Final UN Gaza Report

Byrnzie

cincybearcat wrote:

So you don;t believe that Hamas uses the civilian population to hide militant operations?

Israel just slaughtered 1600 people, 900 of whom were classed as civilians.

The latest report finds evidence that Israel willfully targeted civilians, shot and killed unarmed civilians waving white flags, shot at ambulances, destroyed U.N safe compounds, bombed hospitals, used white phosphorous on residential areas, used Palestinian civilians as human shields, e.t.c.

And all you can say about it is that you think Hamas may have hidden behind the civilian population.

You see why I lose my temper here and resort to such horribly insulting and offensive phrases as 'That's very magnanimous of you?'

cincybearcat

Byrnzie wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

_outlaw wrote:

and you base this on common sense

So you don;t believe that Hamas uses the civilian population to hide militant operations?

You see, you talk about the M.T being frustrating and about me being a jerk e.t.c, but then you come out with this?

Let's just say, if you really think there's an answer to this question, and if you think that it'll shed some light on the occupation and all of the crimes that go with it, including the criminal blockade of Gaza, and the recent massacre of a defenseless civilian population, then go ahead and find the answer. You can use Google. Knock yourself out.

I'm not sure I get you. I'm trying to clarify 1 point of the much bigger issue. I don't know why it's so hard for you to comprehend.

Byrnzie

cincybearcat wrote:

Ok, I'll use this line for all the consiracy threads about 9/11 etc. Thanks.

"When you're making an accusation, if there is any reasonable doubt then the accused is assumed to be not guilty."

And here I thought it was a messageboard to talk about our thoughts. Sorry I shared mine.

"Suspicion"...sure, I can go with that. More like a "sneaking suspicion".

Well, If you have a genuine interest in what happened in Gaza in January, then rather than debate with us jerks, why don't you read the U.N report? I'm sure it will answer all of your 'questions'.

fuck

cincybearcat wrote:

Ok, I'll use this line for all the consiracy threads about 9/11 etc. Thanks.

um, ok. although offtopic i hope you realize that it goes both ways and if anyone has reasonable doubt for the official story then it's legitimate.

And here I thought it was a messageboard to talk about our thoughts. Sorry I shared mine.

"Suspicion"...sure, I can go with that. More like a "sneaking suspicion".

lol what do you mean sorry you shared your thoughts, you were making an argument and I responded, quit playin a victim.

anyway, i'm going to respond to your earlier post in a little.

cincybearcat

Byrnzie wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

So you don;t believe that Hamas uses the civilian population to hide militant operations?

Israel just slaughtered 1600 people, 900 of whom were classed as civilians.

The latest report finds evidence that Israel willfully targeted civilians, shot and killed unarmed civilians waving white flags, shot at ambulances, destroyed U.N safe compounds, bombed hospitals, used white phosphorous on residential areas, used Palestinian civilians as human shields, e.t.c.

And all you can say about it is that you think Hamas may have hidden behind the civilian population.

You see why I lose my temper here and resort to such horribly insulting and offensive phrases as 'That's very magnanimous of you?'

To answer you question...no.


ok...1 more time...my question was about whether or not you thought Hamas used the tactic of hiding amongst the civilian population...I'm sorry if it wasn't clear that I wasn't refering to any specific event.

Byrnzie

cincybearcat wrote:

ok...1 more time...my question was about whether or not you thought Hamas used the tactic of hiding amongst the civilian population...I'm sorry if it wasn't clear that I wasn't refering to any specific event.

My answer is 'No, I don't'. But if someone can present to me evidence to the contrary - and it's not an IDF source - then bring it on.

cincybearcat

_outlaw wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Ok, I'll use this line for all the consiracy threads about 9/11 etc. Thanks.

um, ok. although offtopic i hope you realize that it goes both ways and if anyone has reasonable doubt for the official story then it's legitimate.

And here I thought it was a messageboard to talk about our thoughts. Sorry I shared mine.

"Suspicion"...sure, I can go with that. More like a "sneaking suspicion".

lol what do you mean sorry you shared your thoughts, you were making an argument and I responded, quit playin a victim.

anyway, i'm going to respond to your earlier post in a little.

Not playing the victim, I'm honestly sorry I ever posted in this thread. My "motive" (since I didn't really have one) must not have been clear and it's lead to a worthless conversation that for some reason I can't stop....except now. See ya.

Byrnzie

cincybearcat wrote:

you are more of a condescending jerk then the people you call out in posts. Just because you don't use four letter words (oh wait...you do) doesn't mean that you aren't just like the crap you pretend to be outraged by.

But you see, as far as I'm concerned, there's a big difference in occasionally coming across as condescending, compared to asking you who the fuck you are, or describing you as crap, or as human scum, e.t.c.

At no point in this heated debate have I insulted you. Do you see the difference?

fuck

cincybearcat wrote:

I know all yoru reasons. I've even appreciated much of what you shared. Where I break down when talking with you is the fact that you think Hamas need to nothing different...only Israel needs to change. And while I've already agreed with you that israel needs to start and make the big leap, I'm think it's only realistic to think that unless Hamas is also seen by israel as giving something up, peace will never be found.

I cannot defend israel...the only thing to say is that the hatred on both sides is so great that nothing will be done without both appearing to be giving something up for peace.

You are forgetting something huge here though: The Palestinians have already given up so much. You've very conveniently left that out. Secondly, the Israelis have no cause to demand anything from the Palestinians considering they are in violation of international laws. Hamas has called for what every other country in the world has called for. So tell me, what do the Palestinians need to give up for peace, and what does Hamas have to do differently? You'll probably say that Hamas needs to stop rocket attacks since that's all anyone can ever say. Not only are the rocket attacks no real bother to Israel (only a minor problem, really), but Hamas has already said they will stop them if Israel abides by international law and agrees to the international consensus of a two-state solution. You wanna hear something crazy too? I'm not even in support of a two-state solution. In fact, I support a one-state solution. My father's family is from Jaffa which was taken over by Zionist paramilitary organizations in the 40s, and was declared as part of Israel in 1948 and his family was expelled from their homes. With a two-state solution, we would basically forfeit claim to our home there. Isn't that already giving up enough?

Israel does not only need to make the first step, they need to make the ONLY step, which is abide by international law and stop acting like a rogue terrorist nation.

Commy

jlew24asu wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

the only way there will be peace is when Hamas is gone and Israel stops expanding settlements. neither of which seems to be anytime soon.

Hamas didn't exist in 1948. It didn't exist in 1967 either.

well they exist now don't they? and its my opinion that Israel will never have friendly relations with them, and visa versa

isreal prefers violence....they have the upper hand in that arena...so you're probably right, Israel may never have a relationship with hamas,not any that leads to any sort of peace agreement. Israel's desire for land is stronger than its desire for peace....so the longer this "conflict" is drawn out, aka the more time Israel is given to assault the palestinians, the better. its one sided brutality, benefiting Israel.

Commy

cincybearcat wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

So you don;t believe that Hamas uses the civilian population to hide militant operations?

Israel just slaughtered 1600 people, 900 of whom were classed as civilians.

The latest report finds evidence that Israel willfully targeted civilians, shot and killed unarmed civilians waving white flags, shot at ambulances, destroyed U.N safe compounds, bombed hospitals, used white phosphorous on residential areas, used Palestinian civilians as human shields, e.t.c.

And all you can say about it is that you think Hamas may have hidden behind the civilian population.

You see why I lose my temper here and resort to such horribly insulting and offensive phrases as 'That's very magnanimous of you?'

To answer you question...no.


ok...1 more time...my question was about whether or not you thought Hamas used the tactic of hiding amongst the civilian population...I'm sorry if it wasn't clear that I wasn't refering to any specific event.

the violence is overwhelming 1 sided....a brutalized palestinian people vs a modern miltary machine armed by a superpower. and your concerned with how the brutalized population has tried to defend itself? the ratio is almost 5-1-and used to be 20 -1....for every Israeli killed 20 Palestinians were killed. And your focussing on their reaction to that brutality? these are desperate people, under apratheid, a police state, checkpoints that force them hours out of their way....the desperation grows. certain individuals might resort to violent retaliation,,,,suicide bombings, fire homemade roickets....but that's the reaction. we need to focus on instigator in all of this, ISrael. we can do something about that. we can demand our gov't put an end to supporting ISrael....politically /miltarily....


the questrion "what about palestinian terrorism?" is irrelevant...it exists becuase of Israeli violence. so we need to deal with Israeli violence first, in order to deal with palestinian terrorism, which is reactionary.

Byrnzie

cincybearcat wrote:

I believe the leaders of Hamas don't care about civilian casualties...I think they like them because as I said it drives people to their side.

This is actually a pretty despicable comment.

If someone said that the Jewish leadership were happy about the holocaust because it gains them a sympathy vote people reading it would be outraged, and rightly so. But it's o.k for you to say that Hamas likes it when Palestinian civilians are killed.

And you act surprised when people lose their cool with you? :?

cincybearcat

Byrnzie wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

I believe the leaders of Hamas don't care about civilian casualties...I think they like them because as I said it drives people to their side.

This is actually a pretty despicable comment.

If someone said that the Jewish leadership were happy about the holocaust because it gains them a sympathy vote people reading it would be outraged, and rightly so. But it's o.k for you to say that Hamas likes it when Palestinian civilians are killed.

And you act surprised when people lose their cool with you? :?

Just add the word some before leadership.

I also believe that some leadership in Israel isn't all that torn up about a suicide bomber in a movie theater because it gives them a chance to get outrage and use their military might.

Frankly, I'm surprised that you don't agree. It's easier to see in this conflict than to make it up about 9/11.

polaris_x

cincybearcat wrote:

Just add the word some before leadership.

I also believe that some leadership in Israel isn't all that torn up about a suicide bomber in a movie theater because it gives them a chance to get outrage and use their military might.

Frankly, I'm surprised that you don't agree. It's easier to see in this conflict than to make it up about 9/11.

the crux of the problem here is that if there is peace - israel would have lost and hamas would win ...

cincybearcat

Byrnzie wrote:

You see why I lose my temper here and resort to such horribly insulting and offensive phrases as 'That's very magnanimous of you?'

Ok, so I get it, you want to be the mod because then you get to choose what is offensive to people. Being deliberately belittling and condescending is always ok...but use the word crap or fuck and you're outta here!!!!

There are many pot/kettle posts on this board...you take the cake.

cincybearcat

_outlaw wrote:

[You'll probably say that Hamas needs to stop rocket attacks since that's all anyone can ever say. Not only are the rocket attacks no real bother to Israel (only a minor problem, really), but Hamas has already said they will stop them if Israel abides by international law and agrees to the international consensus of a two-state solution.

Well, here's what I think is another simple question then...if they are only a minor problem, why wouldn't Hamas stop them and gain even more support from the rest of the world? They must think they are useful, no?

As for the rest of your post, whether right or wrong, I think Hamas does have to give Israel the feeling of security from these terrorist activities. Take away all the excuses.

Byrnzie

cincybearcat wrote:

whether right or wrong, I think Hamas does have to give Israel the feeling of security from these terrorist activities. Take away all the excuses.

Would you have said the same thing to the French Resistance and Jewish partisan groups regarding their attacks on the Nazis?

cincybearcat

Byrnzie wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

whether right or wrong, I think Hamas does have to give Israel the feeling of security from these terrorist activities. Take away all the excuses.

Would you have said the same thing to the French Resistance and Jewish partisan groups regarding their attacks on the Nazis?

Interesting question. One difference, they were attacking the military, not civilians. So, no I wouldn't.

And again, what I'm saying is what I think has to happen for any peace to be had. I may certainly be wrong.

Byrnzie

cincybearcat wrote:

Interesting question. One difference, they were attacking the military, not civilians. So, no I wouldn't.

Maybe I used bad examples.
I'm pretty sure that the history of anti-colonial struggles from Cuba, Africa, Bombay, and beyond, all involved civilian casualties in one way or another.

The Palestinians have a right to fight back, by whatever means they have at their disposal.

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/42/a42r159.htm
General Assembly
94th plenary meeting - 7 December 1987

8. Also urges all States, unilaterally and in co-operation with other States, as well as relevant United Nations organs, to contribute to the progressive elimination of the causes underlying international terrorism and to pay special attention to all situations, including colonialism, racism and situations involving mass and flagrant violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms and those involving alien domination and occupation, that may give rise to international terrorism and may endanger international peace and security;


14. Considers that nothing in the present resolution could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence, as derived from the Charter of the United Nations, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right referred to in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation or other forms of colonial domination, nor, in accordance with the principles of the Charter and in conformity with the above-mentioned Declaration, the right of these peoples to struggle to this end and to seek and receive support;

At the time of this resolution the ANC was regarded by the U.S as a terrorist organization - hence, the following phrase was seen by the U.S as problematic..

'..peoples under colonial and racist regimes..'

..and hence why the following U.N resolutions were all vetoed by the U.S..

1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa.
1979 Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa.
1979 Offers assistance to all the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement
1981 Condemns South Africa for attacks on neighbouring states, condemns apartheid and attempts to strengthen sanctions. 7 resolutions.
1981 Condemns an attempted coup by South Africa on the Seychelles.
1983 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 15 resolutions.
1984 Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and other policies.
1984 International action to eliminate apartheid.
1984 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 18 resolutions.
1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law.
1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le2000.htm

Also, the phrase '..and foreign occupation or other forms of colonial
domination..' was understood by everybody to refer to the Israeli occupation of the West bank and Gaza. And so the resolution condemning terrorism was vetoed by the U.S because it would have interfered with U.S terrorist activities in Latin America and it's unconditional military, economic, and diplomatic support for Israeli terrorism in the West Bank and Gaza.

The resolution:
153 - 2, with one abstention (Honduras)

Byrnzie

Use of Human Shields by Israel during Operation Cast Lead:


1091. In conclusion, from the facts it gathered, the Mission finds that Messrs. Majdi Abd
Rabbo, Abbas Ahmad Ibrahim Halawa, Mahmoud Abd Rabbo al-Ajrami and AD/03 were
captured by the Israeli armed forces while they were in their homes, in some cases together with
their families, and were then forced at gunpoint to search houses together with the Israeli armed
forces. The Mission also finds on the basis of those facts that they were all subject to cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment during their captivity.

G. Legal findings

1092. Several provisions of international humanitarian law prohibit the practice of using
civilian men captured by the armed forces to search houses in which the invading army suspects
the risk of ambushes or booby traps.

1093. This practice constitutes the use of involuntary human shields and is a violation of article
28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which reads: “The presence of a protected person may not
be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.” Article 51, paragraph
7, of Additional Protocol I adds that “the presence or movements of the civilian population or
individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military
operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour
or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the
civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from
attacks or to shield military operations.” The prohibition of the use of human shields also has
customary law status (rule 97 of the ICRC rules of customary humanitarian law535), both in
international and in non-international armed conflict. The Mission, therefore, finds that the
Israeli armed forces have violated article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the
prohibition under customary international law that the civilian population as such will not be the
object of attacks, as reflected in article 51 (2) of Additional Protocol I.

1094. In 2002, the Israeli Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice was seized of a
case regarding the use of a very similar practice in the West Bank, at the time known as the
“neighbour procedure”. The petitioners, seven Israeli and Palestinian human rights organizations,
535 Customary International Humanitarian Law…, p. 337. The Israeli Government recognizes the customary nature of the principle enshrined in Additional Protocol I, article 51 (7) (“The operation in Gaza…”, para. 151).

A/HRC/12/48
page 297 described cases in which “the IDF forced Palestinian residents to walk through and scan
buildings suspected to be booby-trapped, and in which it ordered them to enter certain areas
before the combat forces, in order to find wanted persons there; also described are cases in which
the army used residents as a “human shield” which accompanied the combat forces, to serve as a
shield against attack on those forces. […] Further described were cases in which local residents
were asked about the presence of wanted persons and weapons, under threat of bodily injury or
death, should the questions go unanswered.”536 In other words, the petitioners described
incidents analogous to those investigated by the Mission in Gaza.
1095. In their response to the petition, the Israeli armed forces and other respondents “clarified
unequivocally that they recognize that the forces operating in the field are categorically
forbidden from using Palestinian residents as a ‘live shield’ or as ‘hostages’, and that involving
local residents in any activity exposing them to danger to life or limb is prohibited.”537 The
Israeli armed forces also submitted to the High Court of Justice a directive regarding the use of
the so-called “early warning” procedure. This procedure relied on the allegedly exclusively
voluntary cooperation of Palestinian civilians to give wanted persons a warning to turn
themselves in. The directive states that “it is strictly forbidden to use the local resident in military
missions (e.g. locating explosive charges, intelligence gathering).” It also provides “it is strictly
forbidden to use a local resident as a ‘live shield’ against attack. Thus, during the advance of the
force, accompanied by the local resident, the latter is not to be positioned at the head of the
force.”538

1096. As a result of these assurances given by the Israeli armed forces, the High Court of
Justice did not rule on the so-called neighbour procedure, but on the “early warning” procedure.
In its ruling, it found that the “early warning” procedure was also “at odds with international
law” and ordered the armed forces to desist from any further use of the procedure.539 In reaching
this outcome, Supreme Court President A. Barak left no doubt that he considered the “neighbour
procedure” to violate article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. He quotes approvingly from J.
536 Adalah Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel et al. v. Commander of the Central Region et al., case

A/HRC/12/48
page 298
Pictet’s Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention, in which it is stated that “such practices
[the use of human shields], the object of which is to divert enemy fire, have rightly been
condemned as cruel and barbaric”.

1097. When reporting on its military operations in Gaza, the Israeli Government stated:
IDF’s rules of engagement strictly prohibit the use of civilians as human shields.
Moreover, the Israel Supreme Court has ruled that use of civilians in any capacity for the
purpose of military operations is unlawful, including the use of civilians to call terrorists
hiding in buildings. Following this judgement, this latter practice has also been proscribed
by IDF orders. The IDF is committed to enforcing this prohibition.
The IDF took a variety of measures to teach and instil awareness of these rules of engagement in commanders and soldiers.540

The Israeli Government does not, however, in any way mention the very specific allegations of
use of Palestinian civilians as human shields in January 2009 which have been in the public
domain since they were published in an Israeli newspaper in March 2009541 and in NGO reports
from April 2009 onwards, and which have been brought to the attention of the Attorney-General
of Israel in letters by Israeli NGOs.

1098. The Mission further finds from the facts available to it that the conduct of the Israeli
armed forces in the cases above violates article 31 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. This
provision dictates that “no physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected
persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties.” The ICRC
Commentary notes that “article 31 prohibits coercion for any purpose or reason and the obtaining
of information is only given as an example. Thus, the custom, hitherto accepted in practice but
disputed in theory, that an invasion army may force the inhabitants of an occupied territory to
serve as ‘guides’ is now forbidden.”542

A/HRC/12/48
page 299
1099. The questioning of civilians under threat of death or injury by Israeli soldiers, who
demanded information about Hamas and the location of Palestinian combatants and tunnels, also
constitutes a violation of article 31. The Mission has no information on cases in which such a
threat was actually followed by the killing of a captured civilian. However, Messrs. Majdi Abd
Rabbo, Abbas Ahmad Ibrahim Halawa and Mahmoud Abd Rabbo al-Ajrami, all claim that they
were threatened with execution. Majdi Abd Rabbo also claimed that he was kicked and beaten
by soldiers until he gave in to their request to enter the house of HS/08. Mahmoud Abd Rabbo
al-Ajrami was thrown from the second floor of his house after refusing to provide information to
Israeli soldiers, resulting in several broken ribs.

1100. The use of the “neighbour procedure”, now apparently renamed “Johnnie procedure”,
constitutes a violation of fundamental human rights norms. It puts the right to life of the civilians
concerned, protected in article 6 of ICCPR, at risk in an arbitrary and unlawful way. The anguish
to which civilians who, blindfolded and handcuffed, are forced at gunpoint to enter houses which
– this is the reason they are forced to enter the houses – might be booby-trapped or harbour
combatants who might open fire on them, can only be described as cruel and inhuman treatment
prohibited by article 7 of ICCPR. Furthermore, the witnesses were all deprived of liberty and the
security of their person violated. This also constitute a violation of article 9 of ICCPR. The
Mission must state that numerous civilians who came into contact with the Israeli armed forces
during the military operation recounted shocking stories of humiliation that would certainly be in
stark contravention of the principle of respect for human dignity, which forms the core of all
human rights and fundamental freedoms.

1101. The Mission also finds that the intentional use as human shields of those whose accounts
are presented above qualifies as inhuman treatment of and wilfully causing great suffering to
protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention. As such, the Mission considers the
conduct of the Israeli armed forces in relation to such persons to amount to grave breaches of the
said Convention. The use of human shields is also a war crime under article 8 (2) (b) (xxiii) of
the Rome Statute.

1102. Finally, the Mission finds that obliging Majdi Abd Rabbo to use a megaphone to call on
the men trapped in the house behind his to surrender, on the grounds that ICRC was present and they could safely hand themselves over, qualifies as a violation of article 37 of Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits perfidy. At the time, the Izbat Abd Rabbo area was a closed military zone into which no one, including ICRC, was permitted to enter.
Perfidy is defined by article 37 as “acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence”. Acts amounting to perfidy resulting in death or serious personal injury are also a war crime under article 8 (2) (b) (vii) of the Rome Statute.