International Donors Say Thanks but No Thanks

[SAYIT]

Evidently they want the PA in control before they donate to rebuilding Gaza.
Of course, if the recent poll by The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research is to be believed, those hapless "refugees" are prepared to shoot themselves in the foot ... again.

The deputy Palestinian prime minister said Tuesday that international donors are hesitant to fund the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip so long as Hamas remains in control there and the specter of future wars looms.
Mohammed Mustafa, a top official in the West Bank Palestinian Authority, said international bodies are eager for President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah forces to take on a leading role in Gaza in the wake of a 50-day war between Israel and Hamas that killed more than 2,000 people.
With Hamas still committed to Israel's destruction and with an arsenal of rockets still at its disposal, the donors are wary of rebuilding, Mustafa said. This summer's war was the third in less than six years.

Palestinian Donors Wary of Funding Hamas-Run Gaza - ABC News

 

[Forester]

Evidently they want the PA in control before they donate to rebuilding Gaza.
Of course, if the recent poll by The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research is to be believed, those hapless "refugees" are prepared to shoot themselves in the foot ... again.

The deputy Palestinian prime minister said Tuesday that international donors are hesitant to fund the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip so long as Hamas remains in control there and the specter of future wars looms.
Mohammed Mustafa, a top official in the West Bank Palestinian Authority, said international bodies are eager for President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah forces to take on a leading role in Gaza in the wake of a 50-day war between Israel and Hamas that killed more than 2,000 people.
With Hamas still committed to Israel's destruction and with an arsenal of rockets still at its disposal, the donors are wary of rebuilding, Mustafa said. This summer's war was the third in less than six years.

Palestinian Donors Wary of Funding Hamas-Run Gaza - ABC News

Israel trashed Gaza in a rage-filled fit of psychotic hysteria. Therefore, Israel can finance the rebuilding.
But destroying their university? Their power plant? Their sea port? All collective punishment, banned by Article 33 of the 1949 Geneva Convention.

 

[Moonglow]

I am sure the Geneva convention was applied when the allies did it in WWII, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq..well you get the picture..

 

[SAYIT]

Evidently they want the PA in control before they donate to rebuilding Gaza.
Of course, if the recent poll by The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research is to be believed, those hapless "refugees" are prepared to shoot themselves in the foot ... again.

The deputy Palestinian prime minister said Tuesday that international donors are hesitant to fund the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip so long as Hamas remains in control there and the specter of future wars looms.
Mohammed Mustafa, a top official in the West Bank Palestinian Authority, said international bodies are eager for President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah forces to take on a leading role in Gaza in the wake of a 50-day war between Israel and Hamas that killed more than 2,000 people.
With Hamas still committed to Israel's destruction and with an arsenal of rockets still at its disposal, the donors are wary of rebuilding, Mustafa said. This summer's war was the third in less than six years.

Palestinian Donors Wary of Funding Hamas-Run Gaza - ABC News

Israel trashed Gaza in a rage-filled fit of psychotic hysteria. Therefore, Israel can finance the rebuilding.
But destroying their university? Their power plant? Their sea port? All collective punishment, banned by Article 33 of the 1949 Geneva Convention.

Israel was rightly defending herself and all that damage? Merely collateral.
Point remains if Hamas stays international donors will stay away meaning it could take considerably longer than 20 years to rebuild the damage from Hamas's latest "great victory."

 

[RoccoR]

Forester, et al,

Yes, collective punishment is the topic of Article 33. But Article 33 deals with "protected persons" and not infrastructure. You are trying to apply Rule 9. Civilian objects are all objects that are not military objectives.

I'm not sure you understand the intention of the "Collective Punishment" protections and the different between it and the "non-military civilian objects" (infrastructure).

Israel trashed Gaza in a rage-filled fit of psychotic hysteria. Therefore, Israel can finance the rebuilding.
But destroying their university? Their power plant? Their sea port? All collective punishment, banned by Article 33 of the 1949 Geneva Convention.

(REFERENCE)

Rule 103. Collective punishments are prohibited.

Summary
State practice establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts. This prohibition is an application, in part, of Rule 102 that no one may be convicted of an offence except on the basis of individual criminal responsibility. However, the prohibition of collective punishments is wider in scope because it does not only apply to criminal sanctions but also to “sanctions and harassment of any sort, administrative, by police action or otherwise”.[1]

International and non-international armed conflicts

The prohibition of collective punishments is stated in the Hague Regulations and the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions.[2] The prohibition is recognized in Additional Protocols I and II as a fundamental guarantee for all civilians and persons hors de combat.[3] The imposition of “collective penalties” was considered a war crime in the Report of the Commission on Responsibility set up after the First World War.[4] The customary nature of this rule, already applicable during the Second World War, was affirmed by the Military Tribunal of Rome in the Priebke case in 1997.[5] The specification that the imposition of collective punishments is a war crime is also to be found in the Statutes of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and of the Special Court for Sierra Leone.[6]

The prohibition of collective punishments is contained in numerous military manuals.[7] This prohibition is also set forth in the legislation of many States.[8] It is further supported by official statements.[9] In the Delalić case, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia stated that internment or assigned residence under Article 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention is an exceptional measure that may never be taken on a collective basis.[10]

While human rights law does not explicitly prohibit “collective punishments” as such, such acts would constitute a violation of specific human rights, in particular the right to liberty and security of person and the right to a fair trial. In its General Comment on Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (concerning states of emergency), the UN Human Rights Committee stated that States parties may “in no circumstances” invoke a state of emergency “as justification for acting in violation of humanitarian law or peremptory norms of international law, for instance … by imposing collective punishments”.[11] ​

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Commentary - Art. 33. Part III : Status and treatment of protected persons #Section I : Provisions common to the territories of the parties to the conflict and to occupied territories

• 
  ARTICLE 33 . -- INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY -- COLLECTIVE PENALTIES -- PILLAGE -- REPRISALS
• • No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
    Pillage is prohibited.
    Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.
  
  
  [p.225] Article 33 is derived from Article 50 [ Link ] of the Hague Regulations: "No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they can not be regarded as jointly and severally responsible".
  The text adopted unanimously in Geneva in 1949 reproduces, with only slight changes, the original draft of the International Committee of the Red Cross (1).
  
  
  • • 
      1. ' Prohibition of collective penalties '
      
      The first paragraph embodies in international law one of the general principles of domestic law, i.e. that penal liability is personal in character.
      This paragraph then lays a prohibition on collective penalties. This does not refer to punishments inflicted under penal law, i.e. sentences pronounced by a court after due process of law, but penalties of any kind inflicted on persons or entire groups of persons, in defiance of the most elementary principles of humanity, for acts that these persons have not committed.
      This provision is very clear. If it is compared with Article 50 [ Link ] of the Hague Regulations, it will be noted that that Article could be interpreted as not expressly ruling out the idea that the community might bear at least a passive responsibility (2).
      Thus, a great step forward has been taken. Responsibility is personal and it will no longer be possible to inflict penalties on persons Who have themselves not committed the acts complained of.
      Obviously, the belligerents will retain the right to punish individuals who have committed hostile acts, in accordance with Article 64 [ Link ] et sqq. concerning penal legislation and procedure, when it is a matter of safegarding their legitimate interests and security.
      
      2. ' Measures of intimidation or of terrorism '
      
      During past conflicts, the infliction of collective penalties has been intended to forestall breaches of the law rather than to repress [p.226] them; in resorting to intimidatory measures to terrorise the population, the belligerents hoped to prevent hostile acts. Far from achieving the desired effect, however, such practices, by reason of their excessive severity and cruelty, kept alive and strengthened the spirit of resistance. They strike at guilty and innocent alike. They are opposed to all principles based on humanity and justice and it is for that reason that the prohibition of collective penalties is followed formally by the prohibition of all measures of intimidation or terrorism with regard to protected persons, wherever they may be (3).
    
    The first paragraph embodies in international law one of the general principles of domestic law, i.e. that penal liability is personal in character.
    This paragraph then lays a prohibition on collective penalties. This does not refer to punishments inflicted under penal law, i.e. sentences pronounced by a court after due process of law, but penalties of any kind inflicted on persons or entire groups of persons, in defiance of the most elementary principles of humanity, for acts that these persons have not committed.
    This provision is very clear. If it is compared with Article 50 [ Link ] of the Hague Regulations, it will be noted that that Article could be interpreted as not expressly ruling out the idea that the community might bear at least a passive responsibility (2).
    Thus, a great step forward has been taken. Responsibility is personal and it will no longer be possible to inflict penalties on persons Who have themselves not committed the acts complained of.
    Obviously, the belligerents will retain the right to punish individuals who have committed hostile acts, in accordance with Article 64 [ Link ] et sqq. concerning penal legislation and procedure, when it is a matter of safegarding their legitimate interests and security.

(COMMENT)

I suggest you read a little more about the GCIV.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Forester]

Forester, et al,

Yes, collective punishment is the topic of Article 33. But Article 33 deals with "protected persons" and not infrastructure. You are trying to apply Rule 9. Civilian objects are all objects that are not military objectives.

I'm not sure you understand the intention of the "Collective Punishment" protections and the different between it and the "non-military civilian objects" (infrastructure).


(REFERENCE)


(COMMENT)

I suggest you read a little more about the GCIV.

Most Respectfully,
R

Alright, R.
It appears you're disputing which Geneva Convention section would be applicable to the Palestinian bombing assault.
Collective punishments

Article 33. No persons may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against persons and their property are prohibited.

Destroying Gaza's power plant is punishing every resident collectively whether or not they committed any crime.
Like you said, then Rule 9 becomes relevant.
You're not disputing the legality of Israel's acts, I assume, because that's a monumentally-steep uphill battle.
Additionally, Israel committed terrorism by bombing in such a widespread fashion in an attempt to hold the entire community responsible by intimidation. Also a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
No sense splitting hairs, here, or muddying the water as you're trying to do.
The facts speak for themselves.

 

[SAYIT]

Forester, et al,

Yes, collective punishment is the topic of Article 33. But Article 33 deals with "protected persons" and not infrastructure. You are trying to apply Rule 9. Civilian objects are all objects that are not military objectives.

I'm not sure you understand the intention of the "Collective Punishment" protections and the different between it and the "non-military civilian objects" (infrastructure).


(REFERENCE)


(COMMENT)

I suggest you read a little more about the GCIV.

Most Respectfully,
R

Alright, R.
It appears you're disputing which Geneva Convention section would be applicable to the Palestinian bombing assault.
Collective punishments

Article 33. No persons may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against persons and their property are prohibited.

Destroying Gaza's power plant is punishing every resident collectively whether or not they committed any crime.
Like you said, then Rule 9 becomes relevant.
You're not disputing the legality of Israel's acts, I assume, because that's a monumentally-steep uphill battle.
Additionally, Israel committed terrorism by bombing in such a widespread fashion in an attempt to hold the entire community responsible by intimidation. Also a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
No sense splitting hairs, here, or muddying the water as you're trying to do.
The facts speak for themselves.

There were no "reprisals" against Gazans or their property. In the legit and noble course of making a Hamas omelet, the IDF broke some eggs.
Whine all you like, it was as predictable and legal as any nation's defensive actions.
Perhaps those Gazans should consider a different tact.

 

[RoccoR]

Forester, et al,

Nonsense.

Alright, R.
It appears you're disputing which Geneva Convention section would be applicable to the Palestinian bombing assault.
Collective punishments

Article 33. No persons may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against persons and their property are prohibited.

Destroying Gaza's power plant is punishing every resident collectively whether or not they committed any crime.
Like you said, then Rule 9 becomes relevant.
You're not disputing the legality of Israel's acts, I assume, because that's a monumentally-steep uphill battle.
Additionally, Israel committed terrorism by bombing in such a widespread fashion in an attempt to hold the entire community responsible by intimidation. Also a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
No sense splitting hairs, here, or muddying the water as you're trying to do.
The facts speak for themselves.

(COMMENT)

In your accusation, you are saying that at the time of the Israeli attack, the university, the power plant, and the sea port, were NOT objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use made an effective contribution to the HAMAS military action and whose partial or total destruction was warranted.

I'm saying you don't know what the purpose of the attack was, or what the relationship is between the attack and HAMAS activities were at that time.

BUT, none of these facilities are protected in and by themselves for just being what they are. If a Power Plant provides HAMAS hostile activities power, it is a legitimate target; not protected by any Customary International Humanitarian Law (Geneva Convention or Otherwise).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

Evidently they want the PA in control before they donate to rebuilding Gaza.
Of course, if the recent poll by The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research is to be believed, those hapless "refugees" are prepared to shoot themselves in the foot ... again.

The deputy Palestinian prime minister said Tuesday that international donors are hesitant to fund the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip so long as Hamas remains in control there and the specter of future wars looms.
Mohammed Mustafa, a top official in the West Bank Palestinian Authority, said international bodies are eager for President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah forces to take on a leading role in Gaza in the wake of a 50-day war between Israel and Hamas that killed more than 2,000 people.
With Hamas still committed to Israel's destruction and with an arsenal of rockets still at its disposal, the donors are wary of rebuilding, Mustafa said. This summer's war was the third in less than six years.

Palestinian Donors Wary of Funding Hamas-Run Gaza - ABC News

Israel trashed Gaza in a rage-filled fit of psychotic hysteria. Therefore, Israel can finance the rebuilding.
But destroying their university? Their power plant? Their sea port? All collective punishment, banned by Article 33 of the 1949 Geneva Convention.

As are illegal rockets targeting children, tunnels lined with explosives under Israeli schools and kindergartens and using civilian areas as rocket launch sites. So what do you have to say about that, they are all ILLEGAL COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENTS and I applaud Israel for showing more restraint than the US or UK would in similar circumstances. Time to trash gaza completely and tell iran to start rebuilding.

 

[Phoenall]

I am sure the Geneva convention was applied when the allies did it in WWII, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq..well you get the picture..

Didn't come into being until 1949, which is 5 years after the end of WW2. Also a year after the mass murders of Hindus by muslims stealing land in India

 

[Phoenall]

Forester, et al,

Yes, collective punishment is the topic of Article 33. But Article 33 deals with "protected persons" and not infrastructure. You are trying to apply Rule 9. Civilian objects are all objects that are not military objectives.

I'm not sure you understand the intention of the "Collective Punishment" protections and the different between it and the "non-military civilian objects" (infrastructure).


(REFERENCE)


(COMMENT)

I suggest you read a little more about the GCIV.

Most Respectfully,
R

Alright, R.
It appears you're disputing which Geneva Convention section would be applicable to the Palestinian bombing assault.
Collective punishments

Article 33. No persons may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against persons and their property are prohibited.

Destroying Gaza's power plant is punishing every resident collectively whether or not they committed any crime.
Like you said, then Rule 9 becomes relevant.
You're not disputing the legality of Israel's acts, I assume, because that's a monumentally-steep uphill battle.
Additionally, Israel committed terrorism by bombing in such a widespread fashion in an attempt to hold the entire community responsible by intimidation. Also a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
No sense splitting hairs, here, or muddying the water as you're trying to do.
The facts speak for themselves.

Not if it is a valid military target, then it is not collective punishment. In this case hamas used the power plant as a military installation rendering it a valid military target. The simple fact that very nearly all gazan residents acted as human shields renders them as militia and thus valid military targets. So as you say no use in splitting hairs as the facts speak for themselves and shows that Israel worked within the remit of the Geneva conventions.

 

[Lipush]

Evidently they want the PA in control before they donate to rebuilding Gaza.
Of course, if the recent poll by The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research is to be believed, those hapless "refugees" are prepared to shoot themselves in the foot ... again.

The deputy Palestinian prime minister said Tuesday that international donors are hesitant to fund the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip so long as Hamas remains in control there and the specter of future wars looms.
Mohammed Mustafa, a top official in the West Bank Palestinian Authority, said international bodies are eager for President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah forces to take on a leading role in Gaza in the wake of a 50-day war between Israel and Hamas that killed more than 2,000 people.
With Hamas still committed to Israel's destruction and with an arsenal of rockets still at its disposal, the donors are wary of rebuilding, Mustafa said. This summer's war was the third in less than six years.

Palestinian Donors Wary of Funding Hamas-Run Gaza - ABC News

Israel trashed Gaza in a rage-filled fit of psychotic hysteria. Therefore, Israel can finance the rebuilding.
But destroying their university? Their power plant? Their sea port? All collective punishment, banned by Article 33 of the 1949 Geneva Convention.

If they didn't store their crap in those places, we would have left them intact.

 

[Beelzebub]

Evidently they want the PA in control before they donate to rebuilding Gaza.
Of course, if the recent poll by The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research is to be believed, those hapless "refugees" are prepared to shoot themselves in the foot ... again.

The deputy Palestinian prime minister said Tuesday that international donors are hesitant to fund the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip so long as Hamas remains in control there and the specter of future wars looms.
Mohammed Mustafa, a top official in the West Bank Palestinian Authority, said international bodies are eager for President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah forces to take on a leading role in Gaza in the wake of a 50-day war between Israel and Hamas that killed more than 2,000 people.
With Hamas still committed to Israel's destruction and with an arsenal of rockets still at its disposal, the donors are wary of rebuilding, Mustafa said. This summer's war was the third in less than six years.

Palestinian Donors Wary of Funding Hamas-Run Gaza - ABC News

Israel trashed Gaza in a rage-filled fit of psychotic hysteria. Therefore, Israel can finance the rebuilding.
But destroying their university? Their power plant? Their sea port? All collective punishment, banned by Article 33 of the 1949 Geneva Convention.

If they didn't store their crap in those places, we would have left them intact.

That would have undermined your policy of collective punishment. You know, subjecting all 'enemy populations' to more suffering than they can bear.

The Dahiya Doctrine, I believe you call it.

Dahiya doctrine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Beelzebub]

Dahiya, Lebanon bears a striking resemblance to districts of Gaza.

 

[Lipush]

You have a very twisted definition of collective punishment.

The fact that you consider "collective punishment" on civilians when we bomb rocket storage places says more about the ones you're protecting. How come a place that is bombed due to the fact that it holds weapons influences so much on 'uninvolved' community, so much it's considered "collective punishment"? could it be due to the fact that Hamas involves the civilians?

Then in that case, the war crimes is theirs, not ours. A place that holds equipment of war is a legal target. Fact that you turned it to a 'civilian' target to maximize your civilian casualties, just so you could cry about it later, doesn't change the fact that it's a legitimate target.

So thanks for making my point for me.

 

[SAYIT]

Dahiya, Lebanon bears a striking resemblance to districts of Gaza.

Good point. You may have noticed how quiet Hezbollah has been since their "great victory." Even at the height of the recent conflict Israel's border with Lebanon was relatively peaceful.
Perhaps Hamas - in light of their own "great victory - will take a page from Hezbollah's book and cut the crap. Who knows ... a few years without attacking Israel could yield some sort of positive result for those hapless "refugees." It has to be better than the carnage all these years of useless rocket and mortar fire has wrought. Wadaya think?

 

[SAYIT]

Evidently they want the PA in control before they donate to rebuilding Gaza.
Of course, if the recent poll by The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research is to be believed, those hapless "refugees" are prepared to shoot themselves in the foot ... again.

The deputy Palestinian prime minister said Tuesday that international donors are hesitant to fund the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip so long as Hamas remains in control there and the specter of future wars looms.
Mohammed Mustafa, a top official in the West Bank Palestinian Authority, said international bodies are eager for President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah forces to take on a leading role in Gaza in the wake of a 50-day war between Israel and Hamas that killed more than 2,000 people.
With Hamas still committed to Israel's destruction and with an arsenal of rockets still at its disposal, the donors are wary of rebuilding, Mustafa said. This summer's war was the third in less than six years.

Palestinian Donors Wary of Funding Hamas-Run Gaza - ABC News

Israel trashed Gaza in a rage-filled fit of psychotic hysteria. Therefore, Israel can finance the rebuilding.
But destroying their university? Their power plant? Their sea port? All collective punishment, banned by Article 33 of the 1949 Geneva Convention.

If they didn't store their crap in those places, we would have left them intact.

That would have undermined your policy of collective punishment. You know, subjecting all 'enemy populations' to more suffering than they can bear.

The Dahiya Doctrine, I believe you call it.

Dahiya doctrine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Nope. What it would do is remove those targets from the IDF hit list but that would undermine your policy of trading hapless "refugees" (or well-intentioned international reporters) for a few media points.

...But this morning, NDTV witnessed one such rocket silo being created under a tent right next to the hotel where our team was staying. Minutes later, we saw the rocket being fired, just before the 72-hour ceasefire came into effect...

NDTV World Exclusive How Hamas Assembles and Fires Rockets

NDTV Exclusive How Hamas Assembles and Fires Rockets

 

[rhodescholar]

Israel trashed Gaza in a rage-filled fit of psychotic hysteria. Therefore, Israel can finance the rebuilding. But destroying their university? Their power plant? Their sea port? All collective punishment, banned by Article 33 of the 1949 Geneva Convention.

Mentally ill moron, gaza had no seaport to destroy, and if you are going to mention the geneva conventions, let's talk about the thousands of rockets fired into civilian neighborhoods by hamas, and the tunnels that filth built under israeli schools. Those are War Crimes, moron.

 

[teddyearp]

Looks like we win . . . .

 

[montelatici]

You win what? The murder prize? Just like the NAZIs won by blockading the Warsaw Ghetto.