LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteA barometer? What about the majority of us who really dont care about Israel one way or the other?
I consider them just another Mideast country, no better, no worse.
They all deserve each other.
As some folk may have noticed, there is a particular poster who seems to spend a lot of time jumping all over percieved slights, lies or distortions involving Israel. As facsinating as his observations no doubt are to everyone, their frequency sometimes gets in the way of discussion. Now there will be a specific place fo the correction of all such falsehoods.
Further, given the extent to which some opinion writers consider attitudes toward Israel to be a barometer of the state of Western Civilization, it seems about time that a thread were established where corrections can be made.
I welcome all examples & corrections.
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
A barometer? What about the majority of us who really dont care about Israel one way or the other?
I consider them just another Mideast country, no better, no worse.
They all deserve each other.
The best part of repentance is the sin
Something for those who are interested to chew on.
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies...MGC_Report.pdf
UN mission finds evidence of war crimes by both sides in Gaza conflictUN mission finds evidence of war crimes by both sides in Gaza conflict
15 September 2009 – The United Nations fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict at the start of this year has found evidence that both Israeli forces and Palestinian militants committed serious war crimes and breaches of humanitarian law, which may amount to crimes against humanity.
“We came to the conclusion, on the basis of the facts we found, that there was strong evidence to establish that numerous serious violations of international law, both humanitarian law and human rights law, were committed by Israel during the military operations in Gaza,” the head of the mission, Justice Richard Goldstone, told a press briefing today.
“The mission concluded that actions amounting to war crimes and possibly, in some respects, crimes against humanity, were committed by the Israel Defense Force (IDF).”
“There’s no question that the firing of rockets and mortars [by armed groups from Gaza] was deliberate and calculated to cause loss of life and injury to civilians and damage to civilian structures. The mission found that these actions also amount to serious war crimes and also possibly crimes against humanity,” he said.
The 575-page report by the four-person mission was released today, ahead of its presentation to the UN’s Human Rights Council in Geneva on 29 September.
“The mission finds that the conduct of the Israeli armed forces constitute grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention in respect of wilful killings and wilfully causing great suffering to protected persons and as such give rise to individual criminal responsibility,” the report’s executive summary said. “It also finds that the direct targeting and arbitrary killing of Palestinian civilians is a violation of the right to life.”
It went on to criticize the “deliberate and systematic policy on the part of the Israeli armed forces to target industrial sites and water installations,” and the use of Palestinian civilians as human shields.
On the objectives and strategy of Israel’s military operation, the mission concluded that military planners deliberately followed a doctrine which involved “the application of disproportionate force and the causing of great damage and destruction to civilian property and infrastructure, and suffering to civilian populations.”
On the firing of mortars from Gaza, the mission concluded that they were indiscriminate and deliberate attacks against a civilian population and “would constitute war crimes and may amount to crimes against humanity.” It added that their apparent intention of spreading terror among the Israeli civilian population was a violation of international law.
The report recommended that the Security Council should require Israel to take steps to launch appropriate independent investigations into the alleged crimes committed, in conformity with international standards, and report back on these investigations within six months.
It further called on the Security Council to appoint a committee of experts to monitor the proceedings taken by the Israeli Government. If these did not take place, or were not independent and in conformity with international standards, the report called for the Security Council to refer the situation in Gaza to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
It also called on the Security Council to require the committee of experts to perform a similar role with regard to the relevant Palestinian authorities.
At today’s briefing, Justice Goldstone said the mission had investigated 36 incidents that took place during the Israeli operation in Gaza, which he said did not relate to decisions taken in the heat of battle, but to deliberate policies that were adopted and decisions that were taken.
As an example, he described one such incident: a mortar attack on a mosque in Gaza during a religious service, which killed 15 members of the congregation and injured many others. Justice Goldstone said that even if allegations that the mosque was used as sanctuary by military groups and that weapons were stored there were true, there was still “no justification under international humanitarian law to mortar the mosque during a service,” because it could have been attacked during the night, when it was not being used by civilians.
Justice Goldstone added that the report reflected the unanimous view of the mission’s four members.
The other members of the team are Christine *****in, Professor of International Law at the London School of Economics and Political Science at the University of London; Hina Jilani, Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and former Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Human Rights Defenders; and retired Colonel Desmond Travers, member of the Board of Directors of the Institute for International Criminal Investigations (IICI).
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
Everyone knows and expects that the Palestinians commit war crimes, but for some reason are surprised when Israel commit them back. Im not defending Israel, but for some reason people hold Israel to a higher standard.
I agree with Chakos, they behave how I would expect other countries in the region to behave.
Just one problem with the UNHRC investigation BigFella: Israel is not signatory to Article 1, protocol 3 of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
As for the reports authors, the relevant chapter in Wiki describes the UNHRC attitude toward Israel rather aptly
Accusations of bias against Israel
See also: Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations
As of January 24, 2008, Israel had been condemned 15 times in less than two years. The UN Human Rights Council, like its predecessor the UN Human Rights Commission, has been criticized by some Western countries[who?] for its fixation on Israel while ignoring the actions of neighboring states. This has lead to accusations of the organization being anti-Israeli.[27] By April 2007, the Council had passed nine resolutions condemning Israel, the only country which it had specifically condemned.[28][29] Toward Sudan, another country with human rights abuses as documented by the Council's working groups, it has expressed "deep concern."[28]
[edit]Richard Falk
Richard Falk, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on "the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied"[30] said that the actions of Israel in the Palestinian territories to be unprecedented and found that it has produced immense suffering for Palestinians. He argues that it would not be forgivable if the Human Rights Council overlooked charges of Israeli violation of international humanitarian law. He notes that the HRC has appointed special rapporteurs for other situations, including the DPRK and Myanmar. Falk says that his experience suggests that the Council gives complete freedom to its special rapporteurs to report on a situation and expects adherence to principles of impartiality. [31] Other observers take the view that the Human Rights Council's has an obligation to condemn Israel's violations of international law in keeping with the basic mission of the Council, which is to safeguard human rights. [32]
The council voted on 30 June 2006 to make a review of possible human rights abuses by Israel a permanent feature of every council session. The Council’s special rapporteur on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is its only expert mandate with no year of expiry. The resolution, which was sponsored by Organization of the Islamic Conference, passed by a vote of 29 to 12 with five abstentions. Human Rights Watch urged it to look at international human rights and humanitarian law violations committed by Palestinian armed groups as well. Human Rights Watch called on the Council to avoid the selectivity that discredited its predecessor and urged it to hold special sessions on other urgent situations, such as that in Darfur.[33]
[edit]2006 Lebanon conflict
At its Second Special Session in August 2006, the Council announced the establishment of a High-Level Commission of Inquiry charged with probing allegations that Israel systematically targeted and killed Lebanese civilians during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.[34] The resolution was passed by a vote of 27 in favour to 11 against, with 8 abstentions. Before and after the vote several member states and NGOs objected that by targeting the resolution solely at Israel and failing to address Hezbollah attacks on Israeli civilians, the Council risked damaging its credibility. The members of the Commission of Inquiry, as announced on 1 September 2006, are Clemente Baena Soares of Brazil, Mohamed Chande Othman of Tanzania, and Stelios Perrakis of Greece. The Commission noted that its report on the conflict would be incomplete without fully investigating both sides, but that "the Commission is not entitled, even if it had wished, to construe [its charter] as equally authorizing the investigation of the actions by Hezbollah in Israel,"[35] as the Council had explicitly prohibited it from investigating the actions of Hezbollah.
[edit]Disproportionate attention
On 29 November 2006, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan criticised the Human Rights Council for "disproportionate focus on violations by Israel" while neglecting other parts of the world such as Darfur, which had what he termed "graver" crises.[36][37]
Annan reiterated this position in his formal address on 8 December 2006 (International Human Rights Day). Annan argued that the Commission should not have a "disproportionate focus on violations by Israel. Not that Israel should be given a free pass. Absolutely not. But the Council should give the same attention to grave violations committed by other states as well."[38]
On 20 June 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement that read: "The Secretary-General is disappointed at the council's decision to single out only one specific regional item given the range and scope of allegations of human rights violations throughout the world."[39] The European Union, Canada and the United States were also critical of the Council's focus on Israeli violations.
A Council meeting in Geneva in 2007 caused controversy after Cuba and Belarus, both accused of abuses[citation needed], were removed from a list of nine special mandates. The list, which included North Korea, Cambodia and Sudan, had been carried forward from the defunct Commission.[40]
[edit]United States representative criticisms
The Council's charter preserves the watchdog's right to appoint special investigators for countries whose human rights records are of particular concern, something many developing states have long opposed. Commenting on Cuba and Belarus, the UN statement said that Ban noted "that not having a Special Rapporteur assigned to a particular country does not absolve that country from its obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." The United States said a day before the UN statement that the Council deal raised serious questions about whether the new body could be unbiased. Alejandro Wolff, deputy US permanent representative at the United Nations, accused the council of "a pathological obsession with Israel" and also denounced its action on Cuba and Belarus. "I think the record is starting to speak for itself," he told journalists.[41][42]
The UNHRC President Doru Costea responded: "I agree with him. The functioning of the Council must be constantly improved." He added that the Council must examine the behaviour of all parties involved in complex disputes and not place just one state under the magnifying glass.[43][44].
[edit]Habitual censorship
Speaking at the IDC's Herzliya Conference in Israel in January 2008, Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen criticized the actions of the Human Rights Council actions against Israel. "At the United Nations, censuring Israel has become something of a habit, while Hamas's terror is referred to in coded language or not at all. The Netherlands believes the record should be set straight, both in New York and at the Human Rights Council in Geneva," Verhagen said.[45]
[edit]January 2008 decree
The Council released a statement calling on Israel to stop its military operations in the Gaza Strip and to open the Strip's borders to allow the entry of food, fuel and medicine. The Council adopted the resolution by a vote of 30 to 1. 15 states abstained.
"Unfortunately, neither this resolution nor the current session addressed the role of both parties. It was regretful that the current draft resolution did not condemn the rocket attacks on Israeli civilians," said Canada's representative Terry Cormier, the lone voter against.[46]
The United States and Israel boycotted the session. US ambassador Warren Tichenor said the Council's unbalanced approach had "squandered its credibility" by failing to address continued rocket attacks against Israel. "Today's actions do nothing to help the Palestinian people, in whose name the supporters of this session claim to act," he said in a statement. "Supporters of a Palestinian state must avoid the kind of inflammatory rhetoric and actions that this session represents, which only stoke tensions and erode the chances for peace," he added.[47] "We believe that this council should deplore the fact that innocent civilians on both sides are suffering," Slovenian Ambassador Andrej Logar said on behalf of the seven EU states on the council.
At a press conference in Geneva on Wednesday, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon responded when asked about its special session on Gaza, that "I appreciate that the council is looking in depth into this particular situation. And it is rightly doing so. I would also appreciate it if the council will be looking with the same level of attention and urgency at all other matters around the world. There are still many areas where human rights are abused and not properly protected," he said.[48]
[edit]Gaza report controversy
Aharon Leshno Yaar, Israel ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, accused the latest report on the Gaza War of being solely written to "appease the Arab-controlled Human Rights Council." UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navanethem Pillay submitted a report detailing "grave violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly due to the recent Israeli military attacks against the occupied Gaza Strip." The 34 page report was created at the request of the Human Rights Council. Leshno Yaar said Pillay's report was "written by Palestinians in Ramallah" and "screened by Palestinian lawyers in Geneva" to satisfy Palestinian diplomats on the Human Rights Council. Leshno Yaar said the report was "totally biased" and "unsubstantiated." [49][50]
Not endorsing it Pari, just figured that someone would post it so it might as well go here (I think Merlin put it up somewhere else). Those who are interested in such things can post the appropriate responses & analyses.Originally Posted by Parihaka
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
Thats because Israel considers itself to be on a higher moral ground than the Palestinians. The Israelis claim to have the most moral army in the history of the world (so does a poster on WAB which Bigfella may be referring to earlier) Truth be told, both sides have an ugly side to them.
Nabha Sparasham Deeptam
-Touch The Sky With Glory
No objections from me, I think it's a great idea.
As would any country in continual war with people who deny their right to exist, honestly I applaud Israels constraint.Thats because Israel considers itself to be on a higher moral ground than the Palestinians. The Israelis claim to have the most moral army in the history of the world (so does a poster on WAB which Bigfella may be referring to earlier
What constraint? Thats an example of holding Israel to a higher standard and then when Israel gets criticized for their actions, than the complain of bias against them begins. Lets not forget, invading its neighbours every now and then and retaliatory bombings by Israel have also become a norm.
Nabha Sparasham Deeptam
-Touch The Sky With Glory
Very important word, Israel is a practitioner of aggressive defense but it is still DEFENSE, I challenge you to point out a case of unprovoked Israeli aggression. I would also like to note im not arguing about scale of response.
I am not aware of any country not responsible for war crimes at one time or another, mine included.
Than you need to draw a line between the Israeli "constraint" you spoke of and "aggressive defense". Your two terms contradict each other. Also, you may not wish to argue about the scale of response, but its an important factor. It is the one thing which has actually made groups like Hezbollah grow strong. Infact, the harder Israel pounds, the stronger the militants grow. It is PR which will win the war in that region, not bombs. Israel needs to learn that; the militants have already picked up on it, and hence the provocations.
Nabha Sparasham Deeptam
-Touch The Sky With Glory
Excellent initiative.Thats because Israel considers itself to be on a higher moral ground than the Palestinians. The Israelis claim to have the most moral army in the history of the world (so does a poster on WAB which Bigfella may be referring to earlier
And specifically this point goes to heart and is proof by itself of the hypocrisy, ignorance, lack of research, and unscrupulousness of most Israel critics.
I honestly don't know if the Israelis claim it - I do. Israel is most certainly one of the countries with a better record ever.
It's very easy, try to name three countries with a better record of respect for human rights in the conduct of War.
You might want to check some facts:
Some 62,000 people (40,000 Arabs, 22,000 Jews) have been killed in all the Israeli-Arab wars and Palestinian terror attacks.
The Wars include:
# The 1948–49 War
# The 1956 War
# The 1967 War (The Six-Day War)
# The War of Attrition (1967 to 1970)
# The Yom Kippur War
# The 1982 War
And remember, EVERY SINGLE ONE of these Wars was started by the Arabs. This, aside from the relentless terrorist campaigns launched by Arabs, which in some cases amounted to quasi-Wars, like the first & second intifadas.
Interesting that during that same time, some 11 million Muslims have been killed in wars and terror attacks - mostly at the hands of other Muslims.
Have a look here:
Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: