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

[Roudy]

"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

As usual Monte the bullshitter looks at the half empty glass. The report blamed both sides. But especially the Palestinians who instigated the Israelis.

 

[Roudy]

Truly, based on the death toll the Palestinians need to learn the first law of the hole. When you're already in one ---stop digging!

That's what the white-South Africans, the Rhodesians and the French in Algeria (and their supporters) would say. Amazing how those with a racist mindset never change.

False comparison after false comparison. Speaking of the racist mindsets, do I need to remind you once again that Palestinians are the bastard children of the marriage between the Nazis and Arab Islamic nationalists?

Hitler s Mufti Catholic Answers

This was described by al-Husseini in his own memoirs:

Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish people in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: "The Jews are yours." (Ami Isseroff and Peter FitzGerald-Morris, "The Iraq Coup Attempt of 1941, the Mufti, and the Farhud")

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Intelligent people.

In your case, I seriously doubt that.

Terror lover says what?

Looks like the UN report has identified the war criminals.

At least one of them bought it in that nice video up thread.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

a hundreds to one kill ratio is not restrained.

It's not Israel's fault your terrorist buddies are so bad at it.

dozens of civilians killed and injured for every miliant killed is not restrained.

If the Arab pussies would stop hiding amongst civilians, many fewer civilians would be hurt.

 

[montelatici]

Truly, based on the death toll the Palestinians need to learn the first law of the hole. When you're already in one ---stop digging!

That's what the white-South Africans, the Rhodesians and the French in Algeria (and their supporters) would say. Amazing how those with a racist mindset never change.

False comparison after false comparison. Speaking of the racist mindsets, do I need to remind you once again that Palestinians are the bastard children of the marriage between the Nazis and Arab Islamic nationalists?

Hitler s Mufti Catholic Answers

This was described by al-Husseini in his own memoirs:

Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish people in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: "The Jews are yours." (Ami Isseroff and Peter FitzGerald-Morris, "The Iraq Coup Attempt of 1941, the Mufti, and the Farhud")

Perfect analogy. And the racists keep doing the same thing over and over again.

 

[Challenger]

Truly, based on the death toll the Palestinians need to learn the first law of the hole. When you're already in one ---stop digging!

That's what the white-South Africans, the Rhodesians and the French in Algeria (and their supporters) would say. Amazing how those with a racist mindset never change.

False comparison after false comparison. Speaking of the racist mindsets, do I need to remind you once again that Palestinians are the bastard children of the marriage between the Nazis and Arab Islamic nationalists?

Hitler s Mufti Catholic Answers

This was described by al-Husseini in his own memoirs:

Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish people in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: "The Jews are yours." (Ami Isseroff and Peter FitzGerald-Morris, "The Iraq Coup Attempt of 1941, the Mufti, and the Farhud")

Really? His memoirs were stolen by Christian militias in 1974. Care to provide a link to the actual memoirs?

 

[Challenger]

Intelligent people.

In your case, I seriously doubt that.

Terror lover says what?

We had 30+ years of our own "disagreement" with the Irish Republican movement and we never carpet-bombed West Belfast, no matter how many bombs they set off in Britain nor how many British civillians they killed. We now have peace with the Irish and apart from a few "die-hards" and criminal gangs, that peace has held. There's maybe a lesson to be learned there. The white South African regime, never carpet bombed Soweto and now South Africa has had a peaceful resolution to it's conflict.

Thanks for the personal attack, it shows I'm right and you have no answer.

 

[Challenger]

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

Pity that Zionist Israel refused to co-operate, again. Do they have a "plead the 5th" in International Law? or does that only apply to the Zionists?

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

What is the Dahiya Doctrine?

 

[Challenger]

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

What is the Dahiya Doctrine?

Interesting, thanks for sharing. Now we know why Zionist Israel doesn't dare join the ICC.

 

[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

THE UN s BLURRED VISION Desertpeace

 

[Phoenall]

Intelligent people.

In your case, I seriously doubt that.

Terror lover says what?

We had 30+ years of our own "disagreement" with the Irish Republican movement and we never carpet-bombed West Belfast, no matter how many bombs they set off in Britain nor how many British civillians they killed. We now have peace with the Irish and apart from a few "die-hards" and criminal gangs, that peace has held. There's maybe a lesson to be learned there. The white South African regime, never carpet bombed Soweto and now South Africa has had a peaceful resolution to it's conflict.

Thanks for the personal attack, it shows I'm right and you have no answer.

When was the last time you went to Belfast then ?

The blacks in South Africa are living in fear of the gangs under the control of neo Marxists who have increased the violence, rape, nurdert and crime stats to the worst in the world. More blacks murdered by blacks in a month now that the whites killed in a year.




So that is why you resort to constant personal attacks is it ?

 

[Phoenall]

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

Pity that Zionist Israel refused to co-operate, again. Do they have a "plead the 5th" in International Law? or does that only apply to the Zionists?

What are you whittering about now rat boy, do you even know ?

 

[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

What is the Dahiya Doctrine?

Interesting, thanks for sharing. Now we know why Zionist Israel doesn't dare join the ICC.

They did, and then found out that it is ran by islaminazi's, so they left. As did the US I believe along with many other states.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Charging Israel with War Crimes | Interview with Francis Boyle

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What is your point? The Francis Boyle interview is an opinion arguing for one side alone, and not a legal evaluation of both sides simultaneously. While a good presentation for the pro-Palestinian side, it is not balanced.

Charging Israel with War Crimes | Interview with Francis Boyle

(COMMENT)

The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) and the State of Palestine have both committed violations of International Law. In fact the HoAP not only declared Jihad (WAR) against Israel, but committed acts of war against Israel.

In some respects, the current conflict can be seen as a continuation of the 1948 War of Independence for Israel.

While the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion 9 July 2004, General List 131, it is a unstable decision and still an opinion that needs litigation. Israel does not maintain "effective control" in that it does not have the ability to impose Law and Order such that it can prevent HoAP irregular forces from launching attacks directed by the Palestinian Government in the Gaza Strip. Second, in actuality and under the Oslo II Accords (Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) Hostile/Belligerent Government of Palestine has full civil and security control that is exercised by the Palestinian Authority in Area "A"; and within Area "B" the Hostile/Belligerent Palestinian Authority maintains civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control. Within the Gaza Strip, under the control of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), which is part of the Unity Government over Palestine, has near complete control (civil and Security) maintained through the irregular paramilitary Jihadist (mainly the Izz Al Din Al Qassam Brigades and Al Quds Brigades --- but also includes the Al Nasser Salah Al Din Brigades of the Popular Resistance Committees, Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades, Popular Front for the Liberation of Paestine, + Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and the National Resistance Brigades); having some 5000 to 6000 insurgent fighters.

These two questions need to be formally answered before things go to far.

• Is this a continuation of the 1948 War?
• Is the Gaza Strip contained by Israeli Forces, or is it under the Effective Control of Israeli Forces?
• What impact, if any, does that have on Palestinian Statehood?
• Does a "State of War" exist between the State of Israel and the the State of Palestine?

Another point to be made hear is that through a slight of hand, the Recent UN Human Rights Council Report ( A/HRC/29/CRP.4) did not evaluate the past criminal history of the Palestinians to establish a pattern of wrong doing and Humanitarian/War Crimes. It conveniently starts 13 June 2014. Nor did it under international humanitarian law and international human rights law establish the facts and circumstances of such violations and of the crimes perpetrated and to identify those responsible. The reason for this is not published, but it might be because the Palestinians do not have clean hands.

“The commission was able to gather substantial information pointing to serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law by Israel and by Palestinian armed groups,”​

In the case of the Frank Boyle interview, I say this. The legal system is an adversarial system. The Defense side against the Prosecutors side. Boyle picked to Prosecute the Israelis. But his evaluation and interpretation is not the end all - be all of the legal issues. A Israeli can only be held criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court if the material elements of the offense are committed with intent and knowledge.

I noticed that Frank Boyle and the Commission Report mentioned that something about the Israeli's committing a Crime Against Humanity for building Settlement in Area "C"; in which they cite Article 7(2d) of the Rome Statutes.

• Article 7 (2) (d) Crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer of population
  • Element 1. The perpetrator deported or forcibly transferred, without grounds permitted under international law, one or more persons to another State or location, by expulsion or other coercive acts.
    • 12 The term “forcibly” is not restricted to physical force, but may include threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment.
    • 13 “Deported or forcibly transferred” is interchangeable with “forcibly displaced”.
  • Element 2. Such person or persons were lawfully present in the area from which they were so deported or transferred.
  • Element 3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the lawfulness of such presence.
  • Element 4. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
  • Element 5. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

And then there was this constant cry on War Crimes.

• Article 8 (2) (b) (i) War crime of attacking civilians
  • Element 1. The perpetrator directed an attack.
  • Element 2. The object of the attack was a civilian population as such or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities.
  • Element 3. The perpetrator intended the civilian population as such or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities to be the object of the attack.
  • Element 4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
  • Element 5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

• Article 8 (2) (b) (ii) War crime of attacking civilian objects
  • Element 1. The perpetrator directed an attack.
  • Element 2. The object of the attack was civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives.
  • Element 3. The perpetrator intended such civilian objects to be the object of the attack.
  • Element 4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
  • Element 5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

If one element is missing, there is no crime. The common element is the "intent." In one case you have to prove that the Israel object of the attack was a civilian population; and in the other case you have to prove that the Israelis object of the attack was a civilian object.

In this respect, I find the UNHRC Inquiry less than useless. Relative to the OP (Post #1), it is not likely to be all that useful at the International Criminal Court. In fact the effect might go in the opposite direction.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What is your point? The Francis Boyle interview is an opinion arguing for one side alone, and not a legal evaluation of both sides simultaneously. While a good presentation for the pro-Palestinian side, it is not balanced.

Charging Israel with War Crimes | Interview with Francis Boyle

(COMMENT)

The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) and the State of Palestine have both committed violations of International Law. In fact the HoAP not only declared Jihad (WAR) against Israel, but committed acts of war against Israel.

In some respects, the current conflict can be seen as a continuation of the 1948 War of Independence for Israel.

While the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion 9 July 2004, General List 131, it is a unstable decision and still an opinion that needs litigation. Israel does not maintain "effective control" in that it does not have the ability to impose Law and Order such that it can prevent HoAP irregular forces from launching attacks directed by the Palestinian Government in the Gaza Strip. Second, in actuality and under the Oslo II Accords (Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) Hostile/Belligerent Government of Palestine has full civil and security control that is exercised by the Palestinian Authority in Area "A"; and within Area "B" the Hostile/Belligerent Palestinian Authority maintains civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control. Within the Gaza Strip, under the control of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), which is part of the Unity Government over Palestine, has near complete control (civil and Security) maintained through the irregular paramilitary Jihadist (mainly the Izz Al Din Al Qassam Brigades and Al Quds Brigades --- but also includes the Al Nasser Salah Al Din Brigades of the Popular Resistance Committees, Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades, Popular Front for the Liberation of Paestine, + Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and the National Resistance Brigades); having some 5000 to 6000 insurgent fighters.

These two questions need to be formally answered before things go to far.

• Is this a continuation of the 1948 War?
• Is the Gaza Strip contained by Israeli Forces, or is it under the Effective Control of Israeli Forces?
• What impact, if any, does that have on Palestinian Statehood?
• Does a "State of War" exist between the State of Israel and the the State of Palestine?

Another point to be made hear is that through a slight of hand, the Recent UN Human Rights Council Report ( A/HRC/29/CRP.4) did not evaluate the past criminal history of the Palestinians to establish a pattern of wrong doing and Humanitarian/War Crimes. It conveniently starts 13 June 2014. Nor did it under international humanitarian law and international human rights law establish the facts and circumstances of such violations and of the crimes perpetrated and to identify those responsible. The reason for this is not published, but it might be because the Palestinians do not have clean hands.

“The commission was able to gather substantial information pointing to serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law by Israel and by Palestinian armed groups,”​

In the case of the Frank Boyle interview, I say this. The legal system is an adversarial system. The Defense side against the Prosecutors side. Boyle picked to Prosecute the Israelis. But his evaluation and interpretation is not the end all - be all of the legal issues. A Israeli can only be held criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court if the material elements of the offense are committed with intent and knowledge.

I noticed that Frank Boyle and the Commission Report mentioned that something about the Israeli's committing a Crime Against Humanity for building Settlement in Area "C"; in which they cite Article 7(2d) of the Rome Statutes.

• Article 7 (2) (d) Crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer of population
  • Element 1. The perpetrator deported or forcibly transferred, without grounds permitted under international law, one or more persons to another State or location, by expulsion or other coercive acts.
    • 12 The term “forcibly” is not restricted to physical force, but may include threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment.
    • 13 “Deported or forcibly transferred” is interchangeable with “forcibly displaced”.
  • Element 2. Such person or persons were lawfully present in the area from which they were so deported or transferred.
  • Element 3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the lawfulness of such presence.
  • Element 4. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
  • Element 5. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

And then there was this constant cry on War Crimes.

• Article 8 (2) (b) (i) War crime of attacking civilians
  • Element 1. The perpetrator directed an attack.
  • Element 2. The object of the attack was a civilian population as such or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities.
  • Element 3. The perpetrator intended the civilian population as such or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities to be the object of the attack.
  • Element 4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
  • Element 5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

• Article 8 (2) (b) (ii) War crime of attacking civilian objects
  • Element 1. The perpetrator directed an attack.
  • Element 2. The object of the attack was civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives.
  • Element 3. The perpetrator intended such civilian objects to be the object of the attack.
  • Element 4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
  • Element 5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

If one element is missing, there is no crime. The common element is the "intent." In one case you have to prove that the Israel object of the attack was a civilian population; and in the other case you have to prove that the Israelis object of the attack was a civilian object.

In this respect, I find the UNHRC Inquiry less than useless. Relative to the OP (Post #1), it is not likely to be all that useful at the International Criminal Court. In fact the effect might go in the opposite direction.

Most Respectfully,
R

-All elements of a crime do not have to be present.

Pursuant to the treaty:

"1. Elements of Crimes shall assist the Court in the interpretation and application of articles 6, 7 and 8. "

Bombing UN schools whose coordinates had been provided to the IDF covers intent.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What is your point? The Francis Boyle interview is an opinion arguing for one side alone, and not a legal evaluation of both sides simultaneously. While a good presentation for the pro-Palestinian side, it is not balanced.

Charging Israel with War Crimes | Interview with Francis Boyle

(COMMENT)

The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) and the State of Palestine have both committed violations of International Law. In fact the HoAP not only declared Jihad (WAR) against Israel, but committed acts of war against Israel.

In some respects, the current conflict can be seen as a continuation of the 1948 War of Independence for Israel.

While the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion 9 July 2004, General List 131, it is a unstable decision and still an opinion that needs litigation. Israel does not maintain "effective control" in that it does not have the ability to impose Law and Order such that it can prevent HoAP irregular forces from launching attacks directed by the Palestinian Government in the Gaza Strip. Second, in actuality and under the Oslo II Accords (Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) Hostile/Belligerent Government of Palestine has full civil and security control that is exercised by the Palestinian Authority in Area "A"; and within Area "B" the Hostile/Belligerent Palestinian Authority maintains civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control. Within the Gaza Strip, under the control of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), which is part of the Unity Government over Palestine, has near complete control (civil and Security) maintained through the irregular paramilitary Jihadist (mainly the Izz Al Din Al Qassam Brigades and Al Quds Brigades --- but also includes the Al Nasser Salah Al Din Brigades of the Popular Resistance Committees, Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades, Popular Front for the Liberation of Paestine, + Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and the National Resistance Brigades); having some 5000 to 6000 insurgent fighters.

These two questions need to be formally answered before things go to far.

• Is this a continuation of the 1948 War?
• Is the Gaza Strip contained by Israeli Forces, or is it under the Effective Control of Israeli Forces?
• What impact, if any, does that have on Palestinian Statehood?
• Does a "State of War" exist between the State of Israel and the the State of Palestine?

Another point to be made hear is that through a slight of hand, the Recent UN Human Rights Council Report ( A/HRC/29/CRP.4) did not evaluate the past criminal history of the Palestinians to establish a pattern of wrong doing and Humanitarian/War Crimes. It conveniently starts 13 June 2014. Nor did it under international humanitarian law and international human rights law establish the facts and circumstances of such violations and of the crimes perpetrated and to identify those responsible. The reason for this is not published, but it might be because the Palestinians do not have clean hands.

“The commission was able to gather substantial information pointing to serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law by Israel and by Palestinian armed groups,”​

In the case of the Frank Boyle interview, I say this. The legal system is an adversarial system. The Defense side against the Prosecutors side. Boyle picked to Prosecute the Israelis. But his evaluation and interpretation is not the end all - be all of the legal issues. A Israeli can only be held criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court if the material elements of the offense are committed with intent and knowledge.

I noticed that Frank Boyle and the Commission Report mentioned that something about the Israeli's committing a Crime Against Humanity for building Settlement in Area "C"; in which they cite Article 7(2d) of the Rome Statutes.

• Article 7 (2) (d) Crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer of population
  • Element 1. The perpetrator deported or forcibly transferred, without grounds permitted under international law, one or more persons to another State or location, by expulsion or other coercive acts.
    • 12 The term “forcibly” is not restricted to physical force, but may include threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment.
    • 13 “Deported or forcibly transferred” is interchangeable with “forcibly displaced”.
  • Element 2. Such person or persons were lawfully present in the area from which they were so deported or transferred.
  • Element 3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the lawfulness of such presence.
  • Element 4. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
  • Element 5. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

And then there was this constant cry on War Crimes.

• Article 8 (2) (b) (i) War crime of attacking civilians
  • Element 1. The perpetrator directed an attack.
  • Element 2. The object of the attack was a civilian population as such or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities.
  • Element 3. The perpetrator intended the civilian population as such or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities to be the object of the attack.
  • Element 4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
  • Element 5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

• Article 8 (2) (b) (ii) War crime of attacking civilian objects
  • Element 1. The perpetrator directed an attack.
  • Element 2. The object of the attack was civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives.
  • Element 3. The perpetrator intended such civilian objects to be the object of the attack.
  • Element 4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
  • Element 5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

If one element is missing, there is no crime. The common element is the "intent." In one case you have to prove that the Israel object of the attack was a civilian population; and in the other case you have to prove that the Israelis object of the attack was a civilian object.

In this respect, I find the UNHRC Inquiry less than useless. Relative to the OP (Post #1), it is not likely to be all that useful at the International Criminal Court. In fact the effect might go in the opposite direction.

Most Respectfully,
R

What is your point? The Francis Boyle interview is an opinion arguing for one side alone, and not a legal evaluation of both sides simultaneously. While a good presentation for the pro-Palestinian side, it is not balanced.​

There is no balance between occupier and occupied.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What is your point? The Francis Boyle interview is an opinion arguing for one side alone, and not a legal evaluation of both sides simultaneously. While a good presentation for the pro-Palestinian side, it is not balanced.

Charging Israel with War Crimes | Interview with Francis Boyle

(COMMENT)

The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) and the State of Palestine have both committed violations of International Law. In fact the HoAP not only declared Jihad (WAR) against Israel, but committed acts of war against Israel.

In some respects, the current conflict can be seen as a continuation of the 1948 War of Independence for Israel.

While the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion 9 July 2004, General List 131, it is a unstable decision and still an opinion that needs litigation. Israel does not maintain "effective control" in that it does not have the ability to impose Law and Order such that it can prevent HoAP irregular forces from launching attacks directed by the Palestinian Government in the Gaza Strip. Second, in actuality and under the Oslo II Accords (Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) Hostile/Belligerent Government of Palestine has full civil and security control that is exercised by the Palestinian Authority in Area "A"; and within Area "B" the Hostile/Belligerent Palestinian Authority maintains civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control. Within the Gaza Strip, under the control of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), which is part of the Unity Government over Palestine, has near complete control (civil and Security) maintained through the irregular paramilitary Jihadist (mainly the Izz Al Din Al Qassam Brigades and Al Quds Brigades --- but also includes the Al Nasser Salah Al Din Brigades of the Popular Resistance Committees, Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades, Popular Front for the Liberation of Paestine, + Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and the National Resistance Brigades); having some 5000 to 6000 insurgent fighters.

These two questions need to be formally answered before things go to far.

• Is this a continuation of the 1948 War?
• Is the Gaza Strip contained by Israeli Forces, or is it under the Effective Control of Israeli Forces?
• What impact, if any, does that have on Palestinian Statehood?
• Does a "State of War" exist between the State of Israel and the the State of Palestine?

Another point to be made hear is that through a slight of hand, the Recent UN Human Rights Council Report ( A/HRC/29/CRP.4) did not evaluate the past criminal history of the Palestinians to establish a pattern of wrong doing and Humanitarian/War Crimes. It conveniently starts 13 June 2014. Nor did it under international humanitarian law and international human rights law establish the facts and circumstances of such violations and of the crimes perpetrated and to identify those responsible. The reason for this is not published, but it might be because the Palestinians do not have clean hands.

“The commission was able to gather substantial information pointing to serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law by Israel and by Palestinian armed groups,”​

In the case of the Frank Boyle interview, I say this. The legal system is an adversarial system. The Defense side against the Prosecutors side. Boyle picked to Prosecute the Israelis. But his evaluation and interpretation is not the end all - be all of the legal issues. A Israeli can only be held criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court if the material elements of the offense are committed with intent and knowledge.

I noticed that Frank Boyle and the Commission Report mentioned that something about the Israeli's committing a Crime Against Humanity for building Settlement in Area "C"; in which they cite Article 7(2d) of the Rome Statutes.

• Article 7 (2) (d) Crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer of population
  • Element 1. The perpetrator deported or forcibly transferred, without grounds permitted under international law, one or more persons to another State or location, by expulsion or other coercive acts.
    • 12 The term “forcibly” is not restricted to physical force, but may include threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment.
    • 13 “Deported or forcibly transferred” is interchangeable with “forcibly displaced”.
  • Element 2. Such person or persons were lawfully present in the area from which they were so deported or transferred.
  • Element 3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the lawfulness of such presence.
  • Element 4. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
  • Element 5. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

And then there was this constant cry on War Crimes.

• Article 8 (2) (b) (i) War crime of attacking civilians
  • Element 1. The perpetrator directed an attack.
  • Element 2. The object of the attack was a civilian population as such or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities.
  • Element 3. The perpetrator intended the civilian population as such or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities to be the object of the attack.
  • Element 4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
  • Element 5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

• Article 8 (2) (b) (ii) War crime of attacking civilian objects
  • Element 1. The perpetrator directed an attack.
  • Element 2. The object of the attack was civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives.
  • Element 3. The perpetrator intended such civilian objects to be the object of the attack.
  • Element 4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
  • Element 5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

If one element is missing, there is no crime. The common element is the "intent." In one case you have to prove that the Israel object of the attack was a civilian population; and in the other case you have to prove that the Israelis object of the attack was a civilian object.

In this respect, I find the UNHRC Inquiry less than useless. Relative to the OP (Post #1), it is not likely to be all that useful at the International Criminal Court. In fact the effect might go in the opposite direction.

Most Respectfully,
R

In some respects, the current conflict can be seen as a continuation of the 1948 War of Independence for Israel.​

It is.

Or the 1947 war or 1917.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What is your point? The Francis Boyle interview is an opinion arguing for one side alone, and not a legal evaluation of both sides simultaneously. While a good presentation for the pro-Palestinian side, it is not balanced.

Charging Israel with War Crimes | Interview with Francis Boyle

(COMMENT)

The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) and the State of Palestine have both committed violations of International Law. In fact the HoAP not only declared Jihad (WAR) against Israel, but committed acts of war against Israel.

In some respects, the current conflict can be seen as a continuation of the 1948 War of Independence for Israel.

While the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion 9 July 2004, General List 131, it is a unstable decision and still an opinion that needs litigation. Israel does not maintain "effective control" in that it does not have the ability to impose Law and Order such that it can prevent HoAP irregular forces from launching attacks directed by the Palestinian Government in the Gaza Strip. Second, in actuality and under the Oslo II Accords (Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) Hostile/Belligerent Government of Palestine has full civil and security control that is exercised by the Palestinian Authority in Area "A"; and within Area "B" the Hostile/Belligerent Palestinian Authority maintains civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control. Within the Gaza Strip, under the control of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), which is part of the Unity Government over Palestine, has near complete control (civil and Security) maintained through the irregular paramilitary Jihadist (mainly the Izz Al Din Al Qassam Brigades and Al Quds Brigades --- but also includes the Al Nasser Salah Al Din Brigades of the Popular Resistance Committees, Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades, Popular Front for the Liberation of Paestine, + Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and the National Resistance Brigades); having some 5000 to 6000 insurgent fighters.

These two questions need to be formally answered before things go to far.

• Is this a continuation of the 1948 War?
• Is the Gaza Strip contained by Israeli Forces, or is it under the Effective Control of Israeli Forces?
• What impact, if any, does that have on Palestinian Statehood?
• Does a "State of War" exist between the State of Israel and the the State of Palestine?

Another point to be made hear is that through a slight of hand, the Recent UN Human Rights Council Report ( A/HRC/29/CRP.4) did not evaluate the past criminal history of the Palestinians to establish a pattern of wrong doing and Humanitarian/War Crimes. It conveniently starts 13 June 2014. Nor did it under international humanitarian law and international human rights law establish the facts and circumstances of such violations and of the crimes perpetrated and to identify those responsible. The reason for this is not published, but it might be because the Palestinians do not have clean hands.

“The commission was able to gather substantial information pointing to serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law by Israel and by Palestinian armed groups,”​

In the case of the Frank Boyle interview, I say this. The legal system is an adversarial system. The Defense side against the Prosecutors side. Boyle picked to Prosecute the Israelis. But his evaluation and interpretation is not the end all - be all of the legal issues. A Israeli can only be held criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court if the material elements of the offense are committed with intent and knowledge.

I noticed that Frank Boyle and the Commission Report mentioned that something about the Israeli's committing a Crime Against Humanity for building Settlement in Area "C"; in which they cite Article 7(2d) of the Rome Statutes.

• Article 7 (2) (d) Crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer of population
  • Element 1. The perpetrator deported or forcibly transferred, without grounds permitted under international law, one or more persons to another State or location, by expulsion or other coercive acts.
    • 12 The term “forcibly” is not restricted to physical force, but may include threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment.
    • 13 “Deported or forcibly transferred” is interchangeable with “forcibly displaced”.
  • Element 2. Such person or persons were lawfully present in the area from which they were so deported or transferred.
  • Element 3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the lawfulness of such presence.
  • Element 4. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
  • Element 5. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

And then there was this constant cry on War Crimes.

• Article 8 (2) (b) (i) War crime of attacking civilians
  • Element 1. The perpetrator directed an attack.
  • Element 2. The object of the attack was a civilian population as such or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities.
  • Element 3. The perpetrator intended the civilian population as such or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities to be the object of the attack.
  • Element 4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
  • Element 5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

• Article 8 (2) (b) (ii) War crime of attacking civilian objects
  • Element 1. The perpetrator directed an attack.
  • Element 2. The object of the attack was civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives.
  • Element 3. The perpetrator intended such civilian objects to be the object of the attack.
  • Element 4. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
  • Element 5. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.

If one element is missing, there is no crime. The common element is the "intent." In one case you have to prove that the Israel object of the attack was a civilian population; and in the other case you have to prove that the Israelis object of the attack was a civilian object.

In this respect, I find the UNHRC Inquiry less than useless. Relative to the OP (Post #1), it is not likely to be all that useful at the International Criminal Court. In fact the effect might go in the opposite direction.

Most Respectfully,
R

-All elements of a crime do not have to be present.

Pursuant to the treaty:

"1. Elements of Crimes shall assist the Court in the interpretation and application of articles 6, 7 and 8. "

Bombing UN schools whose coordinates had been provided to the IDF covers intent.

Bombing UN schools whose coordinates had been provided to the IDF covers intent.

Were those the schools your terrorist buddies were launching rockets from?