BF2S Forums No war crimes trials for Israelis

Dilbert_X wrote:

And we don't know how many allegations of war crimes there are just yet.

A handful is bad enough.

Any proven war crime is too many. Allegations are nothing but allegations--perception is not reality.

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

And we don't know how many allegations of war crimes there are just yet.

A handful is bad enough.

Any proven war crime is too many. Allegations are nothing but allegations--perception is not reality.

Did you know wanton destruction or appropriation of property is classed as a war crime.

Wanton as defined by whom?

If the one doing the destruction can show that it was tied to a specific military objective, then it is not "wanton"...it is proportional and in compliance with international laws.

Bertster7 wrote:

As is settlement of occupied territory.

Israel isn't occupying Gaza.

Bertster7 wrote:

Of course there are no proven instances of Israel ever doing either of those things (which are the tip of the iceberg).

There aren't in Gaza, for this conflict.

Bertster7 wrote:

On the other hand - the use of child soldiers is very much a war crime and Hamas does loads of that. Taking hostages is another.

Both should be on trial for war crimes.

Both sides should be investigated for war crimes, and if the objective, quantifiable, empirical evidence supports the charges, then they should be tried.

But first, official charges have to be levied by some organization with authority. That has not happened for either side.

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Did you know wanton destruction or appropriation of property is classed as a war crime.

Wanton as defined by whom?

If the one doing the destruction can show that it was tied to a specific military objective, then it is not "wanton"...it is proportional and in compliance with international laws.

Bertster7 wrote:

As is settlement of occupied territory.

Israel isn't occupying Gaza.

Bertster7 wrote:

Of course there are no proven instances of Israel ever doing either of those things (which are the tip of the iceberg).

There aren't in Gaza, for this conflict.

Two words.

East Jerusalem.

Well, since that has nothing whatsoever to do with war crimes trials for actions in Gaza...

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its funny, in 22 days of fighting the noble IDF has more accusations of war-crimes levelled at them than the US had during the Afghan and Iraq invasions.
That and rather more civilian casualties.
Something to think about I guess.

Wrong. And irrelevant to the discussion.

Last edited by FEOS (2009-02-01 06:28:18)

Dilbert_X wrote:

It entirely relevant, and since I wrote the OP I think I'll decide whats relevant.

exactly!!! no other opinions are necessary FEOS... didn't you read the rule book?

Dilbert_X wrote:

It entirely relevant, and since I wrote the OP I think I'll decide whats relevant.

Then perhaps you should've written the OP better.

Your argument doesn't work, so you change the nature of the discussion, then claim superiority in the thread because you wrote the OP. Nice technique.

Bertster7 wrote:

However the very idea that bringing up past and current ongoing war crimes (such as the annexation of East Jerusalem) committed by the Israelis is not relevant to this discussion, as FEOS suggests, is ludicrous. Background is always relevant.

That's not background.

That's no more relevant to these investigations than a man's criminal past (of just being charged, not convicted) is relevant in determining his guilt on another crime--which is none. Each instance has to be handled in its own context. What happened (or is happening) in East Jerusalem has zero bearing on what happened in Gaza on a given day. They are completely unrelated from an investigatorial perspective.

The anti-Israel crowd just wants something else to hit the IDF pinata with, since they have nothing to back their Gaza claims right now.

Last edited by FEOS (2009-02-02 04:08:02)

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

It entirely relevant, and since I wrote the OP I think I'll decide whats relevant.

Then perhaps you should've written the OP better.

Your argument doesn't work, so you change the nature of the discussion, then claim superiority in the thread because you wrote the OP. Nice technique.

Bertster7 wrote:

However the very idea that bringing up past and current ongoing war crimes (such as the annexation of East Jerusalem) committed by the Israelis is not relevant to this discussion, as FEOS suggests, is ludicrous. Background is always relevant.

That's not background.

That's no more relevant to these investigations than a man's criminal past (of just being charged, not convicted) is relevant in determining his guilt on another crime--which is none. Each instance has to be handled in its own context. What happened (or is happening) in East Jerusalem has zero bearing on what happened in Gaza on a given day. They are completely unrelated from an investigatorial perspective.

The anti-Israel crowd just wants something else to hit the IDF pinata with, since they have nothing to back their Gaza claims right now.

Except for the reports of countless impartial observers - which is why the current war crimes investigations into numerous incidents are ongoing. Wait till they're completed.

If you're in an area that's been hit, you're far from impartial.

Bertster7 wrote:

To your point about relevance:

FEOS wrote:

That's no more relevant to these investigations than a man's criminal past (of just being charged, not convicted) is relevant in determining his guilt on another crime--which is none.

What do you mean just being charged not convicted? They are guilty. They have been found guilty of the annexation of East Jerusalem by the high contracting parties of the Geneva Convention. So your point is bollocks.

Source?

Have they annexed Gaza? No?

Then your point is bollocks.

Bertster7 wrote:

You still haven't commented on the other Israeli war crimes established beyond any doubt, such as the annexation of East Jerusalem and settlement of much more OT.

I most certainly have. And I still hold they are irrelevant in determining the guilt or innocence of Israel in the Gaza accusations.

Bertster7 wrote:

You clearly haven't done much work in a legal environment if you think establishing background, context and character is irrelevant.

You have no idea how much work I've done in the legal arena. I fully understand the impact to character. I clearly stated that it has nothing to do with the investigatorial process for determining the facts in a given incident. Each incident must be taken separately and the evidence for each incident must stand on its own to determine the guilt/innocence for a given incident.

Bertster7 wrote:

In any case, the OP is clearly about Israels flouting of international law. That is the broad scope of this thread. Anything related to that is very relevant. Stop just dismissing anything you don't have an answer for as irrelevant, since it clearly isn't.

No, the OP is clearly about Israeli soldiers not being turned over to the international community for war crimes trials. Multiple countries do the same thing. There is no "broad scope" here. The scope was defined by the OP and the linked article...which was limited to Gaza operations.

OP wrote:

Any Israeli soldiers accused of war crimes in the Gaza Strip will be given state protection from prosecution overseas, the country's PM has said.

Thanks for playing.

Go find another reason to have an anti-Israel rant.

Last edited by FEOS (2009-02-02 04:45:45)

FEOS wrote:

Your argument doesn't work, so you change the nature of the discussion, then claim superiority in the thread because you wrote the OP. Nice technique.

Not really, the Israelis are giving their troops immunity from prosecution when they have a far higher number of accusations against them than any comparable modern army.

If you're in an area that's been hit, you're far from impartial.

Bollocks - you just don't want to hear anything which doesn't agree with your preconceived notions.

FEOS wrote:

Yes. Provide a source that proves Israel has annexed Gaza.

They annexed it once before
Its not been annexed again - yet.
It is a ghetto on a par with Warsaw.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-02-02 05:54:26)

FEOS wrote:

The people on the receiving end are not "eyewitnesses". They have only seen a small part of the event, and nothing relevant to determining the intent. It is intent that drives war crimes, not outcome.

I'd say the eyewitnesses who apparently saw women and children being shot dead at point blank range are "eyewitnesses", and intent is irrelevant.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Yes. Provide a source that proves Israel has annexed Gaza.

They annexed it once before
Its not been annexed again - yet.
It is a ghetto on a par with Warsaw.

Actually, there are large unpopulated areas of Gaza. Not at all like the ghettos of Warsaw.

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Gaza is a part of the occupied territories. They have annexed a part of the occupied territories.

You really need me to look up a source? It's just a reaffirmation of UN resolution 446.

Yes. Provide a source that proves Israel has annexed Gaza. There are no Israelis living there, there are no IDF troops in there, and it is ruled autonomously. Therefore, it is not annexed...it is not part of Israel.

Certainly there are other areas that do fall under that label. But they are not the ones under discussion from the OP.

Well, that's your opinion. Not mine or that of the author of the OP. The OTs are the OTs and Israel has annexed parts of them - which consitutes a war crime.

The title of this thread is "No war crimes trials for Israelis". Sounds quite broad to me. The post by the author was very brief and open. The article itself is simply an example - not a definition of the scope of debate.

The post by the author included only discussion of war crimes for the Gaza operation. Period. It was not at all "open", but it was quite brief. Perhaps if it had been less brief and more open, it would have included issues not related to the Gaza operation. But it didn't.

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Also, if eyewitness reports are not to be given any credence, where do you get accurate reports of what happened? Magical fairies? IDF reports are going to be a lot less impartial than those of impartial observers working for the UN and various charities.

The people on the receiving end are not "eyewitnesses". They have only seen a small part of the event, and nothing relevant to determining the intent. It is intent that drives war crimes, not outcome.

I've never said the investigations should be exclusively IDF. I've said--from the beginning--they should be conducted by objective third parties. Those who were on the receiving end are far from impartial. Those who have lived amongst and aided the Gazans are not impartial. Those who have been on the receiving end of Hamas rockets are not impartial.

So people like military analysts looking at the debris? They seem to think it looks like war crimes...

It's about more than debris, ffs. You have to look at the location and document what occurred there. Then you have to also go to Hamas and find out what they were doing at the time. Then you have to go to the IDF, from the level of approval down to the firing units to determine what happened there. What were they looking at when they made their decision? What led to the weaponeering choice? What led to the targeting choice? It's about FAR more than just what happened at the point of impact.

Bertster7 wrote:

Marc Garlasco, military analyst wrote:

It's important that we investigate the use of white phosphorus, because it does appear that it was used incorrectly in a clear breach of Geneva Conventions

Anyway, obviously eyewitnesses won't be making the decisions in the investigation, but to consider their reports invalid is silly - and certainly not what the investigators will do.

It's not just intent that drives war crimes. You can commit war crimes through negligence - and there need be no intent involved there.

Who ever said their reports were invalid? I said you have to take in more than just that information to make the decision. How can you determine either negligence or intent simply by looking at one side of the issue? You can't. That's all I'm saying.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The people on the receiving end are not "eyewitnesses". They have only seen a small part of the event, and nothing relevant to determining the intent. It is intent that drives war crimes, not outcome.

I'd say the eyewitnesses who apparently saw women and children being shot dead at point blank range are "eyewitnesses", and intent is irrelevant.

Bullshit. Intent and reasoning for actions is everything when it comes to determining the level of criminal activity, whether it be war crimes or civil crimes.

"eyewitnesses who apparently saw". You'll fucking hang IDF soldiers on that? Give me a fucking break, man. If 1) it happened, and 2) it was intentional, and 3) proven with evidence...then absolutely.