Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Arrest warrant issues for Israeli dignitaries
-
15-12-2009 5:08pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
And y'know, if Hamas would stop using schools and Children as Human Shields, those numbers might be significantly lower.Yeah, those 920+ civilians had it coming to them. :rolleyes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0wJXf2nt4Y
So, speaking of Warcrimes and international law...0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thats ****ing laughable. One, because it came from the One-side Report.
Care to explain how its one sided? Seems to me that the report was pretty fair, but I noticed you didn't say that the reports evidence was false.And that the report says what Hamas does is irrelevant?
Where exactly does it say that? In what context?
I did a search on the text didn't find anywhere where it said what Hamas does is irrelevant:
The following quotes are from the Goldstone report (linked above), and are the only paragraphs that contain the word "irrelevant", as per my PDF viewers search.Page 202:
934. Article 54 (1) and (2) of Additional Protocol I reflect customary international law.495
Article 54 (2) prohibits acts whose specific purpose is the denial of sustenance for whatever
reason, including starvation, forced displacement or anything else. In short, the motive for
denying sustenance need not be to starve the civiliaPage 276:
1298. The Israeli Government stated that “from the commencement of the Gaza Operation and
for its duration” a total of 1,511 trucks with supplies from Israel as well as diesel, cooking gas
and other fuel were allowed into the Gaza Strip. It would appear that some 60 per cent of these
supplies were foodstuffs. The Israeli Government states that (presumably during the same
period) it also coordinated the passage of 706 trucks carrying donations from international
organizations and various countries.660 Information from UNRWA suggests that these quantities
were irrelevant given the situation prevailing during the military operation and the local needs.
For instance, although fuel for the power plant was let in, it was inadequate, forcing the power
plant to shut down and causing 16-hour power cuts in some areas. Israel also reported allowing
in 2,277,000 litres of diesel during the military operations, but according to UNRWA records
only 199,400 litres were allowed in, while OCHA records suggest only 92,000 litres were
allowed in, compared to 6,628,400 litres in January 2007.661Page 317:
According to PCATI, even seemingly innocuous measures such as cuffing (both hands and feet) are used in a
deliberate way. Painful shackling is done for invalid and irrelevant reasons, which include causing pain and
suffering, punishment, intimidation, and illegally eliciting information and confessions. The practice of shackling
may be used by the various authorities as a tool for dehumanizing Palestinian detainees subject to the control of the
occupying Power. PCATI, “Shackling as a form of torture and abuse”, Periodic Report, June 2009.Page 402:
1870. The possibilities for obtaining reparation and compensation in the Israeli legal system
have been limited. A 2001 amendment to the Civil Wrongs Act extended the definition of “acts
of war” and set procedural limitations on Palestinians’ ability to bring claims against Israel.
These limitations include the shortening of the period before the statute of limitations applies and
the requirement to submit a “notice” of damage to the Israeli Defense Minister in advance of the
claim and within two months after the damage occurred.1200 Additional amendments passed in
2002 and 2005 prevent the courts from hearing claims relating to actions by security forces in
“conflict zones” proclaimed as such by the Minister of Defense, and give immunity to the State
against claims by subjects of enemy States or members of “terrorist organizations”.1201 Under the
last two amendments the character of the harmful act, the circumstances under which harm was
suffered and the causality link between the perpetrator and the harm have become irrelevant. The
Mission received information that the amendments allowed the Minister of Defense to declare
areas in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as “conflict zones” retroactively.
Can't find anywhere in the report where it says what you claim.
**EDIT**
Ok, you meant what I said. Well, Hamas using Human Shield becomes irrelevant as a defense for Israel if they engage in indiscriminate attacks on civilians area's and use Human Shields themselves. The IDF have shown again and again, they don't give a crap about the lives of Palestinians.
**END EDIT**Wake up. Goodness...
Wide awake here
. 0 -
-
-
But in fact you cited the Goldstone Report as follows:Care to explain how its one sided? Seems to me that the report was pretty fair, but I noticed you didn't say that the reports evidence was false.
Where exactly does it say that? In what context?
I did a search on the text didn't find anywhere where it said what Hamas does is irrelevant:
The following quotes are from the Goldstone report (linked above), and are the only paragraphs that contain the word "irrelevant", as per my PDF viewers search.
Can't find anywhere in the report where it says what you claim.
**EDIT**
Ok, you meant what I said. Well, Hamas using Human Shield becomes irrelevant as a defense for Israel if they engage in indiscriminate attacks on civilians area's and use Human Shields themselves. The IDF have shown again and again, they don't give a crap about the lives of Palestinians.
**END EDIT**
Wide awake here.
Perhaps you need to clean up this statement then.It has been shown by the Goldstone report (not to mention shown by Human Rights outfits) that the Israeli's didn't give a crap who they murder, so Hamas's use of Human Shields become irrelevant, as the Israeli's aren't particular about there targets, and use the exact same tactics as Hamas, when it suits them. So I fail to see how the Israeli's are any better.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
So youre saying the 2009 casualty figure of 929 civilians: they died because they were used as IDF Human Shields?You know that using human shields was standard (and considered legal) IDF procedure for 30 plus years...?
Im not saying they Didnt use Shields in the Ground Invasion, but the least Im saying is Both sides are guilty of it.
You thought it was clear. It wasntMy statement is pretty clear imho, I said the Goldstone report shows Israel was indiscriminate in its attacks, and then I conclude Hamas use of Human Shields (assuming it happened) is irrelevant as a defense. I taught I was perfectly clear.
Lets keep it clean then: a Soldier is firing on UN peacekeepers. The Soldier is using Human Shields. How should the UN peacekeeping force respond?Sorry, but you're scenario is so pretentiously disingenuous and hyperbolic, I'm not going to even begin to entertain it.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
You thought it was clear. It wasnt
Well apologies if you didn't find what I said to be clear.Lets keep it clean then: a Soldier is firing on UN peacekeepers. The Soldier is using Human Shields. How should the UN peacekeeping force respond?
Quick question, was the majority of civilian deaths a direct result of Hamas using Human shields? I have seen no evidence of this, and all the information from the Goldstone report, HRW report, and Amnestys report show that the majority of civilians deaths of Palestinians were not due to the actions of Hamas, and were due to Israelis indiscriminate attacks on civilians.0 -
-
I honestly dont know. But when somebody keeps pointing the finger squarely at Israel for those deaths I think its foolish not to look at Palestinian tactics and policy, for instance,Quick question, was the majority of civilian deaths a direct result of Hamas using Human shields? I have seen no evidence of this, and all the information from the Goldstone report, HRW report, and Amnestys report show that the majority of civilians deaths of Palestinians were not due to the actions of Hamas, and were due to Israelis indiscriminate attacks on civilians.
Which is why I am saying, If Hamas on the Contrary, had a policy of telling its civilian bystanders to barricade their homes and stay out of the conflict the casualty figures would have been significantly less. But they dont, they want them in the crossfire, and thats infuriating and retarded. Much more so when Palestinian sympathizers come on here placing all of the blame on anyone but Palestine while choosing to ignore this aspect.0 -
-
I honestly dont know. But when somebody keeps pointing the finger squarely at Israel for those deaths I think its foolish not to look at Palestinian tactics and policy, for instance,
Which is why I am saying, If Hamas on the Contrary, had a policy of telling its civilian bystanders to barricade their homes and stay out of the conflict the casualty figures would have been significantly less. But they dont, they want them in the crossfire, and thats infuriating and retarded. Much more so when Palestinian sympathizers come on here placing all of the blame on anyone but Palestine while choosing to ignore this aspect.
I'd find a better source than MEMRI if you're going to back things up. They've been known for their inaccurate translations before. I'm not saying what you posted is wrong but I wouldn't put much credibility in the source. That video was also put up in March 2008, long before the Gaza conflict. If we are talking about the Gaza conflict we should probably use relevant sources.0 -
Advertisement
-
I honestly dont know and im not here to find that Conclusion. But when somebody keeps pointing the finger squarely at Israel for those deaths I think its foolish not to look at Palestinian tactics and policy, for instance,
Memri, eh?From Sourcewatch.org:
Middle East Media Research Institute - Issues of reliability and veracity
Issues of reliability and veracity
MEMRI is operated by a group closely associated with the Israeli intelligence organizations. Now, in an article in Haaretz, we find that the Israeli Army has sought to plant stories about "terrorism" in the press, and
"Psychological warfare officers were in touch with Israeli journalists covering the Arab world, gave them translated articles from Arab papers (which were planted by the [Israel Defense Forces] IDF) and pressed the Israeli reporters to publish the same news here." --Amos Harel, IDF reviving psychological warfare unit, Haaretz, January 25, 2005.
This should raise a question or two about the reliability and veracity of the stories peddled by MEMRI.
This is what Prof. Juan Cole had to say about this:
"So is MEMRI, which translates articles from the Arabic press into English for thousands of US subscribers, in any way involved in all this? Its director formerly served in… Israeli military intelligence. How much of what we "know" from "Arab sources" about "Hizbullah terrorism" was simply made up by this fantasy factory in Tel Aviv?
As someone who reads the Arabic press quite a lot, this sort of revelation is extremely disturbing.
I also saw an allegation that British military intelligence had planted stories in the US press about Saddam's Iraq.
You begin to wonder how much of what you think you know is just propaganda manufactured by some bored colonel. No wonder post-Baath Iraq looks nothing like what we were led to to expect by the press, including the Arab press!" [2]
Another assessment:
If you rely on MEMRI for your knowledge of Arab discourse, you are really not informed. Arab public opinion, based on MEMRI's releases, is reduced or caricatured to either Bin Laden fans or Bush fans, while Arab public opinion is mosty a fan of neither people. --As'ad AbuKhalil [3]
Although widely used in the mainstream media as a source of information on the Arab world, it is as trustworthy as Julius Streicher's Der Sturmer was on the Jewish world. --Norman Finkelstein [4]
Wafa Sultan
Los Angeles based Syrian/American Psychiatrist Wafa Sultan appeared on an al-Jazeera television show opposite Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouly, a lecturer at Cairo's Al-Azhar University. Memri offered a heavily edited version of the show, and mistranslated several of the exchanges, making it appear that al-Khouly had issued a death fatwa against Sultan. Wafa Sultan became known as someone who had her life threatened because of her "Clash of Civilizations" point of view.
It turns out that Sultan had appeared on a daytime al Jazeera show, roughly equivalent to Jerry Springer, that Western Educated Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouly had not issued a fatwa, and as he is not a recognized Mufti, had he issued a fatwa, it would not be considered in any way, authoritarian.
A secularist blog covering topics broadly related to MENA, named Aqoul, took a tape of the whole show, and translated it, making it available in a PDF file: Transcript Translation: al-Jazeera - The Opposite Direction (26/02/2006). Posts on Aqoul, as well as one on the Winds of Change blog offer a great deal of insight into the distortions:
* Fatwas and Wafa Sultan, Aqoul, March 15, 2006
* On MEMRI & Translations: Winds of Change, a Thread Reply, Aqoul, March 29, 2006
* How to be a Muslim reformer, Aqoul, March 13, 2006
* MEMRI Mendacity, brief thoughts, Aqoul, October 14, 2006
* A Fine Illustration of MEMRI Mendacity, Aqoul, October 14, 2006
* Wafa Sultan: A tale of two transcripts, Winds of Change, March 30, 2006
There hardly known for accurate translations, as can clearly be seen from above.
Again the Goldstone report, HRW, and Amnesty place the blame squarely on Israel for the majority of dead Palestinian civilians. The Israeli's directly attacked civilian targets, and there claims (the Israelis) have been refuted by the Goldstone report, HRW report and the Amnesty report.
**EDIT**
Btw, none of the source I mentioned absolve Hamas of all wrong doing, or anything. I just disagree with you assertion that Israel murder of Palestinians is actually all Hamas fault, there action detailed in all those source, show they targeted civilians infrastructure and other civilian targets.
**END EDIT**Which is why I am saying, If Hamas on the Contrary, had a policy of telling its civilian bystanders to barricade their homes and stay out of the conflict the casualty figures would have been significantly less. But they dont, they want them in the crossfire, and thats infuriating and retarded. Much more so when Palestinian sympathizers come on here placing all of the blame on anyone but Palestine.
Again, the actions of Hamas don't work as a defense all that much, when the Israeli's go around attacking civilian targets. Also, how do you propose people stay in there homes for a month or 2? They do need to leave and get food and water, and staying in your house isn't worth a damn if a bomb falls or white phosphorous is dropped on it.
Trying to shift the blame on Hamas doesn't really work, as all the evidence shows that Israel is responsible for its actions and Hamas are not to blame for what Israel has done.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thats a rather wordy way of avoiding having to say Hamas is responsible for its own actions, just as Israel is responsible for its own actions.
Hamas are responsible for there actions
, I never said otherwise. However, there action don't excuse Israel.Its wrong of them to use Human Shields as much as its wrong to fire on those human shields. All I have said is I do not in any way find Hamas blameless in those civilian casualties JUST BECAUSE it was at the end of Israeli weaponry. The Israelis fired, and civilians were forcibly placed in harms way.
How often did this happen then? All the evidence I have seen showed that the civilian casualties are the direct result of Israel targeting. Again, the Goldstone report, HRW report and Amnesty report, blame Israel for the most part for the civilian casualties, they certainly don't let Hamas off scot free, but they blame Israel largely from what I can see, and this is due to Israel being indiscriminate in who they attacked.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0wJXf2nt4Y
Advertisement