Israel rejects independent inquiry into Gaza war

[Mr. Sparkle]

Source: Associated Press

Israel rejects independent inquiry into Gaza war

By AMY TEIBEL (AP) – 54 minutes ago

JERUSALEM — Israel on Wednesday rejected U.N. calls to open an independent inquiry into its conduct in last winter's Gaza Strip war and said it would launch a diplomatic offensive to block any attempt to bring its soldiers before an international war crimes tribunal.

An independent investigation into the war was a key recommendation of an explosive U.N. report that accused the Jewish state of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity.

The report, released Tuesday by U.N.-appointed investigators, said Israel used disproportionate firepower and disregarded the likelihood of civilian deaths in the offensive, which killed hundreds of noncombatants and caused widespread damage to Gaza.

It said that if Israel doesn't allow an independent investigation, the case should be referred to international war crimes prosecutors.

The report provoked a furor in Israel, whose Foreign Ministry said it was "appalled and disappointed." Radio stations devoted heavy chunks of air time to interviews with outraged officials and critical legal experts. "Classic Anti-Semitism," blared the headline of an opinion piece in the Israel Hayom daily.

Israeli officials refused to cooperate with the five-month investigation, saying it was ordered by a U.N. body with a clear anti-Israeli bias. Israel's military has conducted its own inquiry and others remain pending, but so far has cleared itself of any systematic wrongdoing.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jAwXQ...

[dipsydoodle]

1. Presumably there's something about

"if Israel doesn't allow an independent investigation, the case should be referred to international war crimes prosecutors" that Israel cannot quite grasp. Do they do speak english there or are they mentally deficient.

[bemildred]

2. Stay on message no matter what.

We taught them all they know about that, really. We are the best in the world at ignoring unpleasant realities.

[bemildred]

3. Gee, who could have predicted this? nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. Many of us have

[imdjh]

4. What the fuck is "disproportionate firepower"?

If you get attacked by a gang with clubs, you should use rocks and slingshots? Fuck that. That's what shotguns and machine guns are for.

[14thColony]

8. 'Disproportionate firepower' is the term for violation...

of the 1949 Geneva Conventions' requirements that all signatories use proportional force when engaged in armed conflict, especially in circumstances where civilians could be harmed by overzealous use of force.

Proportionality says that if a sniper is shooting from a rooftop of a house on a crowded residential street, you can't respond with an airstrike to dislodge him. Not only is the force applied out of all proportion to what is required to eliminate the threat, but there is a virtual certainty that 'protected persons' (civilian non-combatants) will be injured or killed, when a more proportional response (using your own sniper to kill him, or engaging him directly with a heavy machine gun) would have done the job just as well. Using the airstrike would be 'disproportionate' and is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

In your example, since you are threatened by deadly weapons, responding with shotguns and machine guns is perfectly legal. Calling in a 155mm artillery strike on the crowded market that the gang happens to be standing in is not legal.

Since Israel voluntarily signed the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions in 1949, Israel has agreed to be subject to their enforcement.

[imdjh]

9. I doubt that the Geneva conventions cover terrorism too well.

Rules of war being applied to civilian suicide bombers with civilian targets makes no sense. You can't follow rules of formal warfare in a relentless terrorist attack on your country. It would be suicide. Israel has to tailor its response to the situation.

[EFerrari]

13. Massacring civilians is not a response, it's a war crime. n/t

[imdjh]

14. There are no civilians.

[Ghost Dog]

17. Jesus Christ. n/t

[imdjh]

20. Every Israeli life is at risk. And let's not pretend that this is about Geneva conventions.

This is about a minority of the American population who have had their brains turned to mush so that they can't tell the difference between right and wrong. Many of these people would blow a gasket about conversational anti-semitism but then they align themselves with the most dangerous anti-semites on the planet.

Jesus Christ, indeed.

[LeftishBrit]

30. I don't align myself with Hamas (far-right nutcases).

I don't consider terrorists as civilians.

However - there are plenty of civilians on both sides.

I'm reminded here of the story I once read of an English child during WW1, who was absolutely amazed to learn that there were German children: "I thought all Germans were cruel soldiers". The Palestinians (and Israelis) are *not* all 'cruel soldiers/ terrorists'. They are human beings, like any other nation or group.

[Usrename]

44. Every Palestinian life is at risk. They are being killed indiscriminately.

You are making the argument that the rapist has every right to punch his victim in the face and break her nose, because she kicked him in the groin.

Do you really believe that someone is oppressing the Israelis? Do you really think that the Palestinians are not the oppressed?

Can someone like yourself actually believe something so distantly separated from reality?

[NoUsername]

47. +1 x 1000000000000

Kudos for a well-reasoned response.

[imdjh]

19. dupe

delete

[LeftishBrit]

29. NO civilians???

Blimey.

Do you mean on either side, or just the Palestinian side (not that it would make much sense either way).

[stranger81]

33. Just like there are no Palestinians, right?

What a freakin' joker.

[EFerrari]

35. Justifying bullshit. nt

[Dragonfli]

42. That's what terrorists like to say when they ALSO kill women, children and non-combatants.

A mindset like that is what defines a terrorist.
You are as dangerous as any other that thinks this way.

Tell me - could you kill a house full of women and children because they are not in your mind civilians?

By your own words sir I have MY answer.

[Violet_Crumble]

55. Well said. What that other poster said is the same mindset that terrorists use...

Kind of sad that people who think like that pollute DU...

[Usrename]

43. Actually, in Israel all adults are conscripted into the military.

Service in the IDF is mandatory for non-Arabs, male and female.

Oddly (or, predictably) enough, you have it exactly backwards, like most of your thinking seems to be.

[parkia00]

49. It is people like these...

on either side that will ensure that this conflict will continue to prosper.

[14thColony]

22. One of us appears confused here...

And there's always a pretty big chance it's me. Forgive me if I take your reply point by point. It keeps my head straight.

"I doubt that the Geneva conventions cover terrorism too well."
The GCs don't cover terrorism at all. As you rightly imply, they were designed to cover conventional warfare and certain forms of unconventional warfare (like insurgency). As an aside though, there is a principle in international law that you might call the 'close enough' rule - if existing laws that your country signed can be reasonably adapted to cover a new situation, then you're still bound by them even if they don't cover the situation exactly. It's not a huge stretch to say that laws prohibiting wanton harm to civilians when fighting a conventional enemy would also prohibit wanton harm to civilians when fighting an unconventional enemy.

"Rules of war being applied to civilian suicide bombers with civilian targets makes no sense."
I agree with you, but I'm afraid this is irrelevant in this situation. The Israeli Army made a military incursion into Gaza. The only civilians around were Palestinians. In this case the suicide bombers (was not aware any were even used in this action) had no civilian targets to attack. The Israeli soldiers didn't bring their wives and kids along.

"You can't follow rules of formal warfare in a relentless terrorist attack on your country."
Well that has certainly been the U.S. view for the last 8 years, so you're in good company. I personally take a different view, and point out that the UK defeated the IRA after nearly 80 years of warfare while doing a pretty damned good job of staying within international law, to include the Geneva Conventions. So apparently it can be done if you're willing to try hard enough. The last terrorist attacks in Israel in this 'relentless terrorist attack' were the two bulldozers-gone-wild attacks on 2 and 22 July 2008 that killed a total of three Israelis. If that's what a relentless terrorist campaign looks like then I think they're doing ok.

"It would be suicide." It wasn't for the UK against the IRA, it hasn't been for Spain against the ETA, nor Greece against November 17, nor West Germany against a score of groups, nor Turkey against the far-better-armed and far-more-capable Kongra Gel...and the list goes on. If someone could point out one country that has ever been destroyed/overrun/captured/exterminated or whatever by a terrorist group then you're argument will be greatly bolstered.

"Israel has to tailor its response to the situation." Of course they do, it's just that a lot of people think they tailored it the wrong way. It's hard to deny the videos clearly showing use of white phosphorous artillery rounds in very built up residential sectors of Gaza City. Using a weapon that is absolutely banned in those circumstances, a weapon that burns so hot water has no effect on it, in an area where it is reasonable to assume that a large number of civilians have taken refuge, is probably not tailoring things in the right direction.

[NoUsername]

48. Excellent post!

You summed it up very well.

Unfortunately, you can probably expect to face a backlash for pointing out the truth. After all, that's not allowed when it comes to the I/P forum.

[FarrenH]

37. They cover Israels responses to terrorism

including a prohibition on collective punishment, which is what you are endorsing. It doesn't matter what tactics the opposition is using, the conventions are unambiguous about these provisions. The tactics of the enemy make no difference.

Furthermore, the assertion that breaking the conventions Israel itself ratified (via collective punishment and disproportionate use of force) is the only rational response to the tactics of Hamas, is not an assertion either the drafters of the Geneva Convention or its signers agree with.

Neither is it an assertion that most reasonable people would accept. The UK, Sri Lanka and others have managed to not violate the conventions in a similar manner in decades long battles with opponents who used guerrilla tactics among a civilian population. We have historical evidence that disproportionate force and collective punishment are NOT required to end or even contain a guerrilla force. The absolute necessity of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity to secure Israel's civilian population is just baldly stated as a fact all the time by Israel's apologists when it simply is not. Its a bullshit claim.

[Howardx]

5. too bad theyve wasted all their ammo already

harassing people trying to comment on websites.

[Sezu]

34. Did the alien have big GREY eyes or

big green eyes?

Koo-koo Koo-koo

[LeftishBrit]

40. So anyone who disagrees with you on a message-board must be in the pay of some country or group?

Because obviously no one could just simply disagree with you?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. There are issues with scope and standing with the ICC, and Israel is not a signatory to the treaty

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[imdjh]

16. When the attacks on Israel stop, the response stops. It's that simple.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

21. yawn....

[proteus_lives]

28. Stop making sense.

People don't want to hear it. They just want to point fingers at the evil Jooooooowwwwss while hugging and kissing Hamas.

[Usrename]

46. It isn't true. It has nothing to do with what people want to hear.

post #45

[Donald Ian Rankin]

32. The facts show otherwise.

The occupation, land theft, checkpoints, harrassement, economic siege etc continue unabated.

If the occupation of land outside the Green line ended, the violent Palestinian response would largely stop. But whatever the Palestinians do, the occupation will not merely remain but continue to grow, as Netanyahu has made clear.

[Usrename]

45. Who is telling you this stuff? It just isn't true. Where do you get these ideas from?

Figure 2. For conflict pauses of different durations (i.e., periods of time when no one is killed on either side), we show here the percentage of times from the Second Intifada in which Israelis ended the period of nonviolence by killing one or more Palestinians (black), the percentage of times that Palestinians ended the period of nonviolence by killing Israelis (grey), and the percentage of times that both sides killed on the same day (white). Virtually all periods of nonviolence lasting more than a week were ended when the Israelis killed Palestinians first. We include here the data from all pause durations that actually occurred.



Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-kanwisher/reignitin...

[pelsar]

50. gaza......

so easy, so obvious.....no kassams...no israeli attacks.......and of course the final most obvious, in your fact facts is post gaza war:

no kassams.....no israeli attacks and delivery of supplies......
____

hamas could have saved themselves a lot of trouble by figuring out the cause and affect way before the invasion.

________

and the "weakness in your table".....the IDF doesn't wait to attacked, when an organized attack is discovered in the planning stages, the IDF acts BEFORE they attack....it saves israeli lives which is what its supposed to do, which is why that simplistic table is good for people who need simple answers to match an even simpler belief.

[Usrename]

51. It saves Israeli lives?

How do you figure?

If this Israeli strategery is so good and effective, why are Israelis still being killed? They've been doing this same monstrous stupid shit my whole life and it isn't working. How much simpler can it be?

[pelsar]

53. i assume your premise is...

that if israel dismantled the IDF, peace would suddenly appear......perhaps in alice in wonderland, but thats not the reality of the middle east....in fact the various israeli strategies have been relativly effective. Every time the Palestinians come up with a new way of killing israelis, eventually the IDF figures a way to stop them. The concept is to stop them BEFORE they start shooting or bombing, because once they start, the advantage is with them and more people get killed.

of course the it should be clear by now, with the experience of egypt, jordan, lebanon and now gaza.....don't attack/threaten israel and israel doesn't attack

[Usrename]

54. I had no idea egypt, jordan and lebanon are being oppressed.

You mean Israel is oppressing them too, in addition to the Palestinians?

[14thColony]

11. Yes, but

Israel is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions, and the Geneva Conventions provide for their own enforcement. International criminal tibunals can be used to prosecute actions by signatory nations; until Israel withdraws its signature from the Geneva Conventions, it is subject to their enforcement, and in fact all other signatories are bound by the conventions to pursue and prosecute violators.

Not that it would ever happen in a million billion years, but in theory certain Israeli leaders would be liable for prosection under the GC if found to be in violation.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. Without documentation from the IDF, there would not be enough data

Nuremberg Tribunal had access to the Nazi records,. It was key data in allocating responsibility. Without access to the equivalent and being able to interrogate the people involved, building cases against individuals would be more than difficult. Civil suits will be ignored on the basis of sovereign immunity.

This is blocked not unlike the other investigations. IDF will not open their records and no one can force them to.

[14thColony]

26. Absolutely right

The only successful war crimes prosecutions were in cases where one side clearly lost and had no more soverign authority to deny access to anything. So as long as a sovereign state refuses to be subject to whatever conventions it has signed, all the treaties in the world are nothing but useless paper.

[jasi2006]

12. So any other nation can just ignore all the international laws they don't like?

I think that was what Saddam was trying to do and we invaded his country. I guess no law of humanity applies to Israel?

[imdjh]

15. Yep. It's called sovereignty.

It's only limited by your ability to defend yourself and make allies.

It's like your border. It's only there if you are willing and able to enforce it.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. Pretty much

[LeftishBrit]

31. Most nations do seem to.

Notably America and Britain when we did invade Iraq.

[Scurrilous]

18. Goldstone testimonies revealed

Eight months after Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, controversial UN report accuses Israel of committing war crimes, enraging many officials in Jerusalem. Now, Ynet reveals number of Palestinian testimonies detailed in report

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3777865,00.ht...

<snip>

"An in-depth look into the Goldstone Report probing the events of Operation Cast Lead in Gaza reveals the official first-hand testimonies from the days of the war. The testimonies were given by family members who lost their loved ones and eyewitnesses to the fighting, and they shed some personal light on what happened in Gaza.

All testimonies where deemed credible by the United Nations-appointed inquiry team, and were compatible with other reports received. Here are just some of the testimonies:

The shooting of Iyad al-Samoni

On the night of January 4, 2008, Iyad al-Samoni stayed with his wife, five children and 40 other members of his extended family in one a relative's house. Around 1am, sounds were heard coming from the roof, and some four hours later, Israeli soldiers came down the steps, knocked on the door and entered the house.

The soldiers asked if there were Hamas operatives in the house. The family members said there weren't. Then the soldiers separated the men, from the women, children and elderly. The men were handcuffed, blindfolded and sent to a separate room, and were only allowed to leave to the toilet after one of them could no longer hold his bladder and urinated in the room. The soldiers settled in the house.

The next morning, the family members left the house and started marching westward on Salah a-Din Street which leads to Gaza City. The soldiers ordered them to walk straight ahead on not stray from their path. The men were still handcuffed and the soldiers threatened gunshots if they tried to remove the shackles. While marching on Salah a-Din Street the, a single soldier or a number of soldiers station on the street's rooftops opened fire at the family. Iyad was hit in his legs and fell to the ground.

His relative, Muhammad Assad al-Samoni tried to assist him, but one of the soldiers ordered him to continue marching. After noticing that the laser beam from the soldier's weapon was aimed at him, Muhammad decided not to insist. The soldier also fired warning shots at Muhammad's father, who tried to approach Iyad, and did not heed the family's calls to evacuate the injured Iyad.

And so, the family was forced to abandon Iyad and keep marching towards Gaza City. Only three days later did rescue services get permission from the IDF to evacuate the body of al-Samoni, who was left handcuffed in the street and bled to death."


More at link.

[fascisthunter]

27. how speshullll

[Kurska]

36. I wonder when Iran is going to get it's special inquiry into it's killing of peaceful protesters.

Hmmm...

[LeftishBrit]

38. There should be one; several organizations have called for one

e.g.

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/06/15

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/08/28/iran-new-judiciar...

Of course, the government will resist it all the way.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

41. Not likely. To get the complete picture, the IDF would have to cooperate and they are not going to

Instead they will find errors in the report (since they investigators do not have all the data) and pick away at them over time. The entire body of work will be discredited as flawed (which it is because there was no transparency by the IDF). This is not the first time a nation has done this, it won't be the last. The report will be tossed in the heap with the rest of forgotten ones.

[LeftishBrit]

39. Pity; any country will 'clear itself of any systematic wrongdoing'

I support more independent investigations into the actions of many countries including Israel - and the UK.

[shira]

52. HRW, AI, and UNHRC prove an independent commission has to be honest and fair

When they have different standards for Israel than anyone else (ex: human shields), it's understandable why Israel would object.

Not to mention that Israel, through its high courts, is more transparent and accountable for its military actions than most western nations (ex: stopping Operation Defensive Shield 2002 dead in its tracks to investigate the 'massacre' that turned out to be a hoax). No other nation does that. It's dishonest to pretend Israel isn't as serious as other western nations when holding its own military accountable under law - whether Israeli or International - and that Israel, moreso than other nations, requires special independent investigations.

[ArabInIsrael]

56. True that

Though you should know that there was a lot of political posturing going on during Defensive Shield and stopping the war had less to do with the "massacre" and more to do with political rivalry. Some politicians wanted to picture the war and Sharon as a failure so more liberal parties could gain power.

Trust me, Israel does spend a lot of time investigating crimes. But it has more to do with politics than concern for human life.

Then again, the West fights wars thousands of miles away and kills millions...so perhaps I overstate the evil-tones of Israel's imperfect system.


Also the problem with these international courts is they were not built for conflicts such as these.

The laws are cold-war styled ideals that don't fit well when illegal combatants who don't wear uniforms and have the privilege of hiding behind civilians while fighting visible, uniformed, professional soldiers.

When the realities of war sets in mistakes do occur. The inference is that Israel was indiscriminate in the conflict, when all the facts prove other. The IDF called 400,000 homes, dropped millions of leaflets, gave a 4 hour window to flee, etc. They spent 6 months gathering intel from Fatah spies, spies which Hamas executed after the conclusion of the conflict.

Why would Israel spend so much time planning? Everyone knows Israel can literally ping in a turned-off cell phone and target an individual vehicle from 14,000 ft.

No doubt innocent people die, and in conflict typically they bear the majority of deaths. But the reality is Israel goal was to destroy Hamas' capacity to launch rockets, and those assets were hidden in hospitals, schools, near aid stations, even in homes. the UN report denies this wholesale contrary to eye-witness accounts. It basically says the war had nothing to do with the rockets and was an act of aggression, simply meant to kill innocent Palestinians.

Okay then. Lest we forget, US's bombing campaign of Baghdad killed 3500 civilians during Gulf War 1, and over a hundred Palestinians died in the mile high way of death.

ME is a brutal area, Hama massacre, black september, darfur, somalia, egypt-yemen...all bad. But to finger Israel when Sri Lanka killed 25x the amount of people during the same time, is suspect. UN awarded Sri Lanka for ending the civil war, but denounces Israel for a conflict that...in scale, was far less devastating?

Hmmm...must be Zionist propaganda.