War Crimes And Their Justifications
Israel's current assault on the Gaza Strip cannot be justified by self-defense. Rather, it involves serious violations of international law, including war crimes. Senior Israeli political and military leaders may bear personal liability for their offenses, and they could be prosecuted by an international tribunal, or by nations practicing universal jurisdiction over grave international crimes. Hamas fighters have also violated the laws of warfare, but their misdeeds do not justify Israel's acts.
The United Nations charter preserved the customary right of a state to retaliate against an "armed attack" from another state. The right has evolved to cover nonstate actors operating beyond the borders of the state claiming self-defense, and arguably would apply to Hamas. However, an armed attack involves serious violations of the peace. Minor border skirmishes are common, and if all were considered armed attacks, states could easily exploit them -- as surrounding facts are often murky and unverifiable -- to launch wars of aggression. That is exactly what Israel seems to be currently attempting.
Israel had not suffered an "armed attack" immediately prior to its bombardment of the Gaza Strip. Since firing the first Kassam rocket into Israel in 2002, Hamas and other Palestinian groups have loosed thousands of rockets and mortar shells into Israel, causing about two dozen Israeli deaths and widespread fear. As indiscriminate attacks on civilians, these were war crimes. During roughly the same period, Israeli forces killed about 2,700 Palestinians in Gaza by targeted killings, aerial bombings, in raids, etc., according to the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem.
Keep Reading ...
punditman says ...
Notably, this appears in the Wall Street Journal. A chink in the armour of mainstream media orthodoxy, perhaps?
(Mentarch here, barging in just to add: heh, indeed ...)
The United Nations charter preserved the customary right of a state to retaliate against an "armed attack" from another state. The right has evolved to cover nonstate actors operating beyond the borders of the state claiming self-defense, and arguably would apply to Hamas. However, an armed attack involves serious violations of the peace. Minor border skirmishes are common, and if all were considered armed attacks, states could easily exploit them -- as surrounding facts are often murky and unverifiable -- to launch wars of aggression. That is exactly what Israel seems to be currently attempting.
Israel had not suffered an "armed attack" immediately prior to its bombardment of the Gaza Strip. Since firing the first Kassam rocket into Israel in 2002, Hamas and other Palestinian groups have loosed thousands of rockets and mortar shells into Israel, causing about two dozen Israeli deaths and widespread fear. As indiscriminate attacks on civilians, these were war crimes. During roughly the same period, Israeli forces killed about 2,700 Palestinians in Gaza by targeted killings, aerial bombings, in raids, etc., according to the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem.
Keep Reading ...
punditman says ...
Notably, this appears in the Wall Street Journal. A chink in the armour of mainstream media orthodoxy, perhaps?
(Mentarch here, barging in just to add: heh, indeed ...)
I love this post! Thanks for sharing.
ReplyDeleteGlad to oblige ;-)
ReplyDeleteI have a point points to make.
ReplyDeleteFrom the article:
"Israel then broke the truce on Nov. 4, raiding the Gaza Strip and killing a Palestinian. Hamas retaliated with rocket fire; Israel then killed five more Palestinians."
Hamas was building a tunnel under the Israeli boarder, something that obviously Israel could not allow. I wouldn't be so quick to
blame Israel.
I wrote more about thsi here:
http://www.scruffydan.com/blog/?p=1935
Also The Palestinians killed in that attack were all Hamas militants. The article doesn't make that clear.
Secondly:
"Israel has also failed to adequately discriminate between military and nonmilitary targets. Israel's American-made F-16s and Apache helicopters have destroyed mosques, the education and justice ministries, a university, prisons, courts and police stations."
There is very good evidence showing that Hamas was using many of these facilities as weapon storages, and as a base for attacks, so stating that these were non-military facilities isn't entirely accurate.
Yes there is more
"Eighty percent of Gaza's 1.5 million residents are Palestinian refugees who were forced from their homes or fled in fear of Jewish terrorist attacks in 1948."
Many of them fled to escape the was. A war that was started by All of Israel's neighbours. The history presented in the article is incredibly one sided.
"For 60 years, Israel has denied the internationally recognized rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes -- because they are not Jews."
It is far more complex than that.
"Although Israel withdrew its settlers and soldiers from Gaza in 2005, it continues to tightly regulate Gaza's... borders."
Not all it's borders Egypt has also closed off its borders to Gaza.
This article makes some good points but it's presentation of history is incredibly one sided
SD:
ReplyDelete"Hamas was building a tunnel under the Israeli boarder, something that obviously Israel could not allow. I wouldn't be so quick to
blame Israel."
Yup - but then again, all that Israel needed to do was to collaspe the damn tunnel, no? I also wrote about this previously, back in November ...
As for "one-sidedness" ... anything in the MSM/traditional media being reported with regards to Israel is usually a mere repetition of Israel's talking points - same stenography as we've witnessed with regards to the Bush administration.
I want tangible, verifiable proofs, friend ...
I am not denying the long, complicated and tortuous history here - nonetheless, Israel is no pristine clear innocent here either ...
When Hamas or Hezbollah do their crazy stuff - they are wrong and must be called upon for this.
But when Israel does similar wrongs ... then it is inevitably "OK" because it has a "right to defend itself"?
Lebanon 2006 - anyone?
The wrongful blockade of food, water and goods to Gaza for almost two years?
We have reached a state of affairs whereby there is much bad faith on *both* sides.
In fact, this has been so for quite a while now.
Regardless - civilians *are* civilians and I'll be damned if I will take the word or any government always striving to support their own little propaganda to portray themselves as victims, as they claim that the victims were not civilians, at face value.
Is this what you do, friend?
It it were possible to simply collapse the tunnel I am fairly certain they would have done so. But that is no easy task, especially when you don't know where the exit is. And how would they have done it? AN air strike? That certainly wouldn't go over very well. A bulldozer? That would attract plenty of Hamas fighters and result in a much larger confrontation that took place.
ReplyDeleteThe derision to send a special forces unit was probably the best way to destroy the tunnel and while limiting casualties and any large scale confrontation.
"anything in the MSM/traditional media being reported with regards to Israel is usually a mere repetition of Israel's talking points"
Spend some time on the BBC website. You will quickly find that this is NOT the case.
"Israel is no pristine clear innocent here either"
I never claimed they were.
"When Hamas or Hezbollah do their crazy stuff - they are wrong and must be called upon for this. But when Israel does similar wrongs ... then it is inevitably "OK" because it has a "right to defend itself"?"
The big difference is that the stated goals of Hezbollah and Hamas is the destruction of the state of Israel, and while Israel has made plenty of blunders the same cannot be said about its goals.
"Regardless - civilians *are* civilians and I'll be damned if I will take the word or any government always striving to support their own little propaganda to portray themselves as victims, as they claim that the victims were not civilians, at face value."
Are you referring to the Nov 4th raid? If so I have not seen any reports calling the casualties civilians, it is clearly stated that those killed that day were militants. Given that whenever civilians are killed much of the media makes a point to mention it, the fact that no mention was made of civilian death that day gives me confidence that those killed were not civilians.
As for the blockade of food, water and goods, as I said I never claimed Israel's hands were clean, though Egypt has also closed the border and thus is also responsible.
As for the 1000 dead, the blame must be shared between Israel and Hamas. The death toll would be much lower if Hamas didn't operate out of the civilian infrastructure. But Israel also deserves some of the blame as these sorts of operations only serve to propagate the feelings that lead to such violence in the first place.
I'm sorry, SD, but my pov remains that there is no moral equivalence between Israel and Palestine and I still find it very difficult to equates Hamas's (or Hezbollah's) rockets and soaring terrorist rhetoric with the demonstrated Israeli occupation/settlements, and the displacement (and yes) oppression of Palestinians.
ReplyDeleteOr the utter destruction of Lebanon in 2006.
Where's the moral high ground here, again?