the police defined as combatants using the ICRC definition. But I've already pointed that out to you in an earlier post...

[shira]

91. for something not being an official definition, it's certainly utilized that way by HRW in...

...a number of cases outside of Israel (including the HRW investigator last month). If it's not official, why is it being used so much?

1. You are saying the situations between the LTTE, Somalia, Belgrade, etc... identified by HRW are only similar to the Hamas situation. You believe they are different than Hamas. How so? What exactly is different?

2. Well - at least you've made yourself clear. If the ICRC definition says they're not combatants but everyone on both sides of the conflict says they are, you'd rather go with the ICRC - and the fact is these police carried out a continuous combat function which clearly makes them combatants - so by ICRC standards, they are combatants. Serving a dual role does not eliminate the fact they were still militants.

=========

ETA:

As to the ICRC definitions, what do you think of voluntary human shields? Protected civilians (like you and me who do not participate in hostilities) should be labeled the same as voluntary participants in battle and therefore are ilegitimate miitary targets? Recall...

All 50 experts on the panel had agreed that civilians who act as voluntary human shields should fit within the definition, which would make them legitimate military targets.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/18/inside-the-ring-95264632/?page=2

The ICRC voted against its entire panel that they used to distinguish combatants from civilians. All 50 legal experts!

You think it's okay for a mother to take her young children to a launch site and expect to be treated as protected civilians who cannot be touched....therefore the militants have free reign to fire away with their voluntary shields? Realize that while the mother is volunteering, her children are too young to realize the implications - and are therefore involuntary shields. This is what Israel is up against, so it's important you be as clear as possible explaining whether the ICRC ruling makes sense and is morally correct in this case. Thanks in advance. :)

[Violet_Crumble]

92. It's not an official definition and it's not utilised that way at all...

If it was, then you wouldn't be having whatever this argument is that you think yr having...

1. Huh? Please stop telling me what I'm saying or at least stop wasting my time and just sit here and talk to yrself...

2. Glad you got all that sorted out. Yet again you totally ignored what I said about how what you posted from the Hamas official didn't make them combatants according to the ICRC definition.....

3. Why are you wasting my time asking me questions when you don't take any notice of what I say to you anyway? How about you do what you've been doing and just tell me what you claim to know that I know. Saves me trying to have to decipher what are quite incoherent and illogical posts...

[shira]

93. it appears you didn't read those HRW reports or the one about the HRW investigator last month

...because that "unofficial" definition (and for the sake of argument, I'll agree it is unofficial) is used precisely that way by HRW in other conflicts, as I have repeatedly pointed out to you.

See post #43 here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=286996&mesg_id=287195

That's HRW in 3 reports on human shielding.

See post #1 here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x286996#287009

And that's the UN Glossary definition.

The way in which human shielding is defined in both are identical.

Why do you insist that they are different?

----------------------

1. Here's what you said today, to refresh your memory:

Post 77.
"I'm not at all sure what yr point is. There's no *official* HRW glossary, and one investigator not using the exact same definition as another in another country is not double-standards at all.

Post 84.
"...understand that largish organisations do have a habit of sometimes defining similar things differently. It doesn't make them dishonest or lacking in credibility. It makes them largish organisations with a lot of individuals doing a whole lot of different stuff."

Post 88.
"It is that things are being defined differently."

Remember that, Violet?

So when it comes to human-shielding according to HRW in other conflicts as opposed to I/P, what is not - using your words - "the exact same definition" - or what is "sometimes defining similar things differently"? What do you mean by that?

-------------------------------------


2. What exactly did I ignore from you about ICRC definitions making the police civilians? According to ICRC definitions and what Hamas describes about its own police force, they carried out a continuous combat function.

-------------------------------------

3. I'm trying to take notice of what you say - and if you have questions of me on this topic, I'm more than willing to answer you - right now I ask you about the ICRC's handling of volunteer human shields to see what you think of it - and whether you're okay with it (despite all their legal experts being against it).

[Violet_Crumble]

94. I probably didn't, and don't really understand why I need to...

If yr finally acknowledging it's not an official definition, then that's the end of it.

Also, the UN doesn't have an official glossary. That'd make it multiple times I've explained that to you...


No, yr incorrect. maybe it's because you have an inability to comprehend the written word, but what the Hamas guy said did not describe a continuous combat role...


You don't seem good at taking hints, Shira. I'm not interested in asking you any questions on this topic, and I'm not interested in answering the barrage of pointless questions yr firing away with, given the way you bullshit and try to tell me that you know what I supposedly know...

[shira]

95. why didn't you just concede much earlier?

instead of obfuscating and insulting?

why pretend the Goldstone report is credible, fair, and honest when it's demonstrably not?

[Violet_Crumble]

96. Concede? What do you think this is? A battle or something?

Last time I checked it's a discussion forum, and last time I checked, disagreeing with yr rather bizarre and incoherent 'arguments' is not insulting you....

I'm not pretending anything. What I've read so far of the report is coming across as fair, objective and pretty damn meticulous. You disagree with what you've been told the report contains, but you disagreeing with something doesn't make it lacking in credibility, unfair, or dishonest...

[shira]

97. LOL, okay.

[shira]

98. Violet...more on that "continuous combat role" by the Gaza 'civilian' police force

'Reinterpretation' of Hamas statements. In seeking to support its assertion that the
Hamas police were not involved in terrorist activity, the Report prefers to gloss
over has to deal with the admission of police spokesperson Islam Shahwan who
that the police had been given orders "to face the enemy". The Mission
unquestioningly accepted his explanation that the intention was that in the event
of a ground invasion the police would continue ensuring the movement of
foodstuffs and upholding public order(¶ 414). The Mission is similarly accepting
of an interpretation given by the director of the Police that by "resistance fighters"
his intention was that they would develop into a law enforcement force (¶ 416).


At the same time, the Report dismisses posters and photographs of policemen
praising their involvement as members of the terrorist groups, arguing that this
does not mean that these individuals "were involved in resistance in any away"
and suggesting that they had been "adopted" post-mortem by terrorist groups(¶
421). Beyond these reinterpretations of the evidence, the Report claims that no
other evidence has been presented against "the civilian nature of the police in
Gaza" (¶ 417), quite simply ignoring numerous explicit statements in Israel's
report: The Operation in Gaza – Factual and Legal Aspects, which it quotes on
many other matters. Among the many statements cited, ignored by the Report, is
the admission by Hamas police chief Jamal al-Jarrah that "the police took part in
the fighting alongside the resistance".

=======

Excerpt from page 9 here...
http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/FC985702-61C4-41C9-8B72-E3876FEF0ACA/0/GoldstoneReportInitialResponse240909.pdf

=======

I suggest you read the entire 24 page report from Israel's MFA. You should find that it exposes Goldstone's idiotic report for the ludicrous, one-sided, over-the-top, moronic piece of crap that it is. I guess it could have been worse...they could have added all those accusations of Israel distributing horny gum to the Palestinian population or using penis-shrinking rays against male Palestinians.

[Violet_Crumble]

64. And how many of those 100 internal investigations of abuse were dismissed as baseless?

That'd be all but the 23 that are still open. It's very handy how the IDF absolves itself of wrongdoing when it investigates itself...

[shira]

68. how many convictions do you require out of 100 in order to ascertain that the IDF is doing its job?

[Violet_Crumble]

69. I figured you'd be totally in support of the IDF exonerating itself in all cases it's completed...

Do you know if they exonerated themselves of using Palestinians as human shields? Or whether they cleared themselves of carrying out wanton destruction of property (eg a flour mill, a chicken farm, and a waste water treatment plant)?

[shira]

72. and i figured that unless there's a 100% conviction rate by the IDF, you think they should all be

...tried at the Hague.

[Violet_Crumble]

74. You figure wrong, which is par for the course with you...

Stop making crap up and telling me what I supposedly think. I'm not the sort of imbecile who thinks in absolutes, so at least if yr going to make up stuff about what I supposedly think, make it something that's believable...

I take it that you don't know if the IDF's yet exonerated itself for using Palesitnians as human shields. Gosh, for someone who's so obsessed with accusing Hamas of using human shields, yr interest appears to vanish magically as soon as anyone mentions the IDF using human shields...

[shira]

76. I'll stop speaking for you when you stop speaking for me....deal?

If the IDF really used human shields, I hope they clean that shit up once and for all and make the verdict so harsh that it won't be repeated again in the future.

[Violet_Crumble]

78. I don't do lame things like that...you on the other hand did...

*If* the IDF really used human shields? I notice you never say *If* Hamas really used human shields. Why's that?

[shira]

80. you just did it a few posts above

there's no question Hamas used human shields - the cases against the IDF are very questionable.

I notice you deny Hamas uses human shields, despite extraordinary evidence they do. Why is that?

[Violet_Crumble]

82. Pretty damn sure I didn't. I don't tell other people what they think...

Yeah, sorry I forgot that any Palestinian who was used as a human shield by the IDF is lying and that there's no need for any evidence or proof when it comes to Hamas, coz in that case there's 'no question' at all...

All the reports I've read have said that they didn't find evidence of Hamas using human shields in Gaza, and I've not seen a shred of 'extraordinary evidence' to the contrary, that's why...

[Scurrilous]

2. U.N. Finds Signs of War Crimes on Both Sides in Gaza

<snip>

"A United Nations fact-finding mission investigating the three week-war in Gaza issued a lengthy, scathing report on Tuesday that concluded that both the Israeli military and Palestinian armed groups “committed actions amounting to war crimes,” and possibly crimes against humanity.

The four-member mission, led by Justice Richard Goldstone, a widely respected South African judge, also concluded that neither Israel nor the Palestinian groups had carried out any "credible investigations" into the conduct of the war. If that did not change within six months, the United Nations Security Council should refer the situation to the International Criminal Court in the Hague for possible prosecution, the panel concluded.

“The prolonged situation of impunity has created a justice crisis in the Occupied Palestinian Territory that warrants action,” the members said in their 574-page report on the war, during which some 1,200 Palestinians were killed, including at least several hundred civilians, and 13 Israelis died, 10 soldiers and 3 civilians."

<snip>

"The report found the Palestinians at fault for rocket fire into southern Israel that “caused terror in the affected communities of southern Israel as well as loss of life and physical and mental injury to civilians and damage to private houses, religious buildings and property.”

There was no immediate Palestinian response.

The report, the bulk of which focused on the Israeli violations, said that during the war, Israeli forces engaged in a deliberate policy of collective punishment in furtherance of "an overall and continuing policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population," through blockades and the destruction of food, water and sanitation systems of its people.

It also found that the Israeli forces used disproportionate force against the Palestinian civilian population. In a number of cases, it said, Israeli forces launched “direct attacks against civilians with lethal outcome,” even when the facts indicated no justifiable military objective. Those incidents, the report concluded, amounted to war crimes.

Israeli forces twice shelled civilian hospitals in Gaza, but in neither case was the attack justified, the report found. In the attack on the Al Quds Hospital, the shelling of the building and an adjacent building with white phosphorous shells caused fires that took a day to extinguish, and at no point was any warning given of an imminent strike, the report said. The panel found no evidence of the enemy fire that the Israeli military cited as rationale for its attack.

Another of the incidents that the panel judged equivalent to a war crime took place in the Samouni neighborhood in Gaza City, when Israel soldiers shelled a house where soldiers had forced Palestinian civilians to assemble. In seven cases, the report found, “civilians were shot while they were trying to leave their homes to walk to a safer place, waving white flags and in some cases, following an injunction from the Israeli forces to do so.”

Israeli forces also intentionally attacked civilians in targeting a mosque with a missile during the early evening prayer, killing 15 people, and in firing anti-personnel flechette munitions, which release thousands of metal darts, on a crowd of family and neighbors at a condolence tent, killing five.

"These incidents indicate that the instructions given to the Israeli forces moving into Gaza provided for a low threshold for the use of lethal fire against the civilian population," the report said. The conduct of the Israeli armed forces in these instances, it said, "constitute grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention" and as such, "give rise to individual criminal responsibility."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/world/middleeast/16gaza.html?hp



UN Press Release - 15 September 2009

http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/9B63490FFCBE44E5C1257632004EA67B?opendocument

UN Fact Finding Mission finds strong evidence
of war crimes and crimes against humanity
committed during the Gaza conflict;
calls for end to impunity

<snip>

"The UN Fact-Finding Mission led by Justice Richard Goldstone on Tuesday released its long-awaited report on the Gaza conflict, in which it concluded there is evidence indicating serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law were committed by Israel during the Gaza conflict, and that Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity.

The report also concludes there is also evidence that Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes, as well as possibly crimes against humanity, in their repeated launching of rockets and mortars into Southern Israel.

The four members of the Mission* were appointed by the President of the Human Rights Council in April with a mandate to "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."

In compiling the 574- page report, which contains detailed analysis of 36 specific incidents in Gaza, as well as a number of others in the West Bank and Israel, the Mission conducted 188 individual interviews, reviewed more 10,000 pages of documentation, and viewed some 1,200 photographs, including satellite imagery, as well as 30 videos. The mission heard 38 testimonies during two separate public hearings held in Gaza and Geneva, which were webcast in their entirety. The decision to hear participants from Israel and the West Bank in Geneva rather than in situ was taken after Israel denied the Mission access to both locations. Israel also failed to respond to a comprehensive list of questions posed to it by the Mission. Palestinian authorities in both Gaza and the West Bank cooperated with the Mission.

The Mission found that, in the lead up to the Israeli military assault on Gaza, Israel imposed a blockade amounting to collective punishment and carried out a systematic policy of progressive isolation and deprivation of the Gaza Strip. During the Israeli military operation, code-named "Operation Cast Lead," houses, factories, wells, schools, hospitals, police stations and other public buildings were destroyed. Families are still living amid the rubble of their former homes long after the attacks ended, as reconstruction has been impossible due to the continuing blockade. More than 1,400 people were killed during the military operation.

Significant trauma, both immediate and long-term, has been suffered by the population of Gaza. The Report notes signs of profound depression, insomnia and effects such as bed-wetting among children. The effects on children who witnessed killings and violence, who had thought they were facing death, and who lost family members would be long lasting, the Mission found, noting in its Report that some 30 per cent of children screened at UNRWA schools suffered mental health problems.

The report concludes that the Israeli military operation was directed at the people of Gaza as a whole, in furtherance of an overall and continuing policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population, and in a deliberate policy of disproportionate force aimed at the civilian population. The destruction of food supply installations, water sanitation systems, concrete factories and residential houses was the result of a deliberate and systematic policy which has made the daily process of living, and dignified living, more difficult for the civilian population.

The Report states that Israeli acts that deprive Palestinians in the Gaza Strip of their means of subsistence, employment, housing and water, that deny their freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country, that limit their rights to access a court of law and an effective remedy, could lead a competent court to find that the crime of persecution, a crime against humanity, has been committed.

The report underlines that in most of the incidents investigated by it, and described in the report, loss of life and destruction caused by Israeli forces during the military operation was a result of disrespect for the fundamental principle of "distinction" in international humanitarian law that requires military forces to distinguish between military targets and civilians and civilian objects at all times. The report states that "Taking into account the ability to plan, the means to execute plans with the most developed technology available, and statements by the Israeli military that almost no errors occurred, the Mission finds that the incidents and patterns of events considered in the report are the result of deliberate planning and policy decisions."

For example, Chapter XI of the report describes a number of specific incidents in which Israeli forces launched "direct attacks against civilians with lethal outcome." These are, it says, cases in which the facts indicate no justifiable military objective pursued by the attack and concludes they amount to war crimes. The incidents described include:

Attacks in the Samouni neighbourhood, in Zeitoun, south of Gaza City, including the shelling of a house where soldiers had forced Palestinian civilians to assemble;

Seven incidents concerning "the shooting of civilians while they were trying to leave their homes to walk to a safer place, waving white flags and, in some of the cases, following an injunction from the Israeli forces to do so;"

The targeting of a mosque at prayer time, resulting in the death of 15 people.

A number of other incidents the Report concludes may constitute war crimes include a direct and intentional attack on the Al Quds Hospital and an adjacent ambulance depot in Gaza City.

The Report also covers violations arising from Israeli treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank, including excessive force against Palestinian demonstrators, sometimes resulting in deaths, increased closures, restriction of movement and house demolitions. The detention of Palestinian Legislative Council members, the Report says, effectively paralyzed political life in the OPT.

The Mission found that through activities such as the interrogation of political activists and repression of criticism of its military actions, the Israeli Government contributed significantly to a political climate in which dissent was not tolerated.

The Fact-Finding Mission also found that the repeated acts of firing rockets and mortars into Southern Israel by Palestinian armed groups "constitute war crimes and may amount to crimes against humanity," by failing to distinguish between military targets and the civilian population. "The launching of rockets and mortars which cannot be aimed with sufficient precisions at military targets breaches the fundamental principle of distinction," the report says. "Where there is no intended military target and the rockets and mortars are launched into civilian areas, they constitute a deliberate attack against the civilian population."

The Mission concludes that the rocket and mortars attacks "have caused terror in the affected communities of southern Israel," as well as "loss of life and physical and mental injury to civilians and damage to private houses, religious buildings and property, thereby eroding the economic and cultural life of the affected communities and severely affecting the economic and social rights of the population."

The Mission urges the Palestinian armed groups holding the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit to release him on humanitarian grounds, and, pending his release, give him the full rights accorded to a prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions including visits from the International Committee of the Red Cross. The Report also notes serious human rights violations, including arbitrary arrests and extra-judicial executions of Palestinians, by the authorities in Gaza and by the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.

The prolonged situation of impunity has created a justice crisis in the Occupied Palestinian Territory that warrants action, the Report says. The Mission found the Government of Israel had not carried out any credible investigations into alleged violations. It recommended that the UN Security Council require Israel to report to it, within six months, on investigations and prosecutions it should carry out with regard to the violations identified in its Report. The Mission further recommends that the Security Council set up a body of independent experts to report to it on the progress of the Israeli investigations and prosecutions. If the experts' reports do not indicate within six months that good faith, independent proceedings are taking place, the Security Council should refer the situation in Gaza to the ICC Prosecutor. The Mission recommends that the same independent expert body also report to the Security Council on proceedings undertaken by the relevant Gaza authorities with regard to crimes committed by the Palestinian side. As in the case of Israel, if within six months there are no good faith independent proceedings conforming to international standards in place, the Council should refer the situation to the ICC Prosecutor.

The full report can be found on the web page of the Fact Finding Mission:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/FactFindingMission.htm

[Scurrilous]

3. Experts: Goldstone report may lead to private lawsuits

Legalists say International Crimes Court unlikely to purse war crimes allegations made by new UN report into Gaza offensive; warn individual lawsuits in countries which allow them still possible

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3777479,00.html

<snip>

"Can the Goldstone report be used to promote legal action against Israeli officials? Legal experts told Ynet that the UN's findings on the Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip in early 2009 have "no immediate legal meaning" as far as International Crimes Court (ICC) in The Hague is concerned, but may be used to justify private lawsuits.

UN-appointed former South African Judge Richard Goldstone released his inquest report into Operation Cast Lead Tuesday, stating that both Israel and Hamas had committed war crimes.

The report said that "Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, possibly crimes against humanity," adding "there was also evidence that Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes, as well as possibly crimes against humanity," by firing rockets into southern Israel.

"Neither Israel nor the Palestinians are a part of the ICC Convention and that is the only way Israeli military personnel can be held criminally liable," international law expert Dr. Robbie Sabel told Ynet.

"No one body, with the expectation of the ICC, has the authority to determine whether or not war crimes were committed," he said, adding that until Israel becomes part of the convention, or the ICC declares the Palestinian Authority a state which can join it, the chances of any Israeli solider facing charges is very low.

Should the UN hand the report to the ICC, Israel's image will, however, suffer great damage."

<snip>

"Still, Sabel believes the Goldstone report could prompt private lawsuits in countries which allow an individual citizen to sue another nation.

In places like the UK, he said, "The report can be used as ammunition against Israel, since the legal establishment does not interfere in the process of filing complaints, leaving their validity for the case judge to decide."

<snip>

"Attorney Michael Sefarad, who specializes in human rights international law, was more cautious: "The Goldstone report is highly unusual, since it states Israel's inquests into the operation were unworthy. The bottom line is that this report brings us one step closer to seeing foreign courts hear war crimes cases involving Israeli officials."

Sefarad too said the report carries no immediate repercussions, adding that it does, however, correlate with previous reports – all of which could potentially lead to the conclusion that war crimes were indeed committed during Operation Cast Lead."

[azurnoir]

8. I feel a new wave hysteria and hyperbole coming on

but its become quite predictable

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. Indeed it has

[number6]

4. war crimes and terrorism in Gaza, commited

by the IOF (IDF) or IOTA as I call em.

[proteus_lives]

11. Yeah, right.

The IDF are terrorists and Hamas is not.

Open your eyes.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. Actually, the report has found both guilty of committing war crimes...

But according to Shira the report stinks, so I'm not going to believe a word the report says about Hamas! ;)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. Reports do not convict, they have findings. As pointed out in other posts it has no legal standing

[Violet_Crumble]

37. And I didn't say anyone was convicted n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

42. Found guilty == conviction

At least in most English speaking countries

[bemildred]

45. Found guilty means someone thinks they are guilty.

Convicted means there was a trial, or something. I speak English real good. We have different words all the time because the meaning is different.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. I speak English heaps better than you Americans, and that's my understanding of 'found guilty'...n/t

[shira]

31. come on now

you've been shown evidence that the report is not credible....now while there may be legitimate concerns within the report that need to be addressed (as they should be by the IDF) the fact is that the report as a whole is nothing but propaganda and demonization masquerading as a serious inquiry.

based on the dishonest way in which the UN shifts virtually all responsibility for civilian deaths from Hamas onto Israel, all claims against the IDF must be taken with a grain of salt.

if this commission cannot be trusted on the Hamas human-shield issue, which lies at the heart of the entire 600 page report, why should anyone objective believe that the rest of the report is credible?

[Violet_Crumble]

38. Excuse me? I have NOT been shown evidence the report isn't credible...

You haven't read the report, Shira, so don't talk about what you think it is until you have...

based on the dishonest way in which the UN shifts virtually all responsibility for civilian deaths from Hamas onto Israel, all claims against the IDF must be taken with a grain of salt.

All that means is you want Hamas blamed for most if not all Palestinian deaths and cannot tolerate the fact that the IDF were responsible for some grave violations of human rights. On the other hand, I believe Israel should not be immune from being held accountable for war crimes and violations of international law, and am glad that Mr Goldstone has held both the IDF and Hamas accountable for what they did...

if this commission cannot be trusted on the Hamas human-shield issue, which lies at the heart of the entire 600 page report, why should anyone objective believe that the rest of the report is credible?

Not trusted by who? You and the Israeli govt? Who cares? I certaintly wouldn't, as neither you or the Israeli govt are particularly objective when it comes to this conflict. Also, yr 'hamas human shields' stuff isn't the heart of what happened in Gaza. You think otherwise for whatever reason you have, but that's clearly not true at all...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

41. Not sure you would accept it regardless

[Violet_Crumble]

50. Well, until I see some credible evidence you'll never know n/t

[shira]

43. you have been provided examples of double-standards with regard to human shielding....

....which destroys the credibility of the human rights organizations employing such dishonest, double-standards.

Examples being...

1. The LTTE in Sri Lanka...

“the LTTE has deployed their forces close to civilians, thus using them as "human shields".
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/03/04/sri-lanka-urgently-evacuate-civilians

2. Somalia....

“the practice by insurgent forces of firingmortars or otherwise launching attacks from heavily populated neighborhoods...can constitute ‘human shielding', which is a war crime."
http://www.hrw.org/en/node/76418/section/12

3. Chechnya...

“a key command post within or adjacent to a market” by Chechen fighters “would be a serious violation, as the Chechen forces are obliged to respect international law prohibiting use of the civilian population to shieldmilitary objects”
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/1999/11/02/evidence-war-crimes-chechnya

==============

Major human rights groups have claimed Hamas is guilty of all the above - but they claim this does not constitute evidence of war crimes via human shielding - in the case of Hamas, that is.

In the case of Sri Lanka, Somalia, and Chechnya, sure....but not Hamas.

:eyes:

A clear and deliberate, dishonest double-standard.

A lie.

Ergo, no credibility.

[shira]

46. forgot to include this one from last month - HRW researcher acknowledging human shields

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1249418591408

Of course, HRW as an organization hasn't admitted this.....and neither did the UN committee.

Someone's being dishonest, right? Come on now. :)

[Violet_Crumble]

51. I think yr starting to tie yrself up in knots here...

What exactly is yr argument again?

[shira]

55. the report is not credible

my last 2 posts before this one prove that HRW and the UN are using very dishonest double-standards when judging Israel.

based on the fact that HRW and the UN are extremely dishonest and that their reports are very damaging to both Palestinian and Israeli victims of Hamas (because these reports only encourage Hamas to be warmongers), why do you find such a report to be credible, reliable, accurate, and honest?

the report is an absolute disaster for the cause of human rights and peace. Why do you wish to believe that it will help promote anything good or progressive?

[Violet_Crumble]

57. What yr going on about isn't from the report...it's yr pet hobbyhorse yet again...

Three reasons why I've found what I've read of the report so far to be very credible and not the slightest bit dishonest:

1. Of the 50 pages I've read so far, nothing's jumping out as being incorrect or lacking in credibility. Maybe you should try reading those first 50 pages before jumping to conclusions?

2. I'm going on what's actually in the report itself.....

3. I'm not a highly partisan zealoted type who thinks Israel is beyond reproach...

[shira]

59. of course not, it's denied - it's a dishonest omission and I know that you know it

the proof of that is you have zero to say when faced with HRW's own double-standards in their reports on Sri Lanka, Somalia, Belgrade, etc...including the HRW researcher who admitted it just last month.

and actually, I'd say you are highly partisan.

[Violet_Crumble]

61. I don't know why you bother 'debating' with people when you 'know' what they think...

So, unless I agree with you that something's a double-standard and dishonest, I've got zero to say about it? That's really pathetic and dishonest of you....

I know you say a lot of things that make no sense to normal folk, so it doesn't surprise me what you'd say I was. You've made some very dishonest comments about what I supposedly am in the past, after all...

[Violet_Crumble]

47. No, I haven't...

I've had you insisting that things you appear not to comprehend are double standards and lies, and I've had you bringing up things that have nothing to do with what was originally being talked about...

I'm not seeing any lies in the barrage of unrelated things you post....

[Violet_Crumble]

15. The Guardian's investigation of Gaza war crimes...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/series/gaza-war-crimes-investigation

[azurnoir]

17. From AI USA

Key findings of the UN-mandated international independent fact-finding mission led by Justice Richard Goldstone:

• Israeli forces committed violations of human rights and international humanitarian law amounting to war crimes and some possibly amounting to crimes against humanity. Notably, investigations into numerous instances of lethal attacks on civilians and civilian objects revealed that the attacks were intentional, that some were launched with the intention of spreading terror among the civilian population and with no justifiable military objective and that Israeli forces used Palestinian civilians as human shields.
• Israeli forces committed grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention, notably wilful killing, torture and inhumane treatment, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly. As grave breaches these acts give rise to individual criminal responsibility.
• Israel violated its duty to respect the right of Gaza’s population to an adequate standard of living, including access to adequate food, water and housing. Notably acts which deprive Palestinians in Gaza of their means of sustenance, employment, housing and water, that deny their freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country, that limit their access to an effective remedy and could amount to persecution - a crime against humanity.
• Palestinian armed groups violated the principle of distinction by launching rocket and mortars attacks which cannot be aimed with sufficient precision at military targets and that their attacks into civilian areas which had no intended military target constituted deliberate attacks against civilians. Such attacks constitute war crimes and may amount to crimes against humanity.
• Palestinian combatants did not always adequately distinguish themselves from he civilian population and they unnecessarily exposed civilians to danger when they launched attacks close to civilian or protected buildings.
• The Fact-Finding Mission found no evidence that Palestinian armed groups directed civilians to areas where attacks were launched or that they forced civilians to remain within their vicinity, nor that hospital facilities were used by the Hamas de-facto administration or by Palestinian armed groups to shield military activities, or that ambulances were used to transport combatants, or that Palestinian armed groups engaged in combat activities from within hospitals or UN facilities that were used as shelters.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGNAU2009091513124&lang=e&rss=recentnews

[Violet_Crumble]

22. This paragraph is so true...

"By declaring the reports of human rights agencies biased, the attack dogs are reinforcing the damage Israel is doing to itself. They put Israel in the company of serial human rights abusers that make the same complaint. And by refusing to respond to letters from HRW, denying the Goldstone mission entry to Israel, rubbishing testimony from Gazans unless it supports Israel's version of the offensive, and allowing the army to investigate itself, Israel merely shows it cannot even tolerate reasonable criticism. This is a sign of weakness, not strength."

[ProgressiveProfessor]

27. Its an OpEd piece and the writer is welcome to his opinion. Reading his other pieces will give

a clear view of where he stands.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. And I said what he said was so true. You clearly disagree. No shocker there...

Reading yr posts gives a very clear view of where you stand, and I wouldn't expect any other reaction to a logical paragraph such as the one I agreed with...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

40. Reading your posts, I would expect no other reaction from you either

bureaucrats do tend to stick together.

[Violet_Crumble]

52. Being a bureacrat's got nothing to do with anything here...

To be honest, I have no clue as to what you have an issue with in the paragraph you clearly took exception to.

"By declaring the reports of human rights agencies biased, the attack dogs are reinforcing the damage Israel is doing to itself. They put Israel in the company of serial human rights abusers that make the same complaint. And by refusing to respond to letters from HRW, denying the Goldstone mission entry to Israel, rubbishing testimony from Gazans unless it supports Israel's version of the offensive, and allowing the army to investigate itself, Israel merely shows it cannot even tolerate reasonable criticism. This is a sign of weakness, not strength."

If you want to explain what yr objection is to that paragraph, I'd be interested in listening...

[HamdenRice]

23. Slandering Goldstone, a figure of world historical importance and credibility, as biased ...

only has effect on true believers. To everyone else, it just makes one dismissable.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

28. Even he acknowledged that he did not have a complete set of data to work with

Without the whole picture, the report is weaken. This was done intentionally by Israel. It allows doubt to be created when they cherry pick specifics and prove them wrong. It a classic pattern and we will be seeing it once again. There is no reason not to think that this report like its predecessors will be ignored and end up forgotten in the dead files with the others.

[azurnoir]

53. Do you approve of Israel using this tactic to create "doubt"?

do you believe Israel should have allowed full transparency?

[shira]

32. appeal to authority is a logical fallacy - judge the reports on its merits or lack thereof

[Scurrilous]

24. Goldstone's daughter: My father's participation softened UN Gaza report

<snip>

"Had Richard Goldstone not served as the head of the UN inquiry into the Gaza war, the accusations against Israel would have been harsher, Goldstone's daughter, Nicole, said in an interview conducted in Hebrew with Army Radio on Wednesday.

"My father took on this job because he thought he is doing the best thing for peace, for everyone, and also for Israel," Nicole Goldstone told Army Radio.

She added that her father wrestled with the decision to take on the task. "It wasn't easy ," Nicole Goldstone said. "My father did not expect to see and hear what he saw and heard."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1115017.html

[shira]

33. softened from what? proving once again the UNHRC cannot be trusted to handle Israel

[Sezu]

39. One only has to look at the composition

and behaviour of that despicable council to figure out its one and only bias.

ptui!!!!

[Braulio]

85. Nobody can handle Israel

From down here, it appears nobody can handle Israel as long as the USA blocks condemnation or sanctions by the Security Council. This allows Israel to misbehave.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.