BF2S Forums No war crimes trials for Israelis

I didn't say none, I said not enough, as has been the case for a good few years now.
Do try to keep up.

Its not the supply chain which is the problem, the pinch point is the borders controlled by Israel.

M.O.A.B wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its not the supply chain which is the problem, the pinch point is the borders controlled by Israel.

*cough* Egypt *cough*

Good thing the sea is clear. Wait, no, it's blockaded by Israel also.

M.O.A.B wrote:

Regardless, the view that Israel blocks all points of access and exit from Gaza is wrong. Egypt block their side yet they're rarely called up on it, and they're the friendly Arabs of the Pals.

It should be pretty obvious that Egypt are caught between a rock and a hard place with whom they should side with. The guys with the military are probably the best bet, you'd think.

FEOS wrote:

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.

The post by the author did not even mention Gaza. The article he quoted did, but there was nothing in the OP restricting discussion to that. I took the article as an example - as I am sure it was intended to be. Just because you have seen the word Gaza mentioned, does not limit the scope of discussion to that.

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 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'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.

So now you're backtracking?
First you claim those on the receiving end are not eyewitnesses and their testimony is irrelevant - which IS what you said. Now you say their statements are valid, but make up only a part of the case - which is obviously so, in most instances.

In many cases you can determine negligence or intent by looking at one side of the issue. WP being a perfect example. If you have vast numbers of civilians admitted to hospital with WP burns (something easily verifiable), then it has clearly been used in civilian areas - especially if that evidence is backed up with the shell casings which have been found in civilian areas. How can there be any question of that whatsoever? That's entirely about what happened at the point of impact. If the point of impact is a civilian area, it should not be happening. It's that simple. The decisions that led up to the firing, in such an instance, are irrelevant - until the time comes to direct blame more specifically. Even if Hamas were firing from the location targeted, then returning fire with WP rounds is not an acceptable (or legal) option.

Why is it that im not even surprised. The "chosen" nation can do what they want. If you say something against them they call you an antisemite...

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

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.

If the IDF were using WP in a civilian area then thats a war crime, no further investigation is needed.
Same as they littered Lebanon with cluster bombs.

And why is Israel blockading aid shipments?
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7874020.stm

Very true on the WP front.

As for Israel blocking aid.....

...they're not responsible for blocking/stealing as much aid as Hamas.

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

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.

The post by the author did not even mention Gaza. The article he quoted did, but there was nothing in the OP restricting discussion to that. I took the article as an example - as I am sure it was intended to be. Just because you have seen the word Gaza mentioned, does not limit the scope of discussion to that.

Sure. Why wouldn't you automatically assume that any mention of warcrimes--when the linked article was about Gaza (and there were no others linked to imply any other location was under discussion)--that it was about any Israeli action anywhere in history? I mean, it's not like there are other articles out there from past conflicts that could have been used to open up the discussion beyond Gaza.

Extrapolate all you want. It's crystal clear what the focus of the OP was.

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

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.

So now you're backtracking?
First you claim those on the receiving end are not eyewitnesses and their testimony is irrelevant - which IS what you said. Now you say their statements are valid, but make up only a part of the case - which is obviously so, in most instances.

That's not at all what I said. Maybe you should go back and actually read what I wrote. Nowhere did I say the testimony of those on the receiving end is irrelevant. I said it is an incomplete picture of the entire story.

And those on the receiving end are not "eyewitnesses", as they did not witness what would, in fact, make the actions a warcrime (at least when it comes to shelling or bombing)...and that is intent in the decision-makers to willfully strike a purely civilian target. They didn't witness that. Couldn't have witnessed that. Therefore, they are not "eyewitnesses" to warcrimes.

Bertster7 wrote:

In many cases you can determine negligence or intent by looking at one side of the issue. WP being a perfect example. If you have vast numbers of civilians admitted to hospital with WP burns (something easily verifiable), then it has clearly been used in civilian areas - especially if that evidence is backed up with the shell casings which have been found in civilian areas. How can there be any question of that whatsoever? That's entirely about what happened at the point of impact. If the point of impact is a civilian area, it should not be happening. It's that simple. The decisions that led up to the firing, in such an instance, are irrelevant - until the time comes to direct blame more specifically. Even if Hamas were firing from the location targeted, then returning fire with WP rounds is not an acceptable (or legal) option.

WP has legal uses, which are the ones the IDF claimed it used. But you can't believe that side without further investigation, either.

It's entirely plausible that the legal, lawful, use of WP in Gaza resulted in civilian casualties. Simply seeing the horrific results of its use does not automatically make its use illegal. You must have the other side of the story to make that determination. Period.

There are NO cases where you can determine negligence or intent by looking ONLY at one side of the issue--unless an illegal weapon (like chemical weapons) is used. End of story.

Dilbert_X 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.
Ehud Olmert said troops should know Israel would keep them safe after they acted to protect their country.
Palestinians say 1,300 people died during the offensive, and UN officials want independent probes into whether war crimes were committed.
In Israel, Prime Minister Olmert told a weekly cabinet meeting that soldiers who had put their lives on the line for their country need not fear prosecution for war crimes overseas.

"The commanders and soldiers that were sent on the task in Gaza should know that they are safe from any tribunal and that the State of Israel will assist them in this issue and protect them as they protected us with their bodies during the military operation in Gaza," he said.

Israel's military tactics have come under intense scrutiny as evidence has emerged of the high numbers of Palestinian civilians killed in Gaza.
Among complaints made by human rights groups are accusations of indiscriminate firing and the use of white phosphorus shells in civilian areas.

Israel has admitted using white phosphorus in Gaza but says it did not break international law in doing so.

White phosphorus is legal for creating smokescreens in open battleground. But rights groups and journalists say it was used in crowded civilian areas.

The weapon sticks to human skin and will burn through to the bone.

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7850085.stm

One rule for them, another for the goyim?

of course!!!! they are the chosen people!!! and they can do whatever the fuck they want. they (and in case you ask, i mean the jews, and yes, i dont like them) are a massive political and economic power in the us and in europe. in germany they have more political power than the administration. you are, politically spoken, dead meat, if the zentralrat der juden says so. and that is the reason why the german government would defend israel, even when they would use nuclear weapons unprovoked. we are just spoils of war. and so is the rest of the world to them.

FEOS wrote:

IDF using WP for legal uses in a civilian area is not a war crime. There is certainly further investigation needed to determine the legality of that particular use of a perfectly legal weapon.

Unless you're not interested in due process...which clearly you aren't when it comes to Israel.

Further investigation:

Israelis Disciplined in Attack on UN Warehouse

The Israeli military said Monday it has reprimanded two high-ranking officers for approving the firing of artillery shells toward a U.N. compound during the Gaza Strip war last year — the first admission of any high-level wrongdoing during the offensive.

Israel announced the punishment in a document submitted to the United Nations last Friday in response to a U.N. report that has accused Israel's military of committing war crimes, including the use of white phosphorus, an incendiary munition, in the warehouse attack.

Israel is trying to stave off the report's central threat of launching war crimes proceedings if it does not carry out an independent investigation into the military's conduct during the fighting.

There was no immediate comment from U.N. officials, and it remained unclear whether the relatively minor punishments would mollify international concerns that the military is not capable of investigating itself.

oops. Turns out it was illegal, fired into a UN compound. But don't proceed with war crimes tribunal because the Israeli's have dealt with the "two" men responsible.

Think further investigation will show that it was a totally innocent and legal use of WP? Even Israel now finally admits some guilt...

AussieReaper wrote:

FEOS wrote:

IDF using WP for legal uses in a civilian area is not a war crime. There is certainly further investigation needed to determine the legality of that particular use of a perfectly legal weapon.

Unless you're not interested in due process...which clearly you aren't when it comes to Israel.

Further investigation:

Israelis Disciplined in Attack on UN Warehouse

The Israeli military said Monday it has reprimanded two high-ranking officers for approving the firing of artillery shells toward a U.N. compound during the Gaza Strip war last year — the first admission of any high-level wrongdoing during the offensive.

Israel announced the punishment in a document submitted to the United Nations last Friday in response to a U.N. report that has accused Israel's military of committing war crimes, including the use of white phosphorus, an incendiary munition, in the warehouse attack.

Israel is trying to stave off the report's central threat of launching war crimes proceedings if it does not carry out an independent investigation into the military's conduct during the fighting.

There was no immediate comment from U.N. officials, and it remained unclear whether the relatively minor punishments would mollify international concerns that the military is not capable of investigating itself.

oops. Turns out it was illegal, fired into a UN compound. But don't proceed with war crimes tribunal because the Israeli's have dealt with the "two" men responsible.

Think further investigation will show that it was a totally innocent and legal use of WP? Even Israel now finally admits some guilt...

Read about this yesterday. What hasn't been determined was intent--a key in war crimes. Yes, ROE were violated.

What did the investigation reveal? Not just the punishment, but what were the findings of the investigation? How did the WP get fired into the area? If it was intentionally, knowingly fired into the civilian area, orders given by these guys, witting up and down the chain, then absolutely war crimes trials are in order.

But before people start throwing others on trial for war crimes, the investigation better show that war crimes actually occurred, not just that someone thinks they might have occurred.

"Beyond reasonable doubt"--not "Just because we don't like the IDF"

AussieReaper wrote:

Might have occurred?

The Israelis have admitted that the white phosphorus was fired and had "reprimanded" those responsible.

I don't think there is any more doubt that a war crime has occurred.

Just because WP was fired doesn't mean a war crime occurred.

That's the point I was making.

The investigation has to determine if it was due to an honest mistake, negligence, or willful intent. The GOs could have been reprimanded internally for any of the three, but only the last two would warrant war crimes trials. And for more than the GOs involved.