UN report on Gaza war likely to bolster international criminal court inquiry

[ogibillm]

Regardless of who started what, or who provoked who, the fundamental question is one of proportionality.

Example 1: I shoot a rocket in your general direction (no harm done) You send a drone or a helicopter and destroy my missile launcher (maybe kill or injure me or my friends). That's a proportional response and no-one bats an eyelid, because if I'm injured as a result of my actions, that's just tough, I shouldn't have shot the rocket in the first place unless I was prepared to take the risk of being injured or killed by return fire.

Example 2: I shoot a rocket in your general direction (no real harm done) You send artillery, missiles and airstrikes that decimate and demolish my entire neighbourhood, slaughter hundreds of innocent people at a time, if not thousands, and force thousands of others to seek refuge wherever they can, then launch a ground invasion, that's a disproportionate response and at the very least a crime against humanity, if not an act of genocide. This is why people get upset, the world considers the "rabid dog" response to be a bit passé in the 21st century and is beginning to have serious concerns about your mental state.

Regardless of who started what, or who provoked who, the fundamental question is one of proportionality.

Terrorists do not deserve a proportionate response.
Add to that the fact that the terrorists launch from civilian areas
making a proportionate response impossible.

This is why people get upset

The people who get upset are idiots or terror supporters.

I shoot a rocket in your general direction (no real harm done)

If the rocket kills a couple of dozen children, then can the launching neighborhood be demolished?

No harm done? Asshole!

how many israelis have died in the last year or so from rocket attacks?

Terrorists get free shots until they kill people?

Then the Israelis can respond? Fuck you!

so retaliation on the part of palestinians for the deaths, destruction, and imprisonments brought about at the hands of israel is not okay, but killing hundreds in response to rocket attacks that killed no one is perfectly fine?

Responding to terrorism that results in deaths is an acceptable fact of life. If the Palestinians stiopped the terrorism, violence and belligerence then there would be no arrests, no destruction and no deaths, is that such a hard concept to understand.

you can flip that on its ear and say that if israel stopped the arrests, destruction, and killing, there would be no terrorism.

 

[Challenger]

Terrorists do not deserve a proportionate response.
Add to that the fact that the terrorists launch from civilian areas
making a proportionate response impossible.

This is why people get upset

The people who get upset are idiots or terror supporters.

I shoot a rocket in your general direction (no real harm done)

If the rocket kills a couple of dozen children, then can the launching neighborhood be demolished?

No harm done? Asshole!

Who says they're terrorists? The Nazis called the various European resistance movements Terrorists, we called them Resistance movements. And everybody deserves a proportionate response. If I slap your daughter, I wouldn't be surprised if you beat the proverbial out of me; I would be surprised if you machinegunned my familly and blew up my home. So would most reasonable human beings.

Exactly how many Israeli children have Palestinian rockets killed?

Add to that the fact that the terrorists launch from civilian areas making a proportionate response impossible

Really?



If they can do that, where's the need to launch artillery barrages and carpet bomb neighbourhoods?

 

[Challenger]

"The UN’s inquiry into the 2014 Gaza war issues a rallying call for suspected war criminals “at all levels of the political and military establishments” to be brought to justice, but as the report itself wearily concedes, that is unlikely to happen soon.

However, the report is likely to bolster the international criminal court’spreliminary examination of last summer’s conflict, increasing the likelihood that a full investigation will eventually follow. "

UN report on Gaza war likely to bolster international criminal court inquiry World news The Guardian

Isn't it fascinating, as shown in your article, how the Palestinians start a conflict with Israel, Israel retaliates & then the Pali's & their supporters bitch about how many more dead Palestinians there are than Israeli's? It's called Palestinian mentality!

Regardless of who started what, or who provoked who, the fundamental question is one of proportionality.

Example 1: I shoot a rocket in your general direction (no harm done) You send a drone or a helicopter and destroy my missile launcher (maybe kill or injure me or my friends). That's a proportional response and no-one bats an eyelid, because if I'm injured as a result of my actions, that's just tough, I shouldn't have shot the rocket in the first place unless I was prepared to take the risk of being injured or killed by return fire.

Example 2: I shoot a rocket in your general direction (no real harm done) You send artillery, missiles and airstrikes that decimate and demolish my entire neighbourhood, slaughter hundreds of innocent people at a time, if not thousands, and force thousands of others to seek refuge wherever they can, then launch a ground invasion, that's a disproportionate response and at the very least a crime against humanity, if not an act of genocide. This is why people get upset, the world considers the "rabid dog" response to be a bit passé in the 21st century and is beginning to have serious concerns about your mental state.

Regardless of who started what, or who provoked who, the fundamental question is one of proportionality.

Terrorists do not deserve a proportionate response.
Add to that the fact that the terrorists launch from civilian areas
making a proportionate response impossible.

This is why people get upset

The people who get upset are idiots or terror supporters.

I shoot a rocket in your general direction (no real harm done)

If the rocket kills a couple of dozen children, then can the launching neighborhood be demolished?

No harm done? Asshole!

how many israelis have died in the last year or so from rocket attacks?

Terrorists get free shots until they kill people?

Then the Israelis can respond? Fuck you!

Of course not, stop being stupid. The response/retaliation must however be proportionate, otherwise it becomes a crime (war crime or crime against humanity).

 

[ogibillm]

Don't get me wrong, i think both sides have crimes to answer for - just as the report says.

However, as a supposedly civilized nation acting with a regular military i find israel's actions to be a bit more egregious.

 

[Phoenall]

Isn't it fascinating, as shown in your article, how the Palestinians start a conflict with Israel, Israel retaliates & then the Pali's & their supporters bitch about how many more dead Palestinians there are than Israeli's? It's called Palestinian mentality!

Regardless of who started what, or who provoked who, the fundamental question is one of proportionality.

Example 1: I shoot a rocket in your general direction (no harm done) You send a drone or a helicopter and destroy my missile launcher (maybe kill or injure me or my friends). That's a proportional response and no-one bats an eyelid, because if I'm injured as a result of my actions, that's just tough, I shouldn't have shot the rocket in the first place unless I was prepared to take the risk of being injured or killed by return fire.

Example 2: I shoot a rocket in your general direction (no real harm done) You send artillery, missiles and airstrikes that decimate and demolish my entire neighbourhood, slaughter hundreds of innocent people at a time, if not thousands, and force thousands of others to seek refuge wherever they can, then launch a ground invasion, that's a disproportionate response and at the very least a crime against humanity, if not an act of genocide. This is why people get upset, the world considers the "rabid dog" response to be a bit passé in the 21st century and is beginning to have serious concerns about your mental state.

Regardless of who started what, or who provoked who, the fundamental question is one of proportionality.

Terrorists do not deserve a proportionate response.
Add to that the fact that the terrorists launch from civilian areas
making a proportionate response impossible.

This is why people get upset

The people who get upset are idiots or terror supporters.

I shoot a rocket in your general direction (no real harm done)

If the rocket kills a couple of dozen children, then can the launching neighborhood be demolished?

No harm done? Asshole!

how many israelis have died in the last year or so from rocket attacks?

are the rocket attacks not a response to irsaeli attacks? i don't know, but you're making it seem that retaliation should have no limit. seems you could use that logic to easily justify rocket attacks. or are you saying only israel has the right to retaliate?

Irrelevant as the rockets are illegal weapons of terrorism.

No because they started when Israel had no troops in gaza and there was no blockade. So no attacks by Israel and it took 9 months before the Palestinians could justify the constant rocket bombardments. 2,000 rockets fired before Israel took action and it ended in gaza being badly damaged and the loss of 1500 Palestinians. Then last year over 200 rockets and the murders of 3 Israel boys sparked a similar response that resulted on more of gaza being flattened and 2000 dead Palestinians. A perfectly reasonable response to terrorist attacks don't you think ?

you're oversimplifying. the grievances aren't recent, and pretending you can pin the start of the conflict solely on the palestinians is asinine.

that said, they have a lot more to retaliate for these days than israel does. what of the palestinians arrested and held, how about the homes knocked over, the murders at the hands of israelis? does that not warrant retaliation?

you're never going to be able to get everyone to agree on who started it. that's kindergarten bullshit anyhow. if there will ever be peace israel will have to learn to respond appropriately.

Cause and effect if the Palestinians did not resort to violence then Israel would not need to retaliate. What is so hard to understand about that. The problem started way back in the 7C when mohammed wiped out the Jews in medina and commanded all muslims to KILL THE UNBELIEVERS

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Terrorists do not deserve a proportionate response.
Add to that the fact that the terrorists launch from civilian areas
making a proportionate response impossible.

This is why people get upset

The people who get upset are idiots or terror supporters.

I shoot a rocket in your general direction (no real harm done)

If the rocket kills a couple of dozen children, then can the launching neighborhood be demolished?

No harm done? Asshole!

Who says they're terrorists? The Nazis called the various European resistance movements Terrorists, we called them Resistance movements. And everybody deserves a proportionate response. If I slap your daughter, I wouldn't be surprised if you beat the proverbial out of me; I would be surprised if you machinegunned my familly and blew up my home. So would most reasonable human beings.

Exactly how many Israeli children have Palestinian rockets killed?

Add to that the fact that the terrorists launch from civilian areas making a proportionate response impossible

Really?



If they can do that, where's the need to launch artillery barrages and carpet bomb neighbourhoods?

Who says they're terrorists?

Intelligent people.
Firing rockets from civilian areas, indiscriminately, makes them terrorists.

If I slap your daughter,

The fact that you could equate this to firing rockets shows your idiocy.

Exactly how many Israeli children have Palestinian rockets killed?

A better question is how many Palestinian children have Palestinian rockets killed?

If they can do that, where's the need to launch artillery barrages

If they fired rockets from the middle of the road, instead of from schools and other civilian areas, I'd agree.

 

[Phoenall]

Isn't it fascinating, as shown in your article, how the Palestinians start a conflict with Israel, Israel retaliates & then the Pali's & their supporters bitch about how many more dead Palestinians there are than Israeli's? It's called Palestinian mentality!

Regardless of who started what, or who provoked who, the fundamental question is one of proportionality.

Example 1: I shoot a rocket in your general direction (no harm done) You send a drone or a helicopter and destroy my missile launcher (maybe kill or injure me or my friends). That's a proportional response and no-one bats an eyelid, because if I'm injured as a result of my actions, that's just tough, I shouldn't have shot the rocket in the first place unless I was prepared to take the risk of being injured or killed by return fire.

Example 2: I shoot a rocket in your general direction (no real harm done) You send artillery, missiles and airstrikes that decimate and demolish my entire neighbourhood, slaughter hundreds of innocent people at a time, if not thousands, and force thousands of others to seek refuge wherever they can, then launch a ground invasion, that's a disproportionate response and at the very least a crime against humanity, if not an act of genocide. This is why people get upset, the world considers the "rabid dog" response to be a bit passé in the 21st century and is beginning to have serious concerns about your mental state.

Regardless of who started what, or who provoked who, the fundamental question is one of proportionality.

Terrorists do not deserve a proportionate response.
Add to that the fact that the terrorists launch from civilian areas
making a proportionate response impossible.

This is why people get upset

The people who get upset are idiots or terror supporters.

I shoot a rocket in your general direction (no real harm done)

If the rocket kills a couple of dozen children, then can the launching neighborhood be demolished?

No harm done? Asshole!

how many israelis have died in the last year or so from rocket attacks?

Terrorists get free shots until they kill people?

Then the Israelis can respond? Fuck you!

Of course not, stop being stupid. The response/retaliation must however be proportionate, otherwise it becomes a crime (war crime or crime against humanity).

Cite the war crime or crime against humanity then rat boy, remembering that UN resolutions are not laws.


There is no law of proportionality because that would make wars endless, you must always have a superior force

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Isn't it fascinating, as shown in your article, how the Palestinians start a conflict with Israel, Israel retaliates & then the Pali's & their supporters bitch about how many more dead Palestinians there are than Israeli's? It's called Palestinian mentality!

Regardless of who started what, or who provoked who, the fundamental question is one of proportionality.

Example 1: I shoot a rocket in your general direction (no harm done) You send a drone or a helicopter and destroy my missile launcher (maybe kill or injure me or my friends). That's a proportional response and no-one bats an eyelid, because if I'm injured as a result of my actions, that's just tough, I shouldn't have shot the rocket in the first place unless I was prepared to take the risk of being injured or killed by return fire.

Example 2: I shoot a rocket in your general direction (no real harm done) You send artillery, missiles and airstrikes that decimate and demolish my entire neighbourhood, slaughter hundreds of innocent people at a time, if not thousands, and force thousands of others to seek refuge wherever they can, then launch a ground invasion, that's a disproportionate response and at the very least a crime against humanity, if not an act of genocide. This is why people get upset, the world considers the "rabid dog" response to be a bit passé in the 21st century and is beginning to have serious concerns about your mental state.

Regardless of who started what, or who provoked who, the fundamental question is one of proportionality.

Terrorists do not deserve a proportionate response.
Add to that the fact that the terrorists launch from civilian areas
making a proportionate response impossible.

This is why people get upset

The people who get upset are idiots or terror supporters.

I shoot a rocket in your general direction (no real harm done)

If the rocket kills a couple of dozen children, then can the launching neighborhood be demolished?

No harm done? Asshole!

how many israelis have died in the last year or so from rocket attacks?

Terrorists get free shots until they kill people?

Then the Israelis can respond? Fuck you!

Of course not, stop being stupid. The response/retaliation must however be proportionate, otherwise it becomes a crime (war crime or crime against humanity).

Of course not, stop being stupid.

You first.

 

[Phoenall]

Don't get me wrong, i think both sides have crimes to answer for - just as the report says.

However, as a supposedly civilized nation acting with a regular military i find israel's actions to be a bit more egregious.

I find them very restrained as no other nation would leave armed response so long before dropping a bomb on the palest8inians hads

 

[ogibillm]

Regardless of who started what, or who provoked who, the fundamental question is one of proportionality.

Example 1: I shoot a rocket in your general direction (no harm done) You send a drone or a helicopter and destroy my missile launcher (maybe kill or injure me or my friends). That's a proportional response and no-one bats an eyelid, because if I'm injured as a result of my actions, that's just tough, I shouldn't have shot the rocket in the first place unless I was prepared to take the risk of being injured or killed by return fire.

Example 2: I shoot a rocket in your general direction (no real harm done) You send artillery, missiles and airstrikes that decimate and demolish my entire neighbourhood, slaughter hundreds of innocent people at a time, if not thousands, and force thousands of others to seek refuge wherever they can, then launch a ground invasion, that's a disproportionate response and at the very least a crime against humanity, if not an act of genocide. This is why people get upset, the world considers the "rabid dog" response to be a bit passé in the 21st century and is beginning to have serious concerns about your mental state.

Regardless of who started what, or who provoked who, the fundamental question is one of proportionality.

Terrorists do not deserve a proportionate response.
Add to that the fact that the terrorists launch from civilian areas
making a proportionate response impossible.

This is why people get upset

The people who get upset are idiots or terror supporters.

I shoot a rocket in your general direction (no real harm done)

If the rocket kills a couple of dozen children, then can the launching neighborhood be demolished?

No harm done? Asshole!

how many israelis have died in the last year or so from rocket attacks?

are the rocket attacks not a response to irsaeli attacks? i don't know, but you're making it seem that retaliation should have no limit. seems you could use that logic to easily justify rocket attacks. or are you saying only israel has the right to retaliate?

Irrelevant as the rockets are illegal weapons of terrorism.

No because they started when Israel had no troops in gaza and there was no blockade. So no attacks by Israel and it took 9 months before the Palestinians could justify the constant rocket bombardments. 2,000 rockets fired before Israel took action and it ended in gaza being badly damaged and the loss of 1500 Palestinians. Then last year over 200 rockets and the murders of 3 Israel boys sparked a similar response that resulted on more of gaza being flattened and 2000 dead Palestinians. A perfectly reasonable response to terrorist attacks don't you think ?

you're oversimplifying. the grievances aren't recent, and pretending you can pin the start of the conflict solely on the palestinians is asinine.

that said, they have a lot more to retaliate for these days than israel does. what of the palestinians arrested and held, how about the homes knocked over, the murders at the hands of israelis? does that not warrant retaliation?

you're never going to be able to get everyone to agree on who started it. that's kindergarten bullshit anyhow. if there will ever be peace israel will have to learn to respond appropriately.

Cause and effect if the Palestinians did not resort to violence then Israel would not need to retaliate. What is so hard to understand about that. The problem started way back in the 7C when mohammed wiped out the Jews in medina and commanded all muslims to KILL THE UNBELIEVERS

cause and effect - if israel didn't displace the palestinians there'd be no need for retaliation.

it's gone on too long and both sides have contributed to its start and continuation and both have legitimate reason to point that finger at the other side. giving one side a pass and pretending their hands are clean is what will keep war going. could be it's time for both sides to take responsibility.

 

[ogibillm]

Don't get me wrong, i think both sides have crimes to answer for - just as the report says.

However, as a supposedly civilized nation acting with a regular military i find israel's actions to be a bit more egregious.

I find them very restrained as no other nation would leave armed response so long before dropping a bomb on the palest8inians hads

that's because you're biased. a hundreds to one kill ratio is not restrained. dozens of civilians killed and injured for every miliant killed is not restrained.

 

[Challenger]

Intelligent people.

In your case, I seriously doubt that.

 

[fanger]

THE UN’s BLURRED VISION,
“Balance” in UN Gaza report can’t hide massive Israeli war crimes
Israel systematically targeted
residential buildings and infrastructure without any apparent military justification. The horror of what Israel did, detailed in the 183-page report, cannot be adequately summarized here.

But a key finding is that the mass destruction and killing inflicted by Israel, often amounting to war crimes, “may have constituted military tactics reflective of a broader policy, approved at least tacitly by decision-makers at the highest levels of the Government of Israel.”

This finding provides an important basis for Palestinians to pursue Israeli leaders, not just their uniformed subordinates, and bring them to justice in international courts.

The report also confirms that Israel remains the occupying power in Gaza as far as international law is concerned, because it continues to exercise “effective control” over the territory. Israel is therefore subject to all the legal obligations of an occupying power to protect civilians there.

Israeli obstruction
The commission was made up of two independent experts: former New York Supreme Court Justice Mary McGowan Davis, who chaired it, and Senegal’s Doudou Diène, a former UN special rapporteur on racism.

The previous chair, Canadian international law expert William Schabas, resigned from the commission in February under relentless Israeli criticism and pressure.

Israel’s concern about the make up of the committee was not matched by a willingness to cooperate with its work. Israel refused to respond to any requests for information and barred the investigators from traveling to the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip or to present-day Israel.

The Egyptian military regime also colluded with Israel by blocking investigators entering Gaza through the Rafah crossing.

The report cites Israel’s “military culture” resulting from this and other policies as “a contributing factor for the unleashing of massive firepower on Rafah, in total disregard for its impact on the civilian population.”

It also finds that Israeli commanders continued the attack for hours even when they must have known about the catastrophic death and injury they were causing to civilians – in itself a potential war crime.


As for tunnels dug from Gaza into present-day Israel, the report is blunt: “during the period under examination, the tunnels were only used to conduct attacks directed at IDF positions in Israel in the vicinity of the Green Line, which are legitimate military targets.”
The crimes allegedly committed by Israel are massive compared to anything allegedly done by Palestinians.

There can also be no moral equivalence between the legitimate self-defense and resistance of a people under occupation and the aggression of an occupier whose aim is to subject millions of people to its unopposed military tyranny.

It is also apparent that most, though not all, of the transgressions alleged against Palestinians are an artifact of the inferior and unguided weapons, often locally made in Gaza, that are available to resistance groups.

But the approach of the so-called “international community” has been to deny Palestinians the means to resist against Israeli occupation forces and then to condemn them for using what they have.

Despite this, the fact remains that while Israel mostly killed civilians, Palestinians mostly killed Israeli soldiers. Indeed, 65 percent of those killed by Israel were civilians, while 90 percent of those killed by Palestinians were armed combatant soldiers.

Boycott, divestment and sanctions, for instance, must be recognized and promoted by the so-called international community as a legitimate means of resistance supplementing other forms of legitimate resistance to colonial occupation.

As for Israel, its strategy with this investigation as in others, was to try to obstruct it and then to whine that it is unfair and biased. If Israel is so certain that its actions were legal and correct, it should have nothing to hide.
THE UN s BLURRED VISION Desertpeace

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Intelligent people.

In your case, I seriously doubt that.

Terror lover says what?

 

[montelatici]

Intelligent people.

In your case, I seriously doubt that.

Terror lover says what?

Looks like the UN report has identified the war criminals.

 

[Phoenall]

Don't get me wrong, i think both sides have crimes to answer for - just as the report says.

However, as a supposedly civilized nation acting with a regular military i find israel's actions to be a bit more egregious.

I find them very restrained as no other nation would leave armed response so long before dropping a bomb on the palest8inians hads

that's because you're biased. a hundreds to one kill ratio is not restrained. dozens of civilians killed and injured for every miliant killed is not restrained.

Not acting on the first rocket but waiting until 200 have been fired is being restrained. It has nothing to do with kill ratios that is just stupidity talking. Would you prefer that Israel chose at random a rocket launcher and fired a guided missile at it without warning, a one for one exchange that would result in many more deaths on the Palestinian side. Just imagine what effect your proportionality would have then when a scud or similar landed in the garden of a civilian home

 

[Phoenall]

THE UN’s BLURRED VISION,
“Balance” in UN Gaza report can’t hide massive Israeli war crimes
Israel systematically targeted
residential buildings and infrastructure without any apparent military justification. The horror of what Israel did, detailed in the 183-page report, cannot be adequately summarized here.

But a key finding is that the mass destruction and killing inflicted by Israel, often amounting to war crimes, “may have constituted military tactics reflective of a broader policy, approved at least tacitly by decision-makers at the highest levels of the Government of Israel.”

This finding provides an important basis for Palestinians to pursue Israeli leaders, not just their uniformed subordinates, and bring them to justice in international courts.

The report also confirms that Israel remains the occupying power in Gaza as far as international law is concerned, because it continues to exercise “effective control” over the territory. Israel is therefore subject to all the legal obligations of an occupying power to protect civilians there.

Israeli obstruction
The commission was made up of two independent experts: former New York Supreme Court Justice Mary McGowan Davis, who chaired it, and Senegal’s Doudou Diène, a former UN special rapporteur on racism.

The previous chair, Canadian international law expert William Schabas, resigned from the commission in February under relentless Israeli criticism and pressure.

Israel’s concern about the make up of the committee was not matched by a willingness to cooperate with its work. Israel refused to respond to any requests for information and barred the investigators from traveling to the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip or to present-day Israel.

The Egyptian military regime also colluded with Israel by blocking investigators entering Gaza through the Rafah crossing.

The report cites Israel’s “military culture” resulting from this and other policies as “a contributing factor for the unleashing of massive firepower on Rafah, in total disregard for its impact on the civilian population.”

It also finds that Israeli commanders continued the attack for hours even when they must have known about the catastrophic death and injury they were causing to civilians – in itself a potential war crime.


As for tunnels dug from Gaza into present-day Israel, the report is blunt: “during the period under examination, the tunnels were only used to conduct attacks directed at IDF positions in Israel in the vicinity of the Green Line, which are legitimate military targets.”
The crimes allegedly committed by Israel are massive compared to anything allegedly done by Palestinians.

There can also be no moral equivalence between the legitimate self-defense and resistance of a people under occupation and the aggression of an occupier whose aim is to subject millions of people to its unopposed military tyranny.

It is also apparent that most, though not all, of the transgressions alleged against Palestinians are an artifact of the inferior and unguided weapons, often locally made in Gaza, that are available to resistance groups.

But the approach of the so-called “international community” has been to deny Palestinians the means to resist against Israeli occupation forces and then to condemn them for using what they have.

Despite this, the fact remains that while Israel mostly killed civilians, Palestinians mostly killed Israeli soldiers. Indeed, 65 percent of those killed by Israel were civilians, while 90 percent of those killed by Palestinians were armed combatant soldiers.

Boycott, divestment and sanctions, for instance, must be recognized and promoted by the so-called international community as a legitimate means of resistance supplementing other forms of legitimate resistance to colonial occupation.

As for Israel, its strategy with this investigation as in others, was to try to obstruct it and then to whine that it is unfair and biased. If Israel is so certain that its actions were legal and correct, it should have nothing to hide.
THE UN s BLURRED VISION Desertpeace

Guess who shot themselves in the foot again

The shortURL address: THE UN s BLURRED VISION Desertpeace does not exist. Either you made a typo, the link you followed had a typo, or this shortURL has been deleted for spamming or other abuse.

 

[Phoenall]

Intelligent people.

In your case, I seriously doubt that.

Terror lover says what?

Looks like the UN report has identified the war criminals.

The shortURL address: THE UN s BLURRED VISION Desertpeace does not exist. Either you made a typo, the link you followed had a typo, or this shortURL has been deleted for spamming or other abuse.



Looks like the terrorist lovers will believe any shite as long as it attacks Israel

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

I would take a moment and read the report.

Intelligent people.

In your case, I seriously doubt that.

Terror lover says what?

Looks like the UN report has identified the war criminals.

(QUESTION)

Have you actually read the Report of the Independent Commission of Inquiry established pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution S-21/1 (A/HRC/29/52) (Advanced Edited Version)? Or, have you read the Report of the detailed findings of the Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza Conflict
A/HRC/29/CRP.4 ?

(COMMENT)

The Report is poorly organized and very simplistic and childlike. It certainly does not resemble either a Criminal Investigation or an After Action Report. Be that as it may, the body of the report slings some allegations; however - the recommendation is:

"actively the work of the International Criminal Court in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory; to exercise universal jurisdiction to try international crimes in national courts; and to comply with extradition requests pertaining to suspects of such crimes to countries where they would face a fair trial."​

It does not suggest who should be prosecuted and for what.

I particularly like the part where the Commission essential argues that Israel maintains "effective control" over Gaza. This is really an argument that Israel should establish Martial Law over Gaza and re-occupy Gaza. If in fact, Israel maintains effective control then it is Israel's lack of control that allows 5000 Jihadist, Fedayeen, Insurgents and Terrorist to operate freely in the Gaza Strip.

While I believe this Report is just a travesty on UN Fact-Finding Missions, and cast a grave shadow over the professional capability and integrity of the UNHRC. And it is up to Judge Mary McGowen-Davis to put the report in proper context. The report tends to treat the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) and Palestinian Armed Groups (ie Israel and Palestine) evenly, it refused to address the matter of who the Aggressor was and who was the Defender.

The Report is just that, a summary of several events that on which a group of non-military experts examined the situation and made both legal and military determination beyond their knowledge, skills and abilities.

I'm not sure what the backlash will be, but, it could have the exact opposite effect from its intended purpose. Anytime a non-military oriented group writes a report suggesting that rockets and mortars can be fire with impunity from built-up residential areas, and does not realize that “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts." And the Palestinians did that quite often.

Anytime senior officials of HAMAS “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts."

And I think that Judge McGowen Davis knows this.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

fanger, et al,

I would not ride that horse too high.

THE UN’s BLURRED VISION,

“Balance” in UN Gaza report can’t hide massive Israeli war crimes
Israel systematically targeted
residential buildings and infrastructure without any apparent military justification. The horror of what Israel did, detailed in the 183-page report, cannot be adequately summarized here.

But a key finding is that the mass destruction and killing inflicted by Israel, often amounting to war crimes, “may have constituted military tactics reflective of a broader policy, approved at least tacitly by decision-makers at the highest levels of the Government of Israel.”

(COMMENT)

The Report did not recommend prosecution on any level. The recommendation was to back the ICC Investigation.

Most Respectfully,
R