UN names South African to lead Israel-Gaza probe

[cali]

1 hour ago

GENEVA (AP) — The United Nations on Friday appointed a former chief prosecutor for war crimes in Yugoslavia and Rwanda to lead a high-level mission to investigate alleged war crimes committed by Israel in the Gaza Strip.

Israel refused to say if it would cooperate.

Richard Goldstone was named to head the investigation ordered by the Human Rights Council in January.

According to the mandate, the investigation will focus only on Palestinian victims of the three-week war between Israel and Hamas earlier this year.

Israel has rejected any participation in previous council investigations, including one led by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Desmond Tutu, calling them biased.

It would not say Friday if it would cooperate with the delegation headed by Goldstone, a Jewish judge from South Africa. Other members of the group are British professor of international law Christine Chinkin, Pakistani lawyer Hina Jilani and retired Irish Army Col. Desmond Travers.

<snip>

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hj4Q2pdqZHVVfQcbXxokISeln93QD97AUJDG0

[IndianaGreen]

1. UN picks South African Jew to head Gaza war crimes inquiry

More info from Reuters as published by Haaretz. Richard Goldstone has impeccable credentials having served as ICC prosecutor in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia:

Last update - 19:07 03/04/2009

UN picks South African Jew to head Gaza war crimes inquiry

By Reuters

Richard Goldstone, a South African Jewish judge, will head an international fact-finding mission into allegations of war crimes by Israeli soldiers and Palestinian militants in Gaza, the United Nations said on Friday.

The former war crimes prosecutor will head a four-member team whose mandate stems from a resolution adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Council at a special session on January 12.

"It is in the interest of all Palestinians and Israelis that the allegations of war crimes and serious human rights violations related to the recent conflict on all sides be investigated," Goldstone said in a statement.
Goldstone served as chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

Goldstone will investigate conduct by both sides in Israel's 22-day offensive in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. According to a Palestinian rights group, 1,417 people including 926 civilians were killed in the fighting.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1076259.html

[oberliner]

2. Why such a narrow mandate?

I think if they had said that violations against both Palestinians and Israelis would be examined then there would be a greater likelihood of Israel agreeing to cooperate.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. Didn't you see post #1?

From the Reuters article:

(Reuters) - South African judge Richard Goldstone urged Israeli and Palestinian authorities Friday to cooperate with a U.N. investigation he is heading to examine alleged war crimes in their recent conflict.

The former war crimes prosecutor said that the fact-finding mission would review the conduct of both sides "before, during and after" the Israeli offensive in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip from December 27 to January 18.

Possible Palestinian violations in southern Israel will also be assessed, Goldstone said, telling a news conference that his four-member team expects to travel to the region in a few weeks and issue a report to the U.N. Human Rights Council in July.

"There are substantial allegations of war crimes having been committed before, during and after the military operations in Gaza," Goldstone said.

"I would request the cooperation of the relevant authorities to enable members of the mission to visit and meet victims both in Israel and in Gaza and in the occupied territories," he said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5321K820090403

[oberliner]

28. Which is accurate - Reuters or AP?

Both stories are from the same date.

The AP story includes this paragraph:

According to the mandate, the investigation will focus only on Palestinian victims of the three-week war between Israel and Hamas earlier this year.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. I'd tend to think the man that's heading the probe would be...

Why? Do you have any cause to believe that he'd be wrong? Also, why not track down the actual mandate yrself? That would seem the obvious thing to do...

[oberliner]

32. Working on tracking that down!

I'll let you know if I find it - please do likewise.

If true, I think that is a good thing and that Israel ought to cooperate, although I doubt they will.

[oberliner]

36. Found the Resolution

Here is the relevant clause:

14. Decides to dispatch an urgent, independent international fact-finding mission, to be appointed by the President of the Council, to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression, and calls upon Israel not to obstruct the process of investigation and to fully cooperate with the mission;

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/59c118f065c4465b852572a500625fea/404e93e166533f828525754e00559e30!OpenDocument

According to the UN site this mission is pursuant to Resolution S-9/1 of the Human Rights Council which is the above resolution if I am not mistaken.

[Violet_Crumble]

46. I'd like to see the actual mission itself...

Why do you think the man appointed to head it would have given misleading information on the scope of what he's going to do? That doesn't make sense...

[shira]

3. Israel should refuse to cooperate if no real investigation into Hamas human shield exploitation

Video and photographic evidence of Hamas human shields:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terror+Groups/Hamas_Exploitation_Civilians_Jan_2009.htm
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Hamas+war+against+Israel/Hamas+exploitation+of+civilians+as+human+shields+-+Photographic+evidence.htm

Children of Hamas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTGbP55HGi8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9IL86T6Nc8&feature=channel

Gaza victims describe being used as human shields by Hamas
Hamas using children in combat roles
Iranian reformist daily: Hamas hiding forces in nurseries and hospitals
http://www.pmw.org.il/Bulletins_Jan2009.htm#b290109

Hamas leaders admit it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWIDZ7Jpdqg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DCuRzzsKnk

[IndianaGreen]

4. You obviously responded without bothering to read the story, but you are earning your keep

as a faithful megaphone for Israel.

The Reuters story specifically mentions that Goldstone will investigate both sides.

[shira]

5. investigating both sides means they'll only look at Hezbollah rocket attacks on Israel

and not their cynical exploitation of Palestinian human shields. Sorry, that's not balance. A real investigation would take into account Palestinian victims of Hamas, not ignore it. Don't you think it's about time the human rights of Palestinian victims of Hamas were seriously investigated? Don't you think Palestinian victims of Hamas deserve at least that much?

[IndianaGreen]

7. "Goldstone will investigate conduct by both sides in Israel's 22-day offensive"

"Goldstone will investigate conduct by both sides in Israel's 22-day offensive in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip."

Israel and Zimbabwe do share the stage as two rogue nations, oblivious to international law and human rights. Hasn't Israel already declared that there were no basis for allegations of war crimes? Isn't the book already closed? Haven't you guys been instructed to defend the government of Israel no matter what?

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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

[IndianaGreen]

109. "the American Jewish community must nevertheless express support for Israel's government."

Support for Israel is not good enough. You must now support the Bibi/Lieberman government!

Behold the marching orders to the Israel Lobby in America: "the American Jewish community must nevertheless express support for Israel's government."

Last update - 03:10 02/04/2009

U.S. Jews offer cautious support for Netanyahu government

By Natasha Mozgovaya

WASHINGTON - The American Jewish community, whose leaders had kept silent about the results of the Israeli elections, has begun to speak out, cautiously.

The picture that emerged from talks with community leaders in Washington this week is that not everyone is thrilled with the new Israeli government, but most believe that support for Israel is more critical now than ever in the face of the current threats, chief among them Iran.

The head of one of the most influential local Jewish Federation branches in the United States, who declined to be named, admitted that the appointment of Avigdor Lieberman is "not good" in terms of public relations. He quickly added, however, that the American Jewish community must nevertheless express support for Israel's government.

"I know Lieberman, he's not an outsider. His views have support in Israel, even if the American Jewish community doesn't support him," he said.

"It's a problem that in the press he's been labeled a fascist, but we must tell the new (U.S.) administration in no uncertain terms: 'He's a minister, talk to him.'

Jewish Democratic congresspeople also expressed support in the new government.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1075561.html

The facts are on my side, while the hot air is on yours!

[cali]

8. Pathetic. Just pathetic.

You get rightfully called on a bullshit loaded claim and what do you do? You bluster on.

[shira]

9. we'll see, won't we?

Going back 3 years, Hizbullah and Hamas exploitation of human shields hasn't been the focus of any independent commission, now has it? It wasn't even an issue during the Jenin operation in 2002 when the refugee camp was boobytrapped with lots of mommies, kiddies, and babies in the area. What makes you really think there will be any serious investigation into human shields now? Blind faith? Realize the UN Human Rights Council is well known for its hostility towards Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council#Accusations_of_Antisemitism

What's pathetic is that any google search for human shields yields about 100x more hits for IDF usage than Hamas/Hezbollah exploitation. Expecting that to change now is wishful thinking. I hope I'm wrong.

[IndianaGreen]

11. I wonder on whose side will you be on once Obama tries his hand on I/P conflict?

Obama is not exempt from criticism, but once he tries to resuscitate a peace process, he would be the only game in town in opposition to status quo.

[shira]

13. would you be happy if Obama allowed Hamas to keep exploiting Palestinian civilians as pawns

in their warmongering efforts against Israel?

[IndianaGreen]

15. Obama is going to do what he thinks is just and fair

and he might make some people on both sides of the conflict unhappy. I will support Obama, just as I supported Clinton, just because there was no other game in town.

Personally, I recognize that the two-state solution is long gone and dead, and that the only thing remaining is a variant of a one-state solution.

No Israeli government would risk civil war by sending IDF to dismantle long-existing settlements on the West Bank. Anyone that thinks such a scenario is feasible, needs to stop drinking that flavour of Kool-Aid.

A binational Israel-Palestine federal republic is the only rational solution.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. But no Israeli government will allow Palestinians to vote, either.

Because if they did, they'd soon outvote the Israelis.

I don't think a two-state solution is viable, but a one-state solution is even less so; I think we will continue to see a one-state-and-one-non-state non-solution, because Israel won't allow anything else.

[shira]

17. 2 state can still work.....Israel will go for it if they feel they can trust PA leadership

and truly feel that such a scenario won't just be a launching pad for more aggression against Israel. Looks like Bibi is interested right now in getting the PA on its feet and into the business of state-building first, so that they can be better prepared to run their own state once a deal is cut. Rather than taking what he calls the "short cut" and giving them their own state first without any reason to believe they'd want to get into state-building.

[IndianaGreen]

18. It's The Same Old Song

Four Tops - It's The Same Old Song Lyrics

You're sweet as a honey bee
But like a honey bee stings
You've gone and left my heart in pain
All you left is our favorite song
The one we danced to all night long
It used to bring sweet memories
Of a tender love that used to be

Now it's the same old song
But with a different meaning
Since you been gone
It's the same old song
But with a different meaning
Since you been gone

http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/thebigchill/itsthesameoldsong.htm

[Violet_Crumble]

24. And where has Nutty indicated anything of the sort?

Looks like Bibi is interested right now in getting the PA on its feet and into the business of state-building first, so that they can be better prepared to run their own state once a deal is cut.

Can you supply a link to where he's indicated such a thing?

[oberliner]

20. I must say I wonder that myself for many folks here

I would argue that most of Obama's remarks on the subject would probably have gotten him labeled a member of the Hasbara brigade or Zionist tool or something like that by some of the posters here.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. And you don't wonder when it comes to the poster Indy was replying to? n/t

[oberliner]

31. I think Obama's position will actually be fairly similar to that poster's position

If you go by campaign rhetoric, his AIPAC speech echoes many of the same themes.

To wit:

The long road to peace requires Palestinian partners committed to making the journey. We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements. There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. I don't think yr a mind-reader, Oberliner...

I don't think anyone can pre-empt what Obama's position will be. I for one hope that he has a much more balanced stance on the I/P conflict than his predecesor. And if he does take on a balanced stance, then how on earth do you think his view would be similar to that particular poster?

[oberliner]

38. I just meant with respect to Hamas/Hezbollah

Which is what the poster was talking about in the thread that garnered the comment in question.

In any case, I think Obama is to the right of most posters in this forum regarding this conflict. I am not a mind-reader, that is true, but I have reached that conclusion based on the comments he has made about the conflict to this point.

[Violet_Crumble]

47. I'm sure Obama doesn't have such a narrow focus as that one...

In any case, Obama appears to be far to the left of the poster that garnered Indy's comment in the first place.

[shira]

49. I didn't know letting HRW off the hook for Hamas crimes against their Palestinian victims

was a rightwing position. If I were more leftwing, I suppose I wouldn't mind HRW giving short shrift to Hamas and Hezbollah exploitation of civilian shields? God help us if standing up for Palestinian human rights against their Jihadi leadership is a rightwing position!

[Violet_Crumble]

52. I didn't know that was what I was supposed to be referring to...

Oberliner knows very well what I'm talking about. That you don't isn't of concern to me at all...

[ProgressiveMuslim]

93. Shira, your concern for the people of Palestine, as always, warms the cockles of my heart.

[Jefferson23]

6. It is fortunate for the IDF that there is no legal charge for the desire to

use human shields, the Israeli court delayed a decision for over 3 years when its highest court finally ruled "human shields" in the Occupied Territories is illegal and a violation of international law.

And lets not forget that the IDF appealed that decision too: IDF to appeal human shield ban, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4333982.stm


Do you really want to keep playing this losing game of who is the "most moral" in this conflict?

[shira]

10. lol

you think IDF use of human shields makes Hamas or Hizbullah use of shields pale in comparison?

Would you like to see a greater emphasis on investigating Hamas exploitation of human shields?

[Jefferson23]

12. Perhaps you have no idea how revealing your response is here.

The facts remain that the IDF WANTED to use human shields, even after the court ruled otherwise. You go ahead and play your bizarre game and defend the indefensible because there is so much integrity on the record by the IDF on this issue.

[shira]

14. I was thinking the same about you

I've always been against IDF usage of Palestinian human shields, but realize that for all the time they used them to make arrests, I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) there was one fatality, as tragic as that was. Compare to Hamas' exploitation and there really is no comparison, is there?

Don't you think Palestinian civilians deserve to have outside commissions investigating and criticizing Hamas for their exploitation of Palestinian human shields? What shall I make of your continued silence WRT this type of questioning?

[Jefferson23]

19. You thought what of me? find where I support any suicide bombers

or the use of human shields, find that I do not support investigations of Hamas for war crimes or shut the fuck up.

You failed to understand the article that was posted here, looks like you're floundering as a result. The proposal is to look at BOTH sides, that is how it should be, but Israel says case closed. And what continued silence are you speaking of by me??

And again you reveal yourself, truly incredible statement you make here:

"I've always been against IDF usage of Palestinian human shields, but realize that for all the time they used them to make arrests, I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) there was one fatality, as tragic as that was. Compare to Hamas' exploitation and there really is no comparison, is there?"


There was only one fatality as far as you know, and the fact that the IDF WANTED to continue to use human shields until a court said no somehow makes this less hideous to you than what Hamas does. As we look at the IDF's record, they continue to justify their actions, they WANTED TO USE HUMAN SHIELDS SO MUCH SO, THEY APPEALED THE RULING, and still you believe you are justified in this hideous game of who is "most moral" by using a comparison!

The court stopped them, they didn't stop themselves, for most people it wouldn't be such a struggle as it appears to be for you to see that there is no one who has the moral high ground here between Hamas and the IDF on this issue.

Thank the Israeli court, for that is all you have to thank for the distinction between Hamas and the IDF on this issue.


*edited for spelling.

[shira]

21. the Israeli court ruling against shields speaks more for Israeli society

than what you're willing to admit. I'm glad it's there to make such fair rulings. Realize that most western courts wouldn't operate that way under constant terror threats. That actually speaks well for Israel.

Glad to see you're against Hamas exploitation of human shields. HRW believes there is really no such evidence pointing to it and has yet to criticize Hamas or take them to task for it. And it's not just HRW. A quick google search on human shields shows way more hits against the IDF than Hamas. What do you think about Palestinian victims of human shield exploitation getting the shaft?

[Jefferson23]

22. You have a comprehension and or hedging problem it appears,

as I pointed out to YOU that it is indeed the court that has taken the higher ground here NOT the IDF, as the record clearly reflects.

So what you're saying is that HRW has no credibility at all because you base this on past transgressions, if so, you would need to use that same standard and apply it to the IDF, but you don't.

As far as your last question, "What do you think about Palestinian victims of human shield exploitation getting the shaft?"

The Palestinians do not have any leadership shira, not one that isn't riddled with corruption anyway, this is a surprise to you??

[shira]

41. you're not making sense

1. Even if the IDF and HRW have credibility issues, can you admit HRW has credibility issues? And what makes you think HRW has crediblity in light of their statements WRT human shield exploitation by Hizbullah in 2006?

2. I have no idea what point you were trying to make about Palestinian leadership and corruption. The point is they are victimized by Hamas's exploitation of them WRT using them as human shields. Have you taken notice of the LACK of coverage Hamas exploitation of human shields gets in the UN and media? If so, does that bother you?

[Jefferson23]

50. No shira, I think you do get the point, you're just avoiding it.

This is about your claims about HRW, since you do not find them credible because they are not flawless in your view, then you should apply that same criteria for judging the IDF, but you don't do that, your bias becomes obvious, even if you can't see it.


Any flawed reporting that ever came from HRW does not give credence to support your claim about them, in other words, you're willing to completely dismiss HRW, but not the IDF, you apply a double standard. There is more than one vehicle to substantiate human rights abuse and war crimes but they all seem to be 100% flawed to you b/c they haven't been 100% correct, but the IDF reports are just fine and dandy.

If you can't appreciate what it means for the Palestinians to have no leadership that is not corrupt, I can't help you.
That you even understand that the problems for the Palestinians go far beyond Hamas and the screaming human shield meme
you keep such a focus on is questionable at this point too.

Now its the media and the UN coverage that is your concern? If you believe the coverage has a favorable biased toward Hamas in the media, I would ask you to look at a poll done in the US, and see how they are rating in popularity. When you make statements like that, it is very difficult to take you seriously.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. And that's what I've been saying in another thread. I'm glad others have noticed too...

Any flawed reporting that ever came from HRW does not give credence to support your claim about them, in other words, you're willing to completely dismiss HRW, but not the IDF, you apply a double standard.

I've been pointing out the same thing in another thread, where HRW was dismissed out of hand, supposedly because they 'lie', but when confronted with the IDF's initial dishonesty about the use of WP where they denied using it at all, I was greeted with a flurry of what was claimed was *facts* by the IDF in response. If someone was being consistant (and I do think the poster in question actually thinks that when it comes to anything she disagrees with, even if an unintentional mistake is made, that makes it a LIE!), they'd apply the same standards to all information and sources, not just ones that don't gel with their particular opinions...

[shira]

56. unintenional mistakes by HRW? flawed, imperfect analysis? yeah, right

Amnesty and HRW claims discredited in detailed reports
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/amnesty_and_hrw_claims_discredited_in_detailed_report#3

And sorry, but there's simply no way HRW can be excused for stating in no uncertain terms that they had no evidence of Hizbullah exploitation of civilian shields.

Enough of this pretense.

[Violet_Crumble]

58. Thanks for proving my point yet again...

I've made the point several times now that you insist on insulting my intelligence by brandishing stuff from highly partisan pro-Israel sites and claiming them as *fact*, or in this case something that *discredits* human rights organisations that by their very nature are politically impartial. I find you doing this just as irritating as a women who was the mirror image of you who insisted on trotting out repeated links to What Really Happened and claiming it was *fact* and *truth*. The problem with True Believers of any stripe is that they're totally incapable of seeing the lack of a single standard in their views and they lack the ability to be able to discern partisan and very biased sites (like ngo monitor and WRH) from human rights organisations that don't politically side with any party to the conflict and are impartial...

[shira]

59. and you continue to prove mine

You simply cannot and will not admit that HRW was absurdly wrong (we're talking epic failure here) about claiming no evidence of Hizbullah exploitation of human shields in 2006. Neither will you come out and admit you are satisfied with their work in 2006 as it relates to Hizbullah and Lebanese civilian shields. It's okay, really, because we both know HRW's work then is simply indefensible.

BTW, ngo-monitor's detailed report is pretty damned thorough and convincing. Maybe you should take a look at a few of the eyewitness accounts that they refute before doing what you accuse me of (dismissing it before ever reading it)?

[Violet_Crumble]

61. I didn't see you trying to make any point about me in this subthread...

And you've just continued along with the same crap as what you did in the post before, totally ignoring what I said about yr total inability to discern the difference between a highly partisan source and a politically impartial one....

[shira]

63. it's not highly partisan or political to ignore and suppress Hizbullah exploitation of human shields

as HRW did and is still doing WRT Hamas right now?

Are you serious?

[Violet_Crumble]

65. I'll refer you back to post 58 in the hope you may comprehend it this time...

'I've made the point several times now that you insist on insulting my intelligence by brandishing stuff from highly partisan pro-Israel sites and claiming them as *fact*, or in this case something that *discredits* human rights organisations that by their very nature are politically impartial. I find you doing this just as irritating as a women who was the mirror image of you who insisted on trotting out repeated links to What Really Happened and claiming it was *fact* and *truth*. The problem with True Believers of any stripe is that they're totally incapable of seeing the lack of a single standard in their views and they lack the ability to be able to discern partisan and very biased sites (like ngo monitor and WRH) from human rights organisations that don't politically side with any party to the conflict and are impartial...'

Care to address what I actually said?

[shira]

68. well, Violet

1. These sites are only highly partisan and political due to your say-so. You bring little to nothing of value that demonstrates these sites or organizations shouldn't be trusted, or that they are less credible than HRW. In fact, you'll find nothing from ngo-monitor or the IDF reports that are as REMOTELY disingenuous as HRW's absurd report on Lebanon 2006. In fact, I challenge you to find anything as remotely dishonest as that.

2. When HRW releases a ridiculously absurd report as they did in 2006, that's very strong evidence they are highly partisan and politicized in their own right. The fact that you will not (and for good reason) defend that piece of crap HRW released in 2006 proves my point.

[Violet_Crumble]

74. Anyone can see that they're highly partisan and have a political bias...

It's not just my say-so, it's the fact that they're very heavily slanted in favour of defending Israel's actions and policies and they don't criticise Israel ever for those policies. You clearly have as little clue as to what highly partisan entails as you do in another thread where yr trying to claim that the definition of society is the leadership or govt.

[shira]

55. not so fast there, Jeff

I don't find HRW credible - and it's mainly for their coverage of Hizbullah in 2006 WRT their statements when they found NO evidence of human shield exploitation then. It goes beyond that, but that should be enough - right? That's not being flawed or imperfect, that's ignoring or suppressing evidence. Have you seen all the evidence for Hizbullah human shields from 2006?

Here are some media reports:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/the-human-rights-watch-_b_27701.html

And here you'll find photographic and video evidence:
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/human_shields.htm

So it's not about HRW being somewhat 'flawed' or imperfect. Do you still disagree, why?

Forget whether or not the media and UN are biased against Israel....the point is that there has been barely any coverage of Hamas or Hizbullah human shields. Meanwhile Palestinians and Lebanese suffer due to this exploitation. Don't you find it problematic that nothing is being done to help these people who cannot stand up for themselves against their oppressors? Do you think almost all the focus should remain on the IDF and off of Hamas or Hizbullah?

[Jefferson23]

96. You brought the media into the discussion and now you are dismissing it.

What's wrong, you couldn't find a US poll that indicates strong support for Hamas? Because according to you there is so little coverage of their human shield activity that Hamas is off the scrutiny radar screen as a result, and no one knows how brutal their tactics are, if that is your claim, prove it.

I would like to see a poll that would indicate how many Americans are even aware that the IDF had to be stopped from using human shields by their highest court. I wonder what the opinions of Americans would be once they read the record for themselves, and what would those opinions be when they then hear Isareli officials proclaim they are the "most moral" army.This is a subject that receives no attention from the likes of Dershowitz nor the MSM that I am aware of. And where is your information to support that the MSM has focused primarily on the IDF abuses and off of Hamas and Hisbullah?


I say the more attention the better for ALL involved parties, what do you think Israel would say to that?

It appears you believe that any flaw in reporting is intentional by HRW and that somehow proves the IDF's reports must be valid? If I understood you correctly, your conclusion it is an illogical one.

Your last 2 questions are priceless in relationship to the lack of honesty you apply to this conflict, and I have already said to you, try as you may to say otherwise, the exploitation of Palestinians primarily comes from Israeli policy.

Disregard the record if you want to, but the ICJ advisory ruling 2004 stands and spells out the exploitation perfectly.

[shira]

107. prove Hamas or Hizbullah human shields doesn't merit much media, UN attention?

Are you serious? Most reports on Hamas and Hizbullah human shields only quote Israeli sources 'claiming' human shield usage. Google human shields and you'll find more articles and media coverage of IDF shields than Hamas or Hizbullah, it's a complete joke. There have been no special investigations or harsh and consistant condemnation of Hamas/Hizbullah shields as there has been against anything Israel is accused of. This isn't even debatable and you know it. That such criticism by sources besides Israel is hard to come by and rare to hear or read about is the proof in the pudding.

No, I'm not saying since HRW blows that makes the IDF legitimate. Neither do I concede that HRW's reports are flawed or imperfect. They're blatantly disingenuous.

You say the exploitation of Palestinians primarily comes from Israeli policy. I admit Israel is the source of a lot of Palestinian suffering but you are severely underestimating trivializing the actions of Palestinian leadership if you don't believe they have been the major source of Palestinian suffering the past 20 years. You see, one of the problems of human-shields is that the military exploiting them (like Hamas or Hizbullah) is responsible for those civilian losses according to International Law, unless it can be proven without question that Israel acted in apeshit crazy, disproportionate ways, which has not been proven...and in fact, no one accusing Israel of disproportionate force has even defined what proportional force is when it comes to fighting an enemy trying to maximize civilian casualties - which exposes the dishonesty of partisan groups like HRW (who in their criticism of Israel, severely minimizes the impact of Hamas/Hizbullah exploitation of shields).

Why exactly are you bringing up the ICJ 2004 ruling?

[Jefferson23]

115. From you, "This isn't even debatable and you know it."

You're right, the majority of your response is incoherent, I suggest you waste someone else's time, someone with more patience than I.

[shira]

122. so it is debatable? do tell then

what are you waiting for?

Oh, btw, since your statement about the IDF appealing to the Supreme Court WRT human shields is gaining some traction here, do you mind explaining exactly what you know about that IDF policy and why it deserves at least 20x more attention than Hamas human shield usage you can view here:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drv_bCeYvg0


I'd like to see you try defending a position that places much more world attention on the IDF use of shields than on Hamas use of shields.

[Jefferson23]

123. Re-read post # 115 and understand it this time, well at least try.

And more from you: "I'd like to see you try defending a position that places much more world attention on the IDF use of shields than on Hamas use of shields."


That statement is twisted beyond repair and is based on a false premise, but I doubt that will give you pause...but it should. Good luck shira.

[shira]

126. twisted beyond repair?

What is twisted beyond repair and based on a false premise? Can you explain yourself clearly?

Or is this yet another typical 'hit and run' statement?

[Jefferson23]

128. Keep in mind that I am not responsible for your comprehension level.

You are free to re-read post #115 again, but that is entirely up to you, there exists no hit nor run in my statements to you.

[Violet_Crumble]

26. Wrong. HRW has criticised Hamas and you've been corrected on this in the past...

'Human Rights Watch investigations of previous ground operations in Gaza and the West Bank by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) found evidence of unlawful killings by Israeli forces. In addition, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups fired rockets or conducted other military operations from densely populated areas, placing civilians at risk of serious harm. "An Israeli ground operation in Gaza will likely mean intense combat in densely populated areas, where the threat to civilians is substantial," said Joe Stork, deputy director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East and North Africa division. "The IDF and Hamas must take concrete steps to minimize the fighting's impact on civilians or the results could be catastrophic."

The IDF's last major ground operation in Gaza, from February 27 to March 3, 2008, killed 107 Palestinians, more than half of whom were civilians, and wounded more than 200. Two Israeli soldiers died.

Human Rights Watch's detailed field investigation of that operation found serious violations by the IDF, including the killing of a wounded man getting treatment in an ambulance, the shooting deaths of two civilians on donkey carts, and the shooting and wounding of two men in IDF custody. In two cases, tank crews opened fire on unarmed civilians. All of these incidents took place in an area that was firmly under the control of the IDF. Palestinian medics and ambulance drivers also faced restrictions on their ability to treat the wounded and dead - both civilians and combatants - and came under fire that killed one medic.

In February-March 2008, as on other occasions, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups placed civilians at risk by firing rockets and mortars from densely populated areas and storing weapons in civilian structures. Those acts, too, violate the laws of war.'

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/01/04/israel-gaza-ground-offensive-raises-laws-war-concerns

[shira]

29. If only all their reports reflected this kind of balance, I'd have no problem with HRW

Sadly, this reporting by HRW is lacking WRT the latest Gaza-Israel war. Too bad HRW couldn't find a lick of evidence of Hizbullah human shields in Lebanon 2006.

Violet, are you satisfied with the overall coverage and resources HRW has spent criticizing Hamas exploitation of human shields?

[Violet_Crumble]

33. I hope I won't be seeing you in future repeating that false accusation about HRW...

I know from past threads that others have supplied you with other statements from HRW criticising Hamas that you have ignored and gone on to repeat the false accusation that HRW doesn't criticise Hamas for putting civilians in danger, so I hope that from this point onwards you don't continue to do so....

[shira]

37. thanks Violet, but you still didn't answer my question

Do you believe HRW has (in general for the past 5-10 years) adequately covered, investigated, and criticized Hamas (and Hezbollah) exploitation of human shields?

Now to make my point again. Since HRW found evidence of Hamas exploitation of civilian shields in 2008, what do you think changed in their 2009 "Rain of Fire" report in which they failed to mention this exploitation in their critique of Israel? Do you think HRW found that Hamas "saw the light" and discontinued this awful practice? Don't you think HRW should have included this as part of the context behind WP usage in civilian areas?

[Violet_Crumble]

45. WTF are you thanking me for? Pointing out that you repeat false accusations?

No need to thank me. All I want is that you don't keep on doing it...

The only reason I popped into this part of the thread was to correct you when I saw you making that same false accusation that you'd been corrected on in the past. As that was all I was interested in doing, I'm not the slightest bit interested in getting into yet another session where you fire questions off in rapid succession. The reason for this is very clear. You have displayed in thread after thread that you aren't interested in genuine discussion, and to be blunt, I've got no time for anyone who thinks it's acceptable to label Palestinian society as evil, which is what yr stance is...

[shira]

60. oh yeah, you really got me.....gosh

That 2008 report by HRW more than makes up for their 2006 report on the Lebanon war as well as what they reported on Hamas in early 2009 wrt human shield exploitation. That proves HRW is fair and balanced. It proves they're so concerned for Palestinian and Lebanese citizens who should be grateful HRW is spot on and on the ball looking out for their human rights.

:eyes:

Nice try.

[Violet_Crumble]

62. I think it's sad you can't even admit that you were wrong in the accusation you made...

..and one that you've made repeatedly in the past despite being corrected on it by several people....

[shira]

64. you're right, I was wrong about HRW never admitting Hamas human shields BUT

I am right, and you know I'm right, about HRW completely ignoring and suppressing all evidence of Hizbullah human shields in 2006. That reporting was so absurdly false that even you will not attempt to defend it (which is a good move, actually). However, you won't go so far as to admit that such blatantly false reporting (without so much as a retraction or apology afterward) is good reason to believe that HRW is not a credible organization. Oh well.


ps
It's also bad that HRW has little to no evidence of Hamas human shields in OCL. Maybe they want us all to believe, being the dupes we are who want so much to trust HRW, that Hamas learned from their wicked ways in 2008 due to HRW's report and wouldn't dare use human shields during OCL.

:eyes:

Oh yes, and it's very sad you show no concern over HRW's reports on Hezbollah 2006 and Hamas 2009.

[Violet_Crumble]

67. Now yr telling me what I supposedly know, what's the point of me posting?

You seem to be very happy to continue to blather to yrself. I told you my purpose for popping into the bit of the thread I did, and that I have no interest at all in getting into stupid rapid fire loaded question sessions. As for yr idiotic mewlings insisting that I have to *defend* HRW from you and yr batallion of highly partisan pro-Israel sources, I don't take very kindly to True Believers telling me what I have to, as I'm under no obligation to defend anything from what I consider to be blinded zealots incapable of the slightest shred of objectivity. I hope I've made myself crystal clear this time...

[shira]

69. okay, great....are you done now?

Being the true believer that you are in HRW, I'm hoping you find satisfaction in all their 'credible' reports on human shields. It's nice that as a true believer you feel they've done all that they could and should do to protect the human rights of innocent Palestinians and Lebanese civilians whose human rights they are supposed to be defending.

[Violet_Crumble]

75. Not if you knock off the idiotic attempts to tell me what I think and know...

And on yr sudden use of True Believer. Please stop parroting back at me what I've said in posts to you, especially when you have no idea what it means...

[shira]

91. then please answer some difficult questions

if you have some for me, I'll gladly try to answer you as I have before. You're simply being evasive.

As for "true believer", what else should I call your blind allegiance to HRW despite their record, for example, in 2006? None of my sources - as imperfect as they very well may be - come even remotely close, in any way, shape, or form to HRW's epic failure of 2006. But as a "true believer" you won't even admit HRW was 'imperfect' or 'flawed' in their analysis. That's fundamentalist true believer...of the blind faith type, Violet. Pretty sad.

[Violet_Crumble]

94. Is there something confusing about what I said in post 45?

I'll repeat it for you now: 'The only reason I popped into this part of the thread was to correct you when I saw you making that same false accusation that you'd been corrected on in the past. As that was all I was interested in doing, I'm not the slightest bit interested in getting into yet another session where you fire questions off in rapid succession. The reason for this is very clear. You have displayed in thread after thread that you aren't interested in genuine discussion, and to be blunt, I've got no time for anyone who thinks it's acceptable to label Palestinian society as evil, which is what yr stance is...'

What part of that isn't clear for you?

[shira]

101. so are we done?

It seems from your other posts that you want to continue. So what do you want?

[Violet_Crumble]

113. If you've read and comprehended post #45 you woudn't need to ask n/t

[Idealism]

35. Perhaps you should read HRW reports in their entirety instead of CAMERA's snippets of them.

[shira]

39. gee thanks.....and BTW those questions to Violet can apply to you if choose to

answer them.

Feel free to go for it!

[Idealism]

40. Shira, we have been through that dance already...

I doubt you will meet someone more equally disgusted by the conduct of these governments than me...

[shira]

42. okay, great.....but how about HRW, the UN, etc...

and the lack of coverage and criticism WRT Hamas exploitation of human shields? Gazans, and before them Lebanese citizens could have really used harsh International criticism of their Jihadi leadership. HRW and the UN, for all intents and purposes, leaves them out to dry and in no way expends as much energy or as many resources trying to seriously address this problem. What do you think of that?

Thanks in advance.

[Idealism]

43. Perhaps if organizations like HRW, AI, the UN, were allowed into Gaza at the time

they would have more to report?

Also, in guerilla-style warfare like being conducted by Hamas, they are not out in the open enough to even use human shields. They would be tracked and killed if they were seen about, Hamas wasn't stupid. It is the same reason why they didn't march the Qassam Brigades to the border and try to stop the IDF from advancing.

[shira]

44. that doesn't explain 2 things

1. Hizbullah 2006, press was allowed there. Verdict was no evidence of human shield exploitation.

2. HRW was able to compile a report against Israel's use of WP given their inability to be in Gaza at the time. But not against Hamas? Come on now.

This goes back to at least Jenin 2002 when the refugee camp was boobytrapped heavily. The UN, HRW, and AI have had plenty of time to spend some resources and energy trying to address this problem. They didn't. You don't have a problem with that?

[Idealism]

48. WP is visible in the sky

and as such, can be seen from dozens of miles away (which is where the HRW military analyst saw it from) and it also leaves a certain type of shell with select identification numbers on them. Very traceable.

Human shields? No visible trail, no left-overs... some photos is all that can be seen and unfortunately those can be doctored, misrepresented, mislabeled, etc. There are first-hand accounts which should be taken into consideration and weighed against other allegations, but if these allegations are from the same people who say the IDF was indiscriminately targeting civilians or the like, how do you morally justify blindly believing them when they indicate Hamas in a crime, but in the same breath disregard their claims of brutality at the hands of the IDF? Can't have it both ways.

And this isn't to say that HRW never mentions Hamas' use of human shields, which Violet already corrected you on.

The Lebanese operation was similar to the Gaza operation- do you not recall Hamas saying it drew inspiration from Hizbullah and their urban warfare tactics? You do not sit out in the open when fighting an army with drones and spotters that can have you killed if you poke your head up...

[shira]

51. yes, WP is visible in the sky but what does that prove from a distance?

Hamas human shield exploitation from OCL:

Video and photographical evidence:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terror+Groups/Hamas_Exploitation_Civilians_Jan_2009.htm
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Hamas+war+against+Israel/Hamas+exploitation+of+civilians+as+human+shields+-+Photographic+evidence.htm

Reports from media:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11393578/David-Harris-Cremonesi-HamaGaza-Article-210109
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3490250,00.html

Children of Hamas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTGbP55HGi8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9IL86T6Nc8&feature=channel

Gaza victims describe being used as human shields by Hamas
Hamas using children in combat roles
Iranian reformist daily: Hamas hiding forces in nurseries and hospitals
http://www.pmw.org.il/Bulletins_Jan2009.htm#b290109

Hamas leaders admit human shield usage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWIDZ7Jpdqg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DCuRzzsKnk

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

And I agree with you WRT Hamas getting inspiration from Hizbullah exploitation of human shields in 2006. HRW, AI, the UN, etc.. all deny Hizbullah used human shields in their fighting 3 years ago. What do you think about that?

[Idealism]

53. It was inspiration from the urban warfare that repelled the IDF

not the use of human shields.

Maybe if Israel let international organizations into Gaza to see for themselves how many crimes Hamas was committing, there would be something to mention? :shrug:

I don't know why you make up claims that HRW, AI, and the UN "deny" this group or that group used human shields... Violet already corrected you about HRW, so let me correct you specifically in this post on AI:

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/070/2006/en/3b4f8a10-d40b-11dd-8743-d305bea2b2c7/mde150702006en.html
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE02/033/2006/en
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/007/2009/en/4c407b40-e64c-11dd-9917-ed717fa5078d/mde150072009en.html#2.3.5.1.3.5%20Precautions%20in%20defence%20and%20%E2%80%9Chuman%20shields%E2%80%9D%7Coutline

[shira]

57. so are you saying Hizbullah's urban warfare was not a deliberate use of

human shields?

While HRW claimed no evidence of Hizbullah human shields, Amnesty at least admitted it - although they grossly understated the case. See here:

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/amnesty_and_hrw_claims_discredited_in_detailed_report#3

I don't see how pointing to Violet's "correction" and these reports from AI bolster your case. Are you satisfied with AI and HRW's efforts WRT investigating and criticizing Hizbullah and Hamas? If your answer is NO, you make my point for me.

[Idealism]

66. NGO Monitor?! LOL

And you yell at PM for posting something from EI... classic, shira, classic. :rofl:

[shira]

70. they do their homework and are more thorough and convincing than HRW, that's for certain

Please answer - are you satisfied with HRW's efforts to protect civilians exploited by Hamas and Hizbullah human shields the past 3-5 years (specifically Lebanon 2006)? Yes or No? Simple question.

[Idealism]

71. What kind of stupid question is that?

That is like asking are you satisfied with the US governments efforts to protect civilians from random acts of violence... I will never be satisfied with it and neither should anyone else until violence becomes eradicated from this planet (which will never happen, and thus I will never be fully satisfied with that)

[shira]

72. we're not talking the US govt

we're talking about HRW, an organization supposedly dedicated to human rights for everyone. For some reason they're REALLY on the ball (and then some) WRT Palestinians or Lebanese civilians harmed by the IDF, but dragging ass when it comes to the same people exploited as human shields by Hamas and Hizbullah. I can only assume by your responses (or better, non-response) that you have no problem with HRW either ignoring altogether or suppressing evidence of human shield exploitation. You just don't want to admit it. Pretty sad.

[Idealism]

73. In case you haven't noticed, every country complains that HRW is biased against them.

That means they are doing their job. HRW didn't ignore nor suppress evidence of human shield exploitations. It was not widespread, it was not systemic according to their reports and others. I believe them. That doesn't mean crimes were not committed, because as we all know, there were war crimes abound in the Middle East done by every regime.

[shira]

76. this goes beyond simple bias and into the realm of the absurd

You don't think Hizbullah's usage of human shields was widespread or systemic? I'll assume you just don't know. HRW found no evidence of human shield exploitation. They didn't admit to even a little bit; they outright denied they had any evidence. Check these out:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/the-human-rights-watch-_b_27701.html
The quotes above are legit. You can google them and find them easily.



More images and video:
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/human_shields.htm

You even admitted Hamas was inspired by Hizbullah's strategy. Deliberate urban warfare is a war crime because when troops are deployed within civilian population centers and choose to fight from there, that is deliberate exploitation of human shields.

HRW on Hizbullah in Lebanon 2006 “found no cases in which Hezbollah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack.” They also stated " Human Rights Watch found that Hezbollah stored its rockets in bunkers and facilities located in uninhabited fields and valleys; ordered its fighters and civilian officials away from populated civilian areas as soon as the fighting started; and fired its rockets from pre-prepared positions outside villages. In the vast majority of airstrikes resulting in civilian deaths investigated by Human Rights Watch, there was no Hezbollah military presence or activity to justify the attack."

That's pretty disgusting and indefensible reporting by HRW, wouldn't you say?

[Idealism]

80. Urban warfare does not equate a war crime.

Your reasoning is faulty and has been disproved over and over on this subject. No one "ignored" human rights violations and certainly NGO monitor didn't "get it right" or whatever you are claiming.

[shira]

82. LOL.....you keep telling yourself that as you watch what HRW found no evidence of

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2006/Operation%20Change%20of%20Direction%20Video%20Clips

[Idealism]

83. HRW did mention human shields, as did AI, and the UN, but you ignore

just to try to prove some point that these groups are all anti-Israel. It isn't some conspiracy out to get the Jews. You sound nuts when you repeat this bullshit over and over even when multiple posters try to correct you.

[shira]

84. no, not WRT Lebanon 2006....HRW denied any evidence existed

please keep up. I shouldn't have to correct you so many times in one evening.

It's hard to defend HRW's 2006 report, isn't it?

[Idealism]

87. And who is to say the use of human shields was widespread and systemic?

I believe HRW is correct on this. They mentioned limited incidents, as do AI and the UN but not an actual policy of Hizbullah. And you have a problem with this why?

[shira]

90. you cannot possibly be serious.

Where do you think most of Hizbullah's military infrastructure was? In unpopulated areas, or within dense civilian populations? Do you have any idea?

[Idealism]

100. So you think having military infrastructure located within city blocks of houses is a war crime?

You don't have a very good grasp on international law, it seems.

[shira]

103. Yes, it's a big war crime!

"The Parties to the conflict shall, to the maximum extent feasible:
…
(b) Avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas.
…"
- Geneva Convention (Protocol 1), Article 58

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

Don't you understand that by deliberately having military infrastructure located within city blocks of houses, it makes those civilian areas legitimate military targets for the opposing military, and unless the opposing military goes berserk all civilian casualties are the fault of the military that used civilian locations to shield their military infrastructure?

[Idealism]

104. Within or near is not clearly defined, is it?

which is why this is never charged against ANY nation. Look through the prosecutions or complaints to the ICC and you will find zero claims against a country for this.

[shira]

108. okay, let's play it your way for the moment

If Hizbullah and Hamas choose to hide all their weapons within homes, schools, mosques, and hospitals - situate their troops there, in uniform or without - launch rockets from within these locations - set boobytraps everywhere within these locations in hopes of luring the IDF in - then pretend (I know it's hard for you) that the IDF does its best to fight Hamas/Hizbullah and limit civilian casualties.......fault for civilian casualties goes to Hamas/Hizbullah or the IDF? What do you say? And you still think that all the above strategy and tactics by Hamas/Hizbullah are not war crimes?

[Idealism]

111. I don't know where you get this stuff from..

How about you post sources for these claims so I can respond to the propaganda straight from the mouth?

I don't understand how you can change your argument so many times, it is simply astounding. One second you charge that Hizbullah has used human shields and HRW is biased because they didn't mention, then when you are asked for specific examples of human shields (any combination of first-hand accounts, some pictures, maybe some video footage, human rights groups claims), you point to the Geneva Convention about not having military installations "near" civilian structures. You take umbrage with HRW not mentioning this in their report? Well then, the US is guilty of this, as is Israel, as is France, etc., but ultimately the vague nature of proximity in that article makes this a nonstarter.

[shira]

112. propaganda? Here's evidence once again of human shields, photo and video proof

Hamas
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terror+Groups/Hamas_Exploitation_Civilians_Jan_2009.htm
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Hamas+war+against+Israel/Hamas+exploitation+of+civilians+as+human+shields+-+Photographic+evidence.htm

Hizbullah
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2006/Operation%20Change%20of%20Direction%20Video%20Clips

The US, France, etc.. are not currently engaged in assymetric warfare against a neighboring state. They're not intentionally firing against anyone from their own densely populated civilian areas, in hopes that ANY retaliation against them will maximize civilian casualties and via the media bring them huge PR victories. Neither does the USA, France, or Israel actively recruit children to help with their military ops like Hamas does, and encourage them to want to be martyrs who die for the cause. You probably don't think involving children is a war crime either.

Read the few paragraphs you cited from AI, as well as the few crumbs Violet offered by HRW with respect to human shields and you'll find that even AI and HRW know that this isn't propaganda, it's all war crimes on top of war crimes.

[Idealism]

116. The few instances of actual human shield use is a war crime, but it isn't as how you define it.

Or rather, how Dershowitz defines it and you copy/paste it.

The IDF has an extensive history of human shields, but I suppose when that get mentions it is false? What about the Israeli Supreme Court having to rule on the IDFs widespread use of the tactic, calling it illegal and immoral, only to have the IDF appeal the decision? And this from the "most moral army in the world?" Nobody is innocent here, and HRW and AI have gotten it right most of the time.

[azurnoir]

118. the israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs doesn't

seem to mention much about this caveat

Israeli military lawyers instructed army commanders that Palestinians who remained in a targeted building after having been warned to leave were “voluntary human shields, and thus combatants.”

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/04/oh-but-they-were-voluntary-human-shields.html

[shira]

119. did you look at all that video and photographic evidence?

Do you think that all such activity by Hizbullah and Hamas is legal and not punishable in any way?

As for IDF human shields, are you in any way aware of the manner in which they used them? In other words, how did the IDF use Palestinians as shields - for what purpose did it serve? Can you be specific?

And lastly, do you think what the IDF did is worse than what Hamas/Hizbullah currently does by exploiting Palestinians?

[shira]

121. bullshit......"within or near" is quite clear WRT human shields....just WTF are you defending?

Here....since words fail to get through to you. And mention of warcrimes is in the video, btw:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drv_bCeYvg0

Hope you watched the video. What do you think now?

This is mentioned sparingly, basically as a little afterthought, in reports by HRW, AI, the UN, the MSM, etc.

And I have yet to see this ever mentioned (by the above parties) with respect to actual civilian casualties caused by the IDF in Lebanon and Gaza. It's an intentional strategy carried out by Hizbullah and Hamas whose aim is to MAXIMIZE Arab civilian casualties in the event that Israel decides to defend its own civilians from rocket attacks, etc. and fire back at Hizbullah/Hamas.

IOW, we are to believe - as you and your friends here believe - that the IDF has no business killing as many civilians as it does in times of war. We're led to believe they are reckless, or they're uncaring monsters who want to kill children. The orgs cited above do not EVER include (and correct me if I'm wrong) in their reports the fact that such civilian casualties are guaranteed due to deliberate strategies used by Hamas/Hizbullah that intentionally puts civilians at risk. Israel has 2 choices. Allow Hizbullah and Hamas to keep attacking since they are using civilian locations for defense against Israel, or attack and risk killing civilians in the area.

So not only are Hizbullah and Hamas wrong morally and criminally, but you've gotta ask yourself just what the hell is going on with organizations who KNOW this is happening but who do NOT want to include this in their reports and analyses that unfairly demonize the IDF. While they may sometimes mention that Hizbullah or Hamas puts their civilians at risk, I have NEVER once seen them actually explain casualties due to IDF fire that are as much the fault of Hamas or Hizbullah than anything else. They never make the connection between civilians killed by the IDF and Hamas/Hizbullah strategy that makes such tragedies inevitable in the case Israel decides to defend.

And it appears that you and your friends here are not at all outraged by this. Maybe you don't believe it's a big deal? You think it's irrelevant information WRT Arab civilian casualties? I admit, I don't get it. Can you explain yourself?

[Idealism]

124. You are claiming Hizbullah is guilty of using human shields but your evidence is a nonexistant

The evidence you have is that Hizbullah has military buildings within how many feet of civilian buildings? That is not the same thing as a gunmen hiding behind an actual civilian, yet you treat the two identical when it suits your needs- why?

The IDF has been found guilty of implementing the latter procedure, which I have already posted PCHR, AI, and HRW's reports on the matter to you, the IDF admitting the usage, and then the IDF even appealing the ban on using human shields to their Supreme Court. They have no moral high ground in this matter.

[shira]

125. so you watched the video and found no evidence of wrongdoing or criminal activity?

1. Did you watch that video? Yes or No? What did you think?

2. Here are some more.

Boobytraps in school and zoo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHhs9ihSmbU&feature=PlayList&p=13CDFC69E1856079&index=38

Palestinian kids digging tunnels for Hamas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9IL86T6Nc8&feature=channel

Hamas Uses Children, UN, Press As Human Shields (check out videos of firing rockets from UN and using ambulances)
http://www.israelnewsagency.com/ununitednationshamasgazaisraelidfterrorismhumanshieldsislamicjihadschoolschildrenqassamskassamsrockets48011509.htm

Children of Hamas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTGbP55HGi8

And you see no evidence of a military putting people deliberately in harm's way? Worse, when they attack Israel and Israel inevitably responds, you still find Israel 100% responsible for civilian casualties?

[Idealism]

129. It is hard to keep track of who you are trying to accuse.

First it was Hizbullah using human shields, yet these are of Palestinians supposedly? Video put out by the IDF isn't very credible as it can be manipulated, mislabeled, etc. (as they have done in the past). Surely there is more evidence than some undated, untraceable video?

[shira]

131. these are all examples of deliberate exploitation of human shields

You evidently (correct me if I'm wrong) don't believe these are crimes that should be criticized too harshly, nor do you believe Hezbollah or Hamas should be responsible for deaths caused by this despicable strategy.

Nice try about IDF video. It's not all IDF video and it's very clear what is happening.

[Idealism]

133. You claim HRW isn't credible because they "ignored" human shield (nonexistant) use in 2006

Then you talk about Palestinians? Get your thoughts straight before posting, it is hard to follow!

Your evidence against Hizbullah= their military buildings are on the same block or so with residential buildings is laughable. In my city, there are high schools built next to military air bases. One such high school has AA batteries ON campus, as well as a barracks that was used in the Cold War for the airmen. Two universities in my city also are located on military airfields. This does not equate to a war crime. Every country does this. The wording of that stature is never enforced before it is so vague. Yet this is your evidence that Hizbullah used human shields?

I would say to you I expect you to not make any foolish comments about HRW's report on the conflict in Lebanon in 06 now, but given your past history of brushing aside reasoning in favor of your "Blame the Arabs" mantra, I am not holding my breath.

[shira]

134. nonexistant human shield usage?

You can't be serious after viewing all the footage?

You stated you have a problem with IDF footage, as if you believed at the time that such footage was damning but perhaps concocted. So what's your issue now? Whether that footage is legit or not, are such acts by either Hizbullah or Hamas (both do the same things which is why I bring both up) illegal war crimes, yes or no? Here are a few more things to look at:

Hizbullah hid rockets in houses
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3276105,00.html

Qana: Hezbollah hiding behind civilians
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aur_DmTIw70

Hezbollah uses UN posts as shields
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=b4923801-9def-4606-af6a-bc5eea30b89b

UN chief accuses Hezbollah of ‘cowardly blending’ among refugees
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205349,00.html

If it's IDF footage you have a problem with, I'm assuming you believe that if their reports and visual evidence is accurate and honest, it's a warcrime in your opinion - right? So what's your story now? These aren't war crimes no matter what the IDF claims and presents as evidence?

[shira]

135. oh yes, one more thing about this "non-existant evidence"

You cited AI criticizing Hezbollah for human shield usage here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x269215#269745

But now you claim the evidence for Hezbollah human shields is non-existant?

One day you admit the evidence exists, the next you don't. What's it going to be today?

[IndianaGreen]

105. So much for National Guard Armories across the United States

just where in the frak do you think they are located?

This is just in the State of Illinois:



http://www.il.ngb.army.mil/Army/ILARNG.asp

44TH REAR OPERATIONS CENTER
1910 S. CALUMET AVE
CHICAGO, IL 60616-1424 Google Maps

450th CHEMICAL DETACHMENT
1910 S. CALUMET AVE
CHICAGO, IL 60616-1424 Google Maps

COMPANY A, 2-20TH SPECIAL FORCES GROUP (AIRBORNE)
1910 S. CALUMET AVE
CHICAGO, IL 60616-1424 Google Maps

COMPANY C (-), 341ST MILITARY INTELLIGENCE BATTALION (LINGUIST)
1910 S. CALUMET AVE
CHICAGO, IL 60616-1424 Google Maps

HEADQUARTERS, HEADQUARTERS COMPANY, 404TH CHEMICAL BRIGADE
1910 S. CALUMET AVE
CHICAGO, IL 60616-1424 Google Maps

COMPANY A, 1-178TH INFANTRY
5200 S. COTTAGE GROVE AVE
CHICAGO, IL 60615-3603 Google Maps

HEADQUARTERS, HEADQUARTERS COMPANY, 1-178TH INFANTRY
5200 S. COTTAGE GROVE AVE
CHICAGO, IL 60615-3603 Google Maps

HEADQUARTERS, HEADQUARTERS SUPPORT BATTERY 2-122D FIELD ARTILLERY
5200 S. COTTAGE GROVE AVE
CHICAGO, IL 60615-3603 Google Maps

COMPANY B(-), 935TH AVIATION
5400 W. 63D ST
CHICAGO, IL 60638-5690 Google Maps

COMPANY B, 1-106TH AVIATION
5400 W. 63D ST
CHICAGO, IL 60638-5690 Google Maps

244TH ARMY LIASON TEAM
1551 N. KEDZIE AVE
CHICAGO, IL 60651-2434 Google Maps

HEADQUARTERS, 108TH SUSTAINMENT BRIGADE
1551 N. KEDZIE AVE
CHICAGO, IL 60651-2434 Google Maps

1244TH TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
8660 W. CERMAK ROAD
NORTH RIVERSIDE, IL 60546-1128 Google Maps

3625TH MAINTENANCE COMPANY
8660 W. CERMAK RD.
NORTH RIVERSIDE, IL 60546-1128 Google Maps

708TH MEDICAL COMPANY
8660 W. CERMAK ROAD
NORTH RIVERSIDE, IL 60546-1128 Google Maps

709TH AREA SUPPORT MEDICAL COMPANY
8660 W. CERMAK ROAD
NORTH RIVERSIDE, IL 60546-1128 Google Maps

710 MEDICAL SUPPORT COMPANY
8660 W. CERMAK RD.
NORTH RIVERSIDE, IL 60546-1128 Google Maps

DETACHMENT 6, RECRUIT SUSTAINMENT PROGRAM
8660 W. CERMAK ROAD
NORTH RIVERSIDE, IL 60546-1128 Google Maps

108TH MEDICAL BATTALION
8660 W. CERMAK ROAD
NORTH RIVERSIDE, IL 60545-1128 Google Maps

108TH SIGNAL COMPANY
13838 S. SPRINGFIELD AVE
ROBBINS, IL 60472-1825 Google Maps

633D PERSONNEL SERVICES DETACHMENT
13838 S. SPRINGFIELD AVE
ROBBINS, IL 60472-1825 Google Maps

BATTERY B, 2-122D FIELD ARTILLERY
13838 S. SPRINGFIELD AVE
ROBBINS, IL 60472-1825 Google Maps

COMPANY G, 634TH BRIGADE SUPPORT BATTALION
13838 S. SPRINGFIELD AVE
ROBBINS, IL 60472-1825 Google Maps

EARLY ENTRY ELEMENT, 108TH BRIGADE TROOPS BATTALION
13838 S. SPRINGFIELD AVE
ROBBINS, IL 60472-1825 Google Maps

JOINT FORCES MEDICAL DETACHMENT (CR)
13838 S. SPRINGFIELD AVE
ROBBINS, IL 60472-1825 Google Maps

[azurnoir]

117. LOL I live not far from an Air National Guard base

but I think the problem for Shira is that Hamas did not present it self out in an open fields standing in front of tanks, no in fact Hamas laid low and IDF met relatively little resistance

http://francona.blogspot.com/2009/01/gaza-campaign-part-two.html

[bemildred]

25. I think a South African Jew sounds perfect for the job. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

77. It's a shame so many threads are being turned into attacks on HRW and AI...

I just looked at this thread and a few others and the same thing emerges. Someone appears and starts wailing on HRW and AI, and the OP itself falls by the wayside. I'm sorry for adding to it by responding to the crap and hope that the thread will return to discussing the OP, rather than being yet another thread for someone to display their obsession with AI and HRW...

[shira]

78. so do you think an appointee by the UN human rights council will be fair and impartial?

I mean, what in the past would lead anyone to believe that this "esteemed" UN council wouldn't find an impartial judge to carry out a fair inquiry?

:eyes:

[Violet_Crumble]

79. Can't see any reason why this South African guy wouldn't be n/t

[shira]

81. well, I'm certain the highly esteemed UN human rights council knew who they were recruting for this

special inquiry. We'll see soon, won't we? You know what I'll be looking for in his "impartial" report. I'm betting he's going to let Hamas off the hook again, disappoint the Palestinian victims who were exploited by Hamas, and the end result will of course be that Hamas will feel emboldened and have no motivation whatsoever to stop using Palestinians as human shields. Hell, maybe they'll think of even more creative ways to really maximize civilian casualties, and why shouldn't they since no one important is holding them accountable?

[IndianaGreen]

85. So what are your specific objections to Richard Goldstone, a South African Jewish judge?

Goldstone had served previously with distinction as chief prosecutor on the International Crimes Court for cases involving Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

Do you have some rational thoughts of your own, or do you just spout the crap one finds from the likes of CAMERA?

[shira]

86. you do know the history of the UN human rights council, right? they appointed Goldstone

When's the last time the HRC was fair and impartial WRT Israel?

[IndianaGreen]

88. You are babbling nonsense! Perhaps too much caffeine. I'll repeat my question

What are your specific objections to Richard Goldstone, a South African Jewish judge? Goldstone had served previously with distinction as chief prosecutor on the International Crimes Court for cases involving Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

[Violet_Crumble]

89. Yeah, I'd like to hear the answer to yr question too...

I want to know what the specific objections are to Richard Goldstone....

[shira]

92. you would know about babbling nonsense, wouldn't you? It's your M.O.

would you say that the UNHRC, which appointed Goldstone, has been fair in the past WRT Israel? Do you have reason to believe they wish to be fair and impartial now?

What part of these questions do you not understand?

[Violet_Crumble]

95. I'd like to know what yr objections to Richard Goldstone are....

Is there something about his credentials or in his past that you take issue with?

[azurnoir]

97. Perhaps it was Mr Godstones work with Volker Commision

investigating the food for oil scandal that is somehow disagreeable to the poster your addressing

For my part I think he is an impeccable choice for this investigation

[IndianaGreen]

98. Poster is trying to earn a free 10-day visit to Israel on the CAMERA Fellows Program

College students can earn a free 10-day visit to Israel on the CAMERA Fellows student leadership trip from June 14-24.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1648

[Jefferson23]

99. Now that is comical, in a twisted manner that is. This one

line under what students will: " Visit top Israeli institutions and meet PR experts to learn how to effectively communicate a message."

Sounds informative, lol. :puffpiece:

[azurnoir]

110. What not BirthRight?

well I'm shocked but perhaps someone should also suggest IDF's tour of the OPT or war games in Gaza seems that would apparpo.....

[shira]

102. I thought you were done with me. Would you like to ask one question at a time

and allow me to do the same for the time being? Keep our posts to each other brief?

[Violet_Crumble]

114. Huh? Do you know what a *sub-thread* is, Shira?

Apparently not. Because I referred specifically to the sub-thread further up, not about this one here which is actually discussing the actual OP...

So with that cleared up, is there any possibility that you'll actually explain what objections you have to Richard Goldstone himself?

[shira]

120. no objections to Goldstone personally

can't say I know anything about him (CAMERA hasn't reported on him yet). :eyes:

What we do know is that the UNHRC has never demonstrated a fair and balanced approach towards Israel. With that kind of record, what makes you think the UNHRC changed its tune and has become more fair and balanced in its approach towards Israel? Do you have any evidence the UNHRC is showing more balance and less hostility in its approach to Israel, or is this some kind of true believer blind faith you have in the UNHRC?

[HamdenRice]

127. I've met Goldstone a few times over the years. He's an extremely objective person.

I've met him a few times, between 1986 and around 2000. He has a reputation going back decades for being extremely objective and impartial, which is probably why the UN chose him.

It's also worth pointing out that the UN human rights organs have been overhauled, and generally now get good marks for objectivity. This is not the UN human rights commissions of the 70s, 80s and 90s that one sidedly criticized certain countries while supporting dictators. The main change in the structure of the UN human rights commissions is that the raporteurs and investigators are now appointed from outside the UN and are always now well respected, independent human rights experts -- like Goldstone.

In this thread it seems most people only know of him as the judge in the Rwanda case. But that's not really what he is most famous for. So let me give a little background.

In 1985 or so, Goldstone was not a particularly famous judge nor a high court judge. Iirc, he was either a trial court judge or a judge on a lower appellate court in South Africa's Transvaal Province (which included Johannesburg/Soweto and Pretoria).

He first came to prominence because during the State of Emergency of the mid 1980s, he regularly struck down Emergency regulations and detentions that did not meet due process and human rights standards. The other judge who came to prominence for this was Judge Didcot of the Natal Province (Didcot passed away at a relatively young age, sadly). I also believe (may be mistaken) that Goldstone came to have these unusual views (for South African judges) after participating in Ford Foundation funded overseas courses that eventually changed the way many South African judges decided cases.

Because of his decisions in the 80s, he became a figure trusted by both the internal liberation movement and the government. When the ANC was unbanned in 1989, and negotiations started, the country suffered through horrendous political violence -- which was largely under-reported here in the US because the US press seemed fixated by a mythical "peaceful" transition story.

The political violence in South Africa became so severe that it was described inside the country as a low intensity civil war. Even worse, a huge amount of the violence was being committed by "shadow" forces that did not identify themselves. Groups of men would show up, say at a crowded train station, open fire and kill dozens of people, and then disappear. Both sides would blame each other, with no force taking responsibility for the massacre and negotiations would grind to a halt in a morass of mutual recriminations. This political violence threatened to derail the constitutional negotiations.

The government and ANC agreed to appoint a commission to investigate political violence, the Commission of Inquiry Regarding the Prevention of Public Violence and Intimidation, and Judge Goldstone was made its chairman. It was commonly called, "The Goldstone Commission."

Goldstone carefully dissected each incident of political violence and ascribed responsibility to each side. If there was any criticism of Goldstone at the time, it was that he was bending over backwards to be even handed -- for example, laying responsibility equally at the feet of the government and the ANC despite the government's overwhelming capacity to inflict violence. On the other hand, because of his evenhandedness, his accusations of government involvement in violence was much more credible.

This leads me to believe that this is why he was chosen for this task, and to agree with shira (imagine this!) that a big part of his investigation will be to find out what responsibility Palestinian forces had for the ongoing violence. But that will make any findings of Israeli violations of human rights that much more credible.

Toward the end of the Goldstone Commission's work as the country proceeded to elections and the violence spiraled out of control, Goldstone dropped a bombshell: He confirmed press reports (first reported in the liberal/radical Afrikaner newspaper (yup there was one) VryeWeekblad) that a group of Security Police had gone rogoue (the "Third Force") and was deliberately fomenting the violence and that President de Klerk may not have maintained control over his own security forces, which were trying to derail the constitution and elections. Goldstone was forced to go into hiding from the release of that report until elections because of Third Force death threats, but the report forced a showdown between de Klerk and the leader of the Third Force that caused the violence miraculously to end and the elections to go forward.

So in his own country, Goldstone is known as one of the greatest heroes of the transition to democracy because of his detailed, dogged and even handed investigations and reporting on the causes of political violence -- as well as putting his own life on the line to do so.

I can't think of anyone better qualified to investigate the recent events in Gaza.

You can read a bit about Goldstone and even some of his reports here:

http://www.hurisa.org.za/Goldstone/Goldstone.htm

http://www.hurisa.org.za/Goldstone/Goldstone_Reports.htm

[Idealism]

130. Thanks for posting this

Your input is greatly appreciated!

[shira]

132. good to know, THANKS.....of course the other people in this commission may be problematic

since several have already stated they think Israel committed war crimes, which means their minds are already made up. Usually, someone with that much bias coming in recuses him/her self. Otherwise it's like the plaintiff of a lawsuit acting also as jury and judge. Jurists are excused for such bias before being selected for duty.