why would countries object to the palestinian request for recognition? do those against state a reason why they are against? other than the obvious, i cant find any.
VERY INTERESTING:
Britain is prepared to back a key vote recognising Palestinian statehood at the United Nations if Mahmoud Abbas pledges not to pursue Israel for war crimes and to resume peace talks.
On Monday night, the government signalled it would change tack and vote yes if the Palestinians modified their application, which is to be debated by the UN general assembly in New York later this week. As a "non-member state", Palestine would have the same status as the Vatican.
Whitehall officials said the Palestinians were now being asked to refrain from applying for membership of the international criminal court or the international court of justice, which could both be used to pursue war crimes charges or other legal claims against Israel.
one of the main points of recognition is to be able to use avenues such as international criminal courts. this is just GB's way of trying to placate the palestinians while completely protecting israel. they want the palestinians to promise not to pursue charges against israel because the entire world knows that israel is guilty of serious crimes, war crimes, and potentially crimes against humanity.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
They're not defending the state of Israel. They're defending and perpetuating an illegal occupation, and committing crimes against humanity. Stevie Wonder supports these people, so as far as I'm concerned, this makes him a fucking dick.
This is just a blindingly illogical statement. The occupation does not wholly define the state, and the IDF can't be fairly held liable for the actions of every one of its soldiers. Even assuming, arguendo, that everything you believe is true, it still wouldn't follow that the IDF is not ALSO defending the state of Israel, just as every national army does with regard to its state.
I believe that in legal parlance we'd object that you're being argumentative.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
legally speaking, is it even possible to have a "war" on the people that live in an area of land that is not internationally recognized as a state or country?
Yes.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
australia can not be neutral on a moving train. cowardly move if you ask me. but at least australia is not going to be the one to use a permanent veto like another country that i know...
The US only has a permanent veto in the security council. There are no veto powers in the general assembly. Good to be well informed before weighing in.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
one of the main points of recognition is to be able to use avenues such as international criminal courts. this is just GB's way of trying to placate the palestinians while completely protecting israel. they want the palestinians to promise not to pursue charges against israel because the entire world knows that israel is guilty of serious crimes, war crimes, and potentially crimes against humanity.
Or...GB is acting pragmatically rather than sentimentally. It knows that the only way anything gets resolved between Israel and Palestine is through negotiations or unilateral Israeli action, the first being far more preferable. If Abbas has access to international criminal courts he will be under immense pressure to try to use them, despite the fact that this will become just another impediment to a solution. Any sort of Palestinian claims brought to the ICC or ICJ will create massive headaches for just about everyone, and would likely produce no tangible beneficial results. So just maybe GB is hoping to get the sentimental victory for the Palestinians that everyone wants, while also giving Abbas an "out" that he can point to to avoid political pressure for actions that he would prefer to avoid taking.
Also, it's somewhat ironic that you're speaking about legal institutions while at the same time asserting that the whole world "knows" that Israel is guilty of...innocence is legally presumed until proven otherwise.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
They're not defending the state of Israel. They're defending and perpetuating an illegal occupation, and committing crimes against humanity. Stevie Wonder supports these people, so as far as I'm concerned, this makes him a fucking dick.
This is just a blindingly illogical statement. The occupation does not wholly define the state, and the IDF can't be fairly held liable for the actions of every one of its soldiers. Even assuming, arguendo, that everything you believe is true, it still wouldn't follow that the IDF is not ALSO defending the state of Israel, just as every national army does with regard to its state.
I believe that in legal parlance we'd object that you're being argumentative.
i disagree yosi... the IDF must accept responsiblity for the actions of its own soldiers.. just like any other military force should. the IDF exists purely to defend the state of israel... there is no getting around that fact. and to suggest otherwise is simply ridiculous... not to mention illogical.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
why would countries object to the palestinian request for recognition? do those against state a reason why they are against? other than the obvious, i cant find any.
and this is the question isnt it? why would any nation interested in peace deny the palestinian peoples request for recognition? could there be an agenda disadvantageous to the palestinians? for me, there is no logical reason to not acknowledge the palestinian peoples need for recogniton. it is clear to me that whatever it is the osraeli govt is trying to achieve isnt in the best interests of the palestinian people(and why would it be) but to not even give them the chance for some sort of autonomy is simply bullshit. what is it we want for the palestinian people? what are we afraid of? do we want them out from under the yoke of the israeli govt? does the israeli govt not want the palestinian people to gain independence? and if not why not? what the fuck is going on here?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
legally speaking, is it even possible to have a "war" on the people that live in an area of land that is not internationally recognized as a state or country?
Yes.
well youll have to excuse me if i think that is pure bullshit.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
one of the main points of recognition is to be able to use avenues such as international criminal courts. this is just GB's way of trying to placate the palestinians while completely protecting israel. they want the palestinians to promise not to pursue charges against israel because the entire world knows that israel is guilty of serious crimes, war crimes, and potentially crimes against humanity.
Or...GB is acting pragmatically rather than sentimentally. It knows that the only way anything gets resolved between Israel and Palestine is through negotiations or unilateral Israeli action, the first being far more preferable. If Abbas has access to international criminal courts he will be under immense pressure to try to use them, despite the fact that this will become just another impediment to a solution. Any sort of Palestinian claims brought to the ICC or ICJ will create massive headaches for just about everyone, and would likely produce no tangible beneficial results. So just maybe GB is hoping to get the sentimental victory for the Palestinians that everyone wants, while also giving Abbas an "out" that he can point to to avoid political pressure for actions that he would prefer to avoid taking.
Also, it's somewhat ironic that you're speaking about legal institutions while at the same time asserting that the whole world "knows" that Israel is guilty of...innocence is legally presumed until proven otherwise.
just because innocence is legally presumed doesnt mean youre not guilty.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
You're excused, but legally speaking it is, in fact, perfectly possible to be in a state of war with a non-state. Just to give you an historical example, the American Civil War was technically fought by the United States against Southern rebels, not a seperate state.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
just because innocence is legally presumed doesnt mean youre not guilty.
That's true. I'm just bothered by the fact that many people who write on these threads reference "the law" as a source of moral authority without a) necessarily even knowing what the law is, or b) having any idea how the law applies, and c) without actually seeming to really care what the law has to say unless they think it says what they already believe. It all just strikes me as a bit hypocritical.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
i disagree yosi... the IDF must accept responsiblity for the actions of its own soldiers.. just like any other military force should. the IDF exists purely to defend the state of israel... there is no getting around that fact. and to suggest otherwise is simply ridiculous... not to mention illogical.
I'm not suggesting that the IDF doesn't exist purely to defend the state of Israel. Just the opposite. So on that point we agree. And yes the military is responsible in a general sense for the actions of its soldiers. That said, the "military," as an institution, can only outline policies and set goals. It can't actually control the actions of every solder in the middle of combat. This is true of all militaries. That is why when a soldier goes off the reservation and commits a crime (say intentionally kills a bunch of civilians) that individual soldier is held criminally responsible, but there's no suggestion that the military as a whole bears responsibility (assuming, of course, that the soldier wasn't acting on orders, or somehow following military policy).
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Or...GB is acting pragmatically rather than sentimentally. It knows that the only way anything gets resolved between Israel and Palestine is through negotiations or unilateral Israeli action, the first being far more preferable. If Abbas has access to international criminal courts he will be under immense pressure to try to use them, despite the fact that this will become just another impediment to a solution. Any sort of Palestinian claims brought to the ICC or ICJ will create massive headaches for just about everyone, and would likely produce no tangible beneficial results. So just maybe GB is hoping to get the sentimental victory for the Palestinians that everyone wants, while also giving Abbas an "out" that he can point to to avoid political pressure for actions that he would prefer to avoid taking.
Also, it's somewhat ironic that you're speaking about legal institutions while at the same time asserting that the whole world "knows" that Israel is guilty of...innocence is legally presumed until proven otherwise.
i guess the nuremburg trials were a massive headache? the tribunal on rwanda? ... it is interesting that you do not deny the atrocities committed by israel ... yet - you are fully prepared to come on here and rationalize that behaviour ... how can you hold a position that seeking justice has no tangible benefits but yet decry that we should hold israel innocent until proven guilty!?
australia can not be neutral on a moving train. cowardly move if you ask me. but at least australia is not going to be the one to use a permanent veto like another country that i know...
The US only has a permanent veto in the security council. There are no veto powers in the general assembly. Good to be well informed before weighing in.
there are veto powers in the general assembly, as in that the general assembly can not pass a resolution if a member of the security council threatens a veto. in 2011 the president of the general assembly said if the us vetos the resolution in the security council that the general assembly can not pass the resolution.
The UN charter says that new members are admitted by the General Assembly on the recommendation of the 15-nation Security Council, where the United Sates, Britain, France, China and Russia are permanent members with veto powers.
if there is a veto in the security council then the general assembly can not vote to recognize a palestinian state. and the security council members have the option to use a veto...
legally speaking, is it even possible to have a "war" on the people that live in an area of land that is not internationally recognized as a state or country?
Yes.
how so? if a country does not legally exist, how is bombing that land and the people on it not seen as terrorism?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
one of the main points of recognition is to be able to use avenues such as international criminal courts. this is just GB's way of trying to placate the palestinians while completely protecting israel. they want the palestinians to promise not to pursue charges against israel because the entire world knows that israel is guilty of serious crimes, war crimes, and potentially crimes against humanity.
Or...GB is acting pragmatically rather than sentimentally. It knows that the only way anything gets resolved between Israel and Palestine is through negotiations or unilateral Israeli action, the first being far more preferable. If Abbas has access to international criminal courts he will be under immense pressure to try to use them, despite the fact that this will become just another impediment to a solution. Any sort of Palestinian claims brought to the ICC or ICJ will create massive headaches for just about everyone, and would likely produce no tangible beneficial results. So just maybe GB is hoping to get the sentimental victory for the Palestinians that everyone wants, while also giving Abbas an "out" that he can point to to avoid political pressure for actions that he would prefer to avoid taking.
Also, it's somewhat ironic that you're speaking about legal institutions while at the same time asserting that the whole world "knows" that Israel is guilty of...innocence is legally presumed until proven otherwise.
the whole world does know that israel has used white phosphorus and has murdered civilians on numerous occasions. they whole world knows that they are expanding illegal settlements and keeping the palestinians under their thumb. the evidence is something that you, or anyone in hasbara, or even the greatest israel apologist can dispute.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Or...GB is acting pragmatically rather than sentimentally. It knows that the only way anything gets resolved between Israel and Palestine is through negotiations or unilateral Israeli action...
Also, it's somewhat ironic that you're speaking about legal institutions while at the same time asserting that the whole world "knows" that Israel is guilty of...innocence is legally presumed until proven otherwise.
What's been resolved with negotiations during the past 45 years? The only thing that's been resolved is Israel's cementing of it's settlements, and a continuation of land-theft and ethnic cleansing.
As for innocence, the occupation is illegal, the settlements are illegal, and the settlements are also in breach of the Geneva conventions and constitute a crime against humanity, as I've already documented in this very thread.
Though maybe you're referring to specific acts of violence, such as the shelling of residential areas, the dropping of white phosphorous on residential areas, the deliberate shooting of unarmed civilians - some of whom were waving white flags, extra-judicial assassinations, using Palestinian civilians as human shields, and torture - all of which have been documented and proven to be true.
I.e, if Israel is taken to the ICC it will have it's proverbial ass handed to it on a plate.
I'm just bothered by the fact that many people who write on these threads reference "the law" as a source of moral authority without a) necessarily even knowing what the law is, or b) having any idea how the law applies, and c) without actually seeming to really care what the law has to say unless they think it says what they already believe. It all just strikes me as a bit hypocritical.
I've already posted in this thread the basic elements of international law as they pertain to the settlements and occupation. Maybe you missed that?
there's no suggestion that the military as a whole bears responsibility (assuming, of course, that the soldier wasn't acting on orders, or somehow following military policy).
Israeli soldiers admit 'shoot first' policy in Gaza offensive
Anonymous testimonies collated by human rights group also contain allegations that Palestinians were used as human shields
Ian Black, Middle East editor
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 15 July 2009
Israeli soldiers who served in the Gaza Strip during the offensive of December and January have spoken out about being ordered to shoot without hesitation, destroying houses and mosques with a general disregard for Palestinian lives.
In testimony that will fuel international and Arab demands for war crime investigations, 30 combat soldiers report that the army's priority was to minimise its own casualties to maintain Israeli public support for the three-week Operation Cast Lead.
One specific allegation is that Palestinians were used by the army as "human shields" despite a 2005 Israeli high court ruling outlawing the practice. "Not much was said about the issue of innocent civilians," a soldier said. "There was no need to use weapons like mortars or phosphorous," said another. "I have the feeling that the army was looking for the opportunity to show off its strength."
The 54 anonymous testimonies were collated by Breaking the Silence, a group that collects information on human rights abuses by the Israeli military. Many of the soldiers are still doing their compulsory national service.
Palestinians counted 1,400 dead but Israel put the death toll at 1,166 and estimated 295 fatalities were civilians. Ten soldiers and three Israeli civilians were killed.
Israel launched the attack after the expiry of a ceasefire designed to halt rocket fire from Gaza and crush the Islamist movement Hamas, which controls the coastal strip.
Witnesses described the destruction of hundreds of houses and many mosques without military reason, the firing of phosphorous shells into inhabited areas, the killing of innocents and the indiscriminate destruction of property.
Soldiers describe a "neighbour procedure" in which Palestinian civilians were forced to enter suspect buildings ahead of troops. They cite cases of civilians advancing in front of a soldier resting his rifle on the civilian's shoulder.
"We did not get instructions to shoot at anything that moved," said one soldier. "But we were generally instructed: if you feel threatened, shoot. They kept repeating to us that this is war and in war opening fire is not restricted."
Many testimonies are in line with claims by Amnesty International and other human rights organisations that Israeli actions were indiscriminate and disproportionate.
Another soldier testified: "You feel like a stupid little kid with a magnifying glass looking at ants, burning them. A 20-year-old kid should not have to do these kinds of things to other people."
The testimonies "expose significant gaps between the official army version of events and what really happened on the ground", Breaking the Silence said.
"This is an urgent call to Israeli society and its leaders to sober up and investigate anew the results of our actions."
In a report released today, a medical human rights group said there was "certainty" that Israel violated international humanitarian law during the war, with attacks on medics, damage to medical buildings, indiscriminate attacks on civilians and delays in medical treatment for the injured.
"We have noticed a stark decline in IDF morals concerning the Palestinian population of Gaza, which in reality amounts to a contempt for Palestinian lives," said Dani Filc, chairman of Physicians for Human Rights Israel. The Guardian gathered testimony on missile attacks by Israeli drones against clearly distinguishable civilian targets. In one case a family of six was killed when a missile hit the courtyard of their house. Israel has not admitted using drones but experts say their optical equipment is good enough to identify individual items of clothing worn by targets. The Geneva convention makes it clear medical staff and hospitals are not legitimate targets and forbids involuntary human shields.
...An IDF squad leader is quoted in the daily newspaper Ha'aretz as saying his soldiers interpreted the rules to mean "we should kill everyone there [in the centre of Gaza]. Everyone there is a terrorist."
Israeli troops say they were given shoot-to-kill order
The Guardian, Tuesday 6 September 2005
Conal Urquhart in Tel Aviv
Israeli military prosecutors have opened criminal investigations following allegations by soldiers that they carried out illegal shoot-to-kill orders against unarmed Palestinians.
The 17 separate investigations were prompted by the testimony of dozens of troops collected by Breaking the Silence, a pressure group of former Israeli soldiers committed to exposing human rights abuses by the military in suppressing the Palestinian intifada. The investigations cover a range of allegations, including misuse of weapons and other misuses of power.
Some of the soldiers, who also spoke to the Guardian, say they acted on standing orders in some parts of the Palestinian territories to open fire on people regardless of whether they were armed or not, or posed any physical threat.
The soldiers say that in some situations they were ordered to shoot anyone who appeared on a roof or a balcony, anyone who appeared to be kneeling to the ground or anyone who appeared on the street at a designated time. Among those killed by soldiers acting on the orders were young children...
Palestinians win upgraded UN status by wide margin.
The UN General Assembly has voted to grant the Palestinians non-member observer state status - a move strongly opposed by Israel and the US.
Though Israel is already starting with threats: "By going to the UN , the Palestinians have violated the agreements with Israel and Israel will act accordingly," said the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Twitter.
I know it's symbolic but it goes far to show support in the Palestinian cause. Real support is now needed.
"The assembly voted 138-9 in favour, with 41 nations abstaining..."
Hmm, without even looking, I would wager most common folks in those 138 nations would rather live in those 50 dissenting ones....
YES!!!! well done UN.
i live in australia and we abstained from voting...so i live in one of those dissenting countries. in my opinion this was a piss weak move and one i do not support.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
"The assembly voted 138-9 in favour, with 41 nations abstaining..."
Hmm, without even looking, I would wager most common folks in those 138 nations would rather live in those 50 dissenting ones....
Yeah, ain't it funny how the allure of money and a better standard of living works? I'm sure all those millions of people wouldn't think twice about squandering human rights laws, and their own morality, if it meant filling their pockets, right?
Comments
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
This is just a blindingly illogical statement. The occupation does not wholly define the state, and the IDF can't be fairly held liable for the actions of every one of its soldiers. Even assuming, arguendo, that everything you believe is true, it still wouldn't follow that the IDF is not ALSO defending the state of Israel, just as every national army does with regard to its state.
I believe that in legal parlance we'd object that you're being argumentative.
Yes.
The US only has a permanent veto in the security council. There are no veto powers in the general assembly. Good to be well informed before weighing in.
Or...GB is acting pragmatically rather than sentimentally. It knows that the only way anything gets resolved between Israel and Palestine is through negotiations or unilateral Israeli action, the first being far more preferable. If Abbas has access to international criminal courts he will be under immense pressure to try to use them, despite the fact that this will become just another impediment to a solution. Any sort of Palestinian claims brought to the ICC or ICJ will create massive headaches for just about everyone, and would likely produce no tangible beneficial results. So just maybe GB is hoping to get the sentimental victory for the Palestinians that everyone wants, while also giving Abbas an "out" that he can point to to avoid political pressure for actions that he would prefer to avoid taking.
Also, it's somewhat ironic that you're speaking about legal institutions while at the same time asserting that the whole world "knows" that Israel is guilty of...innocence is legally presumed until proven otherwise.
i disagree yosi... the IDF must accept responsiblity for the actions of its own soldiers.. just like any other military force should. the IDF exists purely to defend the state of israel... there is no getting around that fact. and to suggest otherwise is simply ridiculous... not to mention illogical.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
and this is the question isnt it? why would any nation interested in peace deny the palestinian peoples request for recognition? could there be an agenda disadvantageous to the palestinians? for me, there is no logical reason to not acknowledge the palestinian peoples need for recogniton. it is clear to me that whatever it is the osraeli govt is trying to achieve isnt in the best interests of the palestinian people(and why would it be) but to not even give them the chance for some sort of autonomy is simply bullshit. what is it we want for the palestinian people? what are we afraid of? do we want them out from under the yoke of the israeli govt? does the israeli govt not want the palestinian people to gain independence? and if not why not? what the fuck is going on here?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
well youll have to excuse me if i think that is pure bullshit.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
just because innocence is legally presumed doesnt mean youre not guilty.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
That's true. I'm just bothered by the fact that many people who write on these threads reference "the law" as a source of moral authority without a) necessarily even knowing what the law is, or b) having any idea how the law applies, and c) without actually seeming to really care what the law has to say unless they think it says what they already believe. It all just strikes me as a bit hypocritical.
I'm not suggesting that the IDF doesn't exist purely to defend the state of Israel. Just the opposite. So on that point we agree. And yes the military is responsible in a general sense for the actions of its soldiers. That said, the "military," as an institution, can only outline policies and set goals. It can't actually control the actions of every solder in the middle of combat. This is true of all militaries. That is why when a soldier goes off the reservation and commits a crime (say intentionally kills a bunch of civilians) that individual soldier is held criminally responsible, but there's no suggestion that the military as a whole bears responsibility (assuming, of course, that the soldier wasn't acting on orders, or somehow following military policy).
i guess the nuremburg trials were a massive headache? the tribunal on rwanda? ... it is interesting that you do not deny the atrocities committed by israel ... yet - you are fully prepared to come on here and rationalize that behaviour ... how can you hold a position that seeking justice has no tangible benefits but yet decry that we should hold israel innocent until proven guilty!?
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/baird-going-un ... 45395.html
it's a NO ... we are more pro-israel than the US now ... :(
The UN charter says that new members are admitted by the General Assembly on the recommendation of the 15-nation Security Council, where the United Sates, Britain, France, China and Russia are permanent members with veto powers.
if there is a veto in the security council then the general assembly can not vote to recognize a palestinian state. and the security council members have the option to use a veto...
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPoliti ... ?id=222537
who is ill informed again?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Nope not wondering at all ...
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
What's been resolved with negotiations during the past 45 years? The only thing that's been resolved is Israel's cementing of it's settlements, and a continuation of land-theft and ethnic cleansing.
As for innocence, the occupation is illegal, the settlements are illegal, and the settlements are also in breach of the Geneva conventions and constitute a crime against humanity, as I've already documented in this very thread.
Though maybe you're referring to specific acts of violence, such as the shelling of residential areas, the dropping of white phosphorous on residential areas, the deliberate shooting of unarmed civilians - some of whom were waving white flags, extra-judicial assassinations, using Palestinian civilians as human shields, and torture - all of which have been documented and proven to be true.
I.e, if Israel is taken to the ICC it will have it's proverbial ass handed to it on a plate.
I've already posted in this thread the basic elements of international law as they pertain to the settlements and occupation. Maybe you missed that?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ju ... ields-gaza
Israeli soldiers admit 'shoot first' policy in Gaza offensive
Anonymous testimonies collated by human rights group also contain allegations that Palestinians were used as human shields
Ian Black, Middle East editor
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 15 July 2009
Israeli soldiers who served in the Gaza Strip during the offensive of December and January have spoken out about being ordered to shoot without hesitation, destroying houses and mosques with a general disregard for Palestinian lives.
In testimony that will fuel international and Arab demands for war crime investigations, 30 combat soldiers report that the army's priority was to minimise its own casualties to maintain Israeli public support for the three-week Operation Cast Lead.
One specific allegation is that Palestinians were used by the army as "human shields" despite a 2005 Israeli high court ruling outlawing the practice. "Not much was said about the issue of innocent civilians," a soldier said. "There was no need to use weapons like mortars or phosphorous," said another. "I have the feeling that the army was looking for the opportunity to show off its strength."
The 54 anonymous testimonies were collated by Breaking the Silence, a group that collects information on human rights abuses by the Israeli military. Many of the soldiers are still doing their compulsory national service.
Palestinians counted 1,400 dead but Israel put the death toll at 1,166 and estimated 295 fatalities were civilians. Ten soldiers and three Israeli civilians were killed.
Israel launched the attack after the expiry of a ceasefire designed to halt rocket fire from Gaza and crush the Islamist movement Hamas, which controls the coastal strip.
Witnesses described the destruction of hundreds of houses and many mosques without military reason, the firing of phosphorous shells into inhabited areas, the killing of innocents and the indiscriminate destruction of property.
Soldiers describe a "neighbour procedure" in which Palestinian civilians were forced to enter suspect buildings ahead of troops. They cite cases of civilians advancing in front of a soldier resting his rifle on the civilian's shoulder.
"We did not get instructions to shoot at anything that moved," said one soldier. "But we were generally instructed: if you feel threatened, shoot. They kept repeating to us that this is war and in war opening fire is not restricted."
Many testimonies are in line with claims by Amnesty International and other human rights organisations that Israeli actions were indiscriminate and disproportionate.
Another soldier testified: "You feel like a stupid little kid with a magnifying glass looking at ants, burning them. A 20-year-old kid should not have to do these kinds of things to other people."
The testimonies "expose significant gaps between the official army version of events and what really happened on the ground", Breaking the Silence said.
"This is an urgent call to Israeli society and its leaders to sober up and investigate anew the results of our actions."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ma ... ory-byline
In a report released today, a medical human rights group said there was "certainty" that Israel violated international humanitarian law during the war, with attacks on medics, damage to medical buildings, indiscriminate attacks on civilians and delays in medical treatment for the injured.
"We have noticed a stark decline in IDF morals concerning the Palestinian population of Gaza, which in reality amounts to a contempt for Palestinian lives," said Dani Filc, chairman of Physicians for Human Rights Israel. The Guardian gathered testimony on missile attacks by Israeli drones against clearly distinguishable civilian targets. In one case a family of six was killed when a missile hit the courtyard of their house. Israel has not admitted using drones but experts say their optical equipment is good enough to identify individual items of clothing worn by targets. The Geneva convention makes it clear medical staff and hospitals are not legitimate targets and forbids involuntary human shields.
...An IDF squad leader is quoted in the daily newspaper Ha'aretz as saying his soldiers interpreted the rules to mean "we should kill everyone there [in the centre of Gaza]. Everyone there is a terrorist."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/06/israel1
Israeli troops say they were given shoot-to-kill order
The Guardian, Tuesday 6 September 2005
Conal Urquhart in Tel Aviv
Israeli military prosecutors have opened criminal investigations following allegations by soldiers that they carried out illegal shoot-to-kill orders against unarmed Palestinians.
The 17 separate investigations were prompted by the testimony of dozens of troops collected by Breaking the Silence, a pressure group of former Israeli soldiers committed to exposing human rights abuses by the military in suppressing the Palestinian intifada. The investigations cover a range of allegations, including misuse of weapons and other misuses of power.
Some of the soldiers, who also spoke to the Guardian, say they acted on standing orders in some parts of the Palestinian territories to open fire on people regardless of whether they were armed or not, or posed any physical threat.
The soldiers say that in some situations they were ordered to shoot anyone who appeared on a roof or a balcony, anyone who appeared to be kneeling to the ground or anyone who appeared on the street at a designated time. Among those killed by soldiers acting on the orders were young children...
http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/29/under ... s-benefit/
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20550864
Palestinians win upgraded UN status by wide margin.
The UN General Assembly has voted to grant the Palestinians non-member observer state status - a move strongly opposed by Israel and the US.
Though Israel is already starting with threats: "By going to the UN , the Palestinians have violated the agreements with Israel and Israel will act accordingly," said the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Twitter.
I know it's symbolic but it goes far to show support in the Palestinian cause. Real support is now needed.
Hmm, without even looking, I would wager most common folks in those 138 nations would rather live in those 50 dissenting ones....
YES!!!! well done UN.
i live in australia and we abstained from voting...so i live in one of those dissenting countries. in my opinion this was a piss weak move and one i do not support.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Here’s how countries voted on Palestinian statehood today—and Israeli statehood 65 years ago
http://qz.com/32657/heres-how-countries ... years-ago/
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Yeah, ain't it funny how the allure of money and a better standard of living works? I'm sure all those millions of people wouldn't think twice about squandering human rights laws, and their own morality, if it meant filling their pockets, right?
Then again, just what is your point?
Good. He's now back on my Christmas card list.
Edit: I just signed the petition: http://www.change.org/petitions/stevie- ... -6th#share