And it's the victims of that atrocity who have paid the price for the blood lust of that cnut ever since...
Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
And it's the victims of that atrocity who have paid the price for the blood lust of that cnut ever since...
IDF response:
"MAY have"? They always err on the side of caution, don't they.
They have shot close to a thousand kids with live ammo as well as 78 press or medical workers
The Commission's legal analysis is unclear.
At paragraph 12 the Commission claims Israel is bound by the rules of occupation. But Gaza is not occupied by Israel.
And which legal framework is the Commission applying? At paragraph 12 the Commission cites international humanitarian law:
At paragraph 32 the Commission claims international human rights law is applicable:
Yet at paragraph 114 the Commission once again applies international humanitarian law to the actions of IDF soldiers:
I see the Commission is content to cite, but not apply the law, as a standard, when drawing conclusions.
At paragraphs 68, 71, 74 and 76 the Commission claims that IDF soldiers "intentionally shot" children, health workers, journalists and those with disabilities "despite seeing that they were clearly marked as such" or "were recognizable as such".
But how did the Commission determine the intent of the IDF soldiers? And how did the Commission determine what information was known to the soldiers at the time of each incident?
At paragraph 12 the Commission claims Israel is bound by the rules of occupation. But Gaza is not occupied by Israel.
And which legal framework is the Commission applying? At paragraph 12 the Commission cites international humanitarian law:
At paragraph 32 the Commission claims international human rights law is applicable:
Yet at paragraph 114 the Commission once again applies international humanitarian law to the actions of IDF soldiers:
I see the Commission is content to cite, but not apply the law, as a standard, when drawing conclusions.
At paragraphs 68, 71, 74 and 76 the Commission claims that IDF soldiers "intentionally shot" children, health workers, journalists and those with disabilities "despite seeing that they were clearly marked as such" or "were recognizable as such".
But how did the Commission determine the intent of the IDF soldiers? And how did the Commission determine what information was known to the soldiers at the time of each incident?
Last edited:
What this report means for Israel. Is the UN planing to sanction Israel?
I doubt anything will happen.
To the surprise of absolutely no one, Israel murders Palestinians
Well Israel, of course, had the opportunity to cooperate with the independent investigation and provide its own evidence. It declined. Probably too much audio of soldiers competing over who could blow off the next kneecap.
The UN has consistently considered Gaza occupied:
https://web.archive.org/web/2012050...ssg/hilites/hilites_arch_view.asp?HighID=2059
In terms of IHL v IHRL:
https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/48000/mde150072009en.pdf
Both human rights law and humanitarian are listed under applicable law. There is also considerable literature on whether these are indeed distinct or whether one is a subset of the other but that’s another day’s discussion.
As for their writing on intent. I would like another sentence in a few of their paragraphs. However, as they are stating reasonable grounds of belief, my guess would be the age of some children (11) and the clothing of medical personnel, journalists etc. made it reasonable for them to conclude IDF knew whom they were shooting when they shot those people.
IDF’s response in the tweet suggests a number of alternatives-ricocheted bullets, poor shots, smokescreens and low visibility (personally I find the notion of a chaotic free for all the best defence but the Commission evidently found it was still clear who certain people were when shot.)
Interestingly IDF’s response seemed to be “we don’t intentionally shoot minors or medical personnel of journalists but sometimes the medical personnel are acting suspiciously so we do and sometimes the minors are terrorists so we do.” At least with the journalists they keep up the accidental line (saying they get in the way) but I found the following extract surprising as it appears to break from the “accidental/unintentional” narrative:
With this paragraph in mind I’m not sure questioning “how could they possibly know of intent “ would be my line, as it’s immediately undermined greatly by IDF’s own statement. I’d be more inclined to try and argue those shot were behaving as IDF states above (not that that’s a winning argumemt either in my opinion but at least it’s consistent with the party line).
https://web.archive.org/web/2012050...ssg/hilites/hilites_arch_view.asp?HighID=2059
In terms of IHL v IHRL:
https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/48000/mde150072009en.pdf
Both human rights law and humanitarian are listed under applicable law. There is also considerable literature on whether these are indeed distinct or whether one is a subset of the other but that’s another day’s discussion.
As for their writing on intent. I would like another sentence in a few of their paragraphs. However, as they are stating reasonable grounds of belief, my guess would be the age of some children (11) and the clothing of medical personnel, journalists etc. made it reasonable for them to conclude IDF knew whom they were shooting when they shot those people.
IDF’s response in the tweet suggests a number of alternatives-ricocheted bullets, poor shots, smokescreens and low visibility (personally I find the notion of a chaotic free for all the best defence but the Commission evidently found it was still clear who certain people were when shot.)
Interestingly IDF’s response seemed to be “we don’t intentionally shoot minors or medical personnel of journalists but sometimes the medical personnel are acting suspiciously so we do and sometimes the minors are terrorists so we do.” At least with the journalists they keep up the accidental line (saying they get in the way) but I found the following extract surprising as it appears to break from the “accidental/unintentional” narrative:
With this paragraph in mind I’m not sure questioning “how could they possibly know of intent “ would be my line, as it’s immediately undermined greatly by IDF’s own statement. I’d be more inclined to try and argue those shot were behaving as IDF states above (not that that’s a winning argumemt either in my opinion but at least it’s consistent with the party line).
You seem to be familiar with Chairman WoodieRather have Saudi owners than the Glazers who fund Israel arms.
What the Saudis have unleashed in Yemen is no better, in many ways worse, than what Israel does. That is without getting into their long-standing worldwide funding for conservative Islam (undermining local traditions) and their domestic policies.
OTOH, the Glazers are also Trump supporters
I don't dispute the material you have posted on IHL v IHRL.
I was simply highlighting the lack of clarity in the Commission's legal analysis. On one hand, the Commission states at para. 32, having regard to the context and circumstances, the legal framework applicable is International Human Rights Law. On the other hand, the Commission applies International Humanitarian Law throughout the Report.
On the latter point, I was highlighting and criticising a methodological shortcoming in Report, not defending the IDF. But thanks for the post nonetheless.
...and thus ends the most polite exchange this thread has ever seen
Yeah, there's a word of that: apartheid
As an American, I am very disgusted that my government is such a strong supporter of what Isreal does, and I am in the minority in that regard, which is disgusting.
As an American, I am very disgusted that my government is such a strong supporter of what Isreal does, and I am in the minority in that regard, which is disgusting.
And god forbid you speak out about the wrongs Israel commits, you’ll cause an act of Congress. Average Americans can’t separate Jewish people from the State of Israel.
Why don't we fecking treat this state with every hostility it deserves. Let's call this bullshit for what it is ffs.
EXACTLY
You're immediately castigated for being an anti-semite even though you're not critiquing a people but the actions of a governing body.
Or be labeled an anti semite
I'm in despair of the leaders of my country and of the people who continue to vote for them. And will vote for them next month as well, in spite of them being corrupt, rarely able to tell the truth, and in some case total idiots.
I'm much in agreement with @adexkola, @Todd and @Carolina Red about how ridiculous it is that you can't criticize Israel without being declared anti-semite. You are either in full agreement with us or you're the enemy. By the way, it's also relevant to everyday life within Israel. Netanyahu has managed to turn the left into an almost forbidden word, automatic traitors. A big part of his campaign is claiming that if he loses, the coalition that will form without him will include the arab parties, as if there's anything wrong with that (the arab parties have never been a part of the government here). And it will work. Again. Israel is a racist country, still divided even within its jewish citizens based on the area from which they or their families originated from.
There's so much more I can add, but I really don't have the strength. I have little hope that it's going to change. Well, unless Netanyahu is actually indicted and ends up going to jail, but by the time that happens he'll tear this country apart.
Amir, you're beginning to give me hope. Got dust in my eyes man.
Not a big fan of tagging someone without referring to anything that someone has actually posted, tbh. But until you indicate otherwise, I treat this as a matter of genuine interest (for whatever reason) in what I have to say. That said, there are certainly posters who know a whole lot more about Israeli society, one has already answered.
But if you're interested anyway, I have posted something on this particular issue before:
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/recommend-your-longform-reads.431148/page-2#post-23755186
...or on Jewish/Israeli right wing ideology in general (here the US version). That discussion had a slightly different emphasis, but my fundamental views are in there:
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/peterson-harris-etc.433791/page-70#post-23756217
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/peterson-harris-etc.433791/page-70#post-23757344
So I guess my basic attitude towards Netanyahu's words and the agenda of the Israeli right can be deduced from that.
Sorry, I'm taking a little breather from posting on here at the moment. I'd just say that, taken in isolation, what Netanyahu said is simply a rather blunt way of affirming Israel's raison d'etre (this article I previously posted approvingly on the Cafe details the various implications). However it is considerably more sinister given the question he was responding to and the current electoral context, i.e. his general anti-Arab rhetoric and legitimization of the Kahanists. So it was good to see Rivlin scold him over it, and even better to see that the Supreme Court has today banned Ben-Ari from running (while approving the Arab Raam-Balad party).
amazing/bizzare series of events it seems
In case it was unclear that Bibi has no intentions of allowing for a two state solution...
Already surpassed by this, filmed by the Israeli right where Rabin was killed by the Israeli right:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/261342
pretends_to_be_shocked.gif
The arguments against boycotting die everyday.
His biographer:
But even if this is the case, the one may still end up leading to the other.
But even if this is the case, the one may still end up leading to the other.
Not too bad. Bored enough to get back on the Caf occasionally though
. How about you?Yes, it's part of the basic logic of populist politics. Even if all these shifts aren't intended to translate into serious action right away, they erode existing standards little by little. It will have a long term effect.
For what it’s worth some Hebrew speakers are saying the headlines are a bit overstated:
In any case, looks is Israel is about to shift significantly to the right.
Doesn't matter what he said, in practice it's apartheid
US Threatens Ireland Over Israel Boycott & Netanyahu’s Slide Towards ‘Jewish Fascism’