On December 02 2012 03:25 Goozen wrote: Legal arguments According to Princeton University professor emeritus of international law Richard Falk, there exists an "overwhelming consensus" view among qualified international law specialists that both the blockade and its enforcement are illegal.[21] In September 2011, a UN investigative committee concluded in the Palmer Report that the blockade is legal.[18][19][20] The findings of the Palmer report on the legality of the blockade were disputed by a panel of five UN human rights experts, who said that the blockade amounted to a "flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law".[151] The panel said the Palmer report failed to recognize that the naval blockade was part of Israel's closure policy toward Gaza, which disproportionately affects civilians. Richard Falk said the authors of the Palmer report were poorly qualified to assess legal aspects of the blockade,[21] and that they were politically motivated to find the naval blockade legal.[151] Since 2005 Israel asserts that it ended its occupation of Gaza when it disengaged from the coastal strip in 2005.[152][153] After Israel's unilateral disengagement plan from the Gaza strip, Israel no longer has troops stationed within Gaza. Israel has retained control over Gaza's airspace and coastline, and over its own border with the territory. Egypt has control of its border with Gaza. Israel and Egypt also control the flow of goods in and out. Israel controls fuel imports to Gaza, and also controls the majority of electricity used in Gaza (approximately 60%), which it supplies from the Israeli electrical grid.[37][154] There have been a series of attacks by Israeli ground forces such as the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, as well as rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and cross-border attacks by Gazan militant groups against Israeli troops. Human Rights Watch argues that Israel is still an occupying power and is responsible for Gaza under the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, which seeks to protect the civilian population.[37] BBC's World Affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds said that if Gaza is treated as a "hostile entity" the question is whether the measures used by Israel and Egypt sufficiently distinguish between civilian and military. The 1977 amendment to the Geneva Conventions protocols prohibits the use of collective measures that do not distinguish between civilians and military.[37] The amendment protects civilian populations in time of conflicts that fall short of war. Israel has not signed these protocols but there is an expectation internationally that it should respect them.[37] Hamas does not administer an internationally recognized state and also has not signed these protocols. Amnesty International said that “The blockade constitutes collective punishment under international law and must be lifted immediately,” and that as the occupying power, Israel has a duty under international law to ensure the welfare of Gaza’s inhabitants, including their rights to health, education, food and adequate housing.[155] Justus Weiner and Avi Bell of the JCPA said that Israel’s combat actions and blockade cannot be considered collective punishment. They cite Article 75(4)(b) of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, which says the bar on collective punishment forbids the imposition of criminal-type penalties on individuals or groups on the basis of another’s guilt, or the commission of acts that would otherwise violate the rules of distinction and/or proportionality.[156] According to Weiner and Bell, the blockade does not "involve the imposition of criminal-type penalties or the violation of the rules of distinction and proportionality."[157] source
So the blockade is illegal... that's what we are saying.
In September 2011, a UN investigative committee concluded in the Palmer Report that the blockade is legal Nope, navel is legal according to the UN
Are you kidding ? The article you posted contains EIGHT people/organisations that deem the blockade illegal, and five of them work for the UN. 8 to 1 is pretty good odds you know.
But they are not the UN, they are private NGO's with agendas and individuals with personal opinion.
Goozen. Before you mentioned UN to prove your point and dismissed other organization as biased. Now you say the opposte. What's going on here?
Show me proof of this that Israel targets these systematically and its not collateral from Hamas storing weapons in them. Saying we bomb hospitals, water stations and power plants (we supply water and power to gaza) is slander unless you show me hard proof that this is so. During cast led the entirety of Hamas's leadership hid under the hospital, so why not raze it?
Yeah why not, even tho the hospital is filled with civilians? right? The goal justifies the means.
The point was he was making baseless claims that if were true would show that Israel has no qualms doing this.
The report disputes Israel's claim that the Gaza war would have been conducted as a response to rockets fired from the Gaza Strip, saying that at least in part the war was targeted against the "people of Gaza as a whole". Intimidation against the population was seen as an aim of the war. The report also says that Israel's military assault on Gaza was designed to "humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability". The report focused on 36 cases that it said constituted a representative sample. In 11 of these episodes, it said the Israeli military carried out direct attacks against civilians, including some in which civilians were shot "while they were trying to leave their homes to walk to a safer place, waving white flags". Talking to Bill Moyers Journal, Goldstone said that the committee chose 36 incidents that represented the highest death toll, where there seemed to be little or no military justification for what happened. According to the report, another alleged war crime committed by IDF include "wanton" destruction of food production, water and sewerage facilities; the report also asserts that some attacks, which were supposedly aimed to kill small number of combatants amidst significant numbers of civilians, were disproportionate. The report concluded that Israel violated the Fourth Geneva Convention by targeting civilians, which it labeled "a grave breach". It also claimed that the violations were "systematic and deliberate", which placed the blame in the first place on those who designed, planned, ordered and oversaw the operations. The report recommended, inter alia, that Israel pay reparations to Palestinians living in Gaza for property damage caused during the conflict.
Now tell me how the UN is pro palestinian.... lol
Hi dog, once again misinterpreting what i said? I said they didnt target hospitals power station and waterworks as policy, but targeting weapon caches. Civilians will die in such conflicts because its a urban area and hamas makes use of it, here is a vid that will show the problem in a nutshell:
Did you read the quote ? It is specified that : the IDF targetted civilians and not fighters, the IDF targetted food production, water and sewerage facilities, in order to "humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself". Well, the goldstone report suggest that the attacks were design to do that, and not to kill hamas fighters or destroy weapon caches. It is 540 + pages documented and focus on 36 cases with highest death toll and no military justifications.
And yes, you link be a pityfull IDF bullshit video. Enlighten yourself.
So basically the IDF killed civilians by mistake and targetd weapon cache (but the UN says otherwise, clearly they are a pure and unbiased group) and yet the Hamas targeted civilians and used its own population as a human shield, but they are the good guys. right....
Are you really THIS blind ? Can't you read my quote ? They didn't killed civilians by mistake, the report specify that it was their goal to target civilians.
The report concluded that Israel violated the Fourth Geneva Convention by targeting civilians, which it labeled "a grave breach". It also claimed that the violations were "systematic and deliberate", which placed the blame in the first place on those who designed, planned, ordered and oversaw the operations.$
systemic and deliberate
And are you going to say that the UN is totally unbiased? they have been singled out more times then any single country and most combined yet will you claim that they are the worst global humans rights violate? you opinion is always one sided and your a internet professor, come here study the situation properly and i will give your opinion some weight. If Israels goal was to kill civilians there would be none left. but the population of gaza and the west bank have gone x3-x4 of what it was in 48. And you always ignore the fact the Hamas make full use of it being entrenched in the population and taking full advantage of it.
There it is, don't critic the fact, critic the source. They never argumented that israel wanted a genocide, the report says it is designed to put Palestinians in economic distress and assure their dependancy toward Israel.
I don't really care, I am really far from Palestine, yet I feel way more inform than you, who believe every piece of crap your army is pulling.
On December 01 2012 19:10 NEEDZMOAR wrote: [quote]
Im sorry but how is it terrorism when hamas is using guerilla tactics (because of their arsenal, believe me if they had access to the same weapons Israel have, they would use them...) but when Israeli forces are bombing waterstations, hospitals, powerplants etc its "just" Warfare??? HOW does this make any sense whatsoever?
its not its terror too.
Show me proof of this that Israel targets these systematically and its not collateral from Hamas storing weapons in them. Saying we bomb hospitals, water stations and power plants (we supply water and power to gaza) is slander unless you show me hard proof that this is so. During cast led the entirety of Hamas's leadership hid under the hospital, so why not raze it?
Yeah why not, even tho the hospital is filled with civilians? right? The goal justifies the means.
The point was he was making baseless claims that if were true would show that Israel has no qualms doing this.
The report disputes Israel's claim that the Gaza war would have been conducted as a response to rockets fired from the Gaza Strip, saying that at least in part the war was targeted against the "people of Gaza as a whole". Intimidation against the population was seen as an aim of the war. The report also says that Israel's military assault on Gaza was designed to "humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability". The report focused on 36 cases that it said constituted a representative sample. In 11 of these episodes, it said the Israeli military carried out direct attacks against civilians, including some in which civilians were shot "while they were trying to leave their homes to walk to a safer place, waving white flags". Talking to Bill Moyers Journal, Goldstone said that the committee chose 36 incidents that represented the highest death toll, where there seemed to be little or no military justification for what happened. According to the report, another alleged war crime committed by IDF include "wanton" destruction of food production, water and sewerage facilities; the report also asserts that some attacks, which were supposedly aimed to kill small number of combatants amidst significant numbers of civilians, were disproportionate. The report concluded that Israel violated the Fourth Geneva Convention by targeting civilians, which it labeled "a grave breach". It also claimed that the violations were "systematic and deliberate", which placed the blame in the first place on those who designed, planned, ordered and oversaw the operations. The report recommended, inter alia, that Israel pay reparations to Palestinians living in Gaza for property damage caused during the conflict.
Now tell me how the UN is pro palestinian.... lol
Hi dog, once again misinterpreting what i said? I said they didnt target hospitals power station and waterworks as policy, but targeting weapon caches. Civilians will die in such conflicts because its a urban area and hamas makes use of it, here is a vid that will show the problem in a nutshell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uOug-mN3Tw
Did you read the quote ? It is specified that : the IDF targetted civilians and not fighters, the IDF targetted food production, water and sewerage facilities, in order to "humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself". Well, the goldstone report suggest that the attacks were design to do that, and not to kill hamas fighters or destroy weapon caches. It is 540 + pages documented and focus on 36 cases with highest death toll and no military justifications.
And yes, you link be a pityfull IDF bullshit video. Enlighten yourself.
So basically the IDF killed civilians by mistake and targetd weapon cache (but the UN says otherwise, clearly they are a pure and unbiased group) and yet the Hamas targeted civilians and used its own population as a human shield, but they are the good guys. right....
Who said that IDF killed civilians by mistake. Just because they say it that doesn't make it true, now does it? And this human shield talk is blown out of proportion. They can either go outside the cities and be seen from the moon or hide among the buildings hoping for the better. And are you aware that these Hamas fighters are trying to protect their families, so purposely hiding among their own family is stupid. Take for example Syria just because FSA is battling the regime in the cities, does it mean that they are hiding behind the people? Not to mention that the majority of the sources claiming it are pro-Israel.
And let's define this human shield thing: ''Human shield is a military and political term describing the deliberate placement of civilians in or around combat targets to deter an enemy from attacking those targets''. So the emphasis is on the attacker. If he attacks he deliberately killed civilians, because he knew it beforehand. That doesn't make Israel any better in thhe human shield story
If they choose to act from civilian populations and make full use of it, you cant expect Israel to not respond to attacks. The thing is its a win/win for them, or Israel dosnt risk hurting civilians and they have a free hand or civilians die go to heaven and win the PR game. Also they are not trying to protect their familys in the lest, if they were they wouldnt launce rockets in to civilian populations.
On December 02 2012 03:25 Goozen wrote: Legal arguments According to Princeton University professor emeritus of international law Richard Falk, there exists an "overwhelming consensus" view among qualified international law specialists that both the blockade and its enforcement are illegal.[21] In September 2011, a UN investigative committee concluded in the Palmer Report that the blockade is legal.[18][19][20] The findings of the Palmer report on the legality of the blockade were disputed by a panel of five UN human rights experts, who said that the blockade amounted to a "flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law".[151] The panel said the Palmer report failed to recognize that the naval blockade was part of Israel's closure policy toward Gaza, which disproportionately affects civilians. Richard Falk said the authors of the Palmer report were poorly qualified to assess legal aspects of the blockade,[21] and that they were politically motivated to find the naval blockade legal.[151] Since 2005 Israel asserts that it ended its occupation of Gaza when it disengaged from the coastal strip in 2005.[152][153] After Israel's unilateral disengagement plan from the Gaza strip, Israel no longer has troops stationed within Gaza. Israel has retained control over Gaza's airspace and coastline, and over its own border with the territory. Egypt has control of its border with Gaza. Israel and Egypt also control the flow of goods in and out. Israel controls fuel imports to Gaza, and also controls the majority of electricity used in Gaza (approximately 60%), which it supplies from the Israeli electrical grid.[37][154] There have been a series of attacks by Israeli ground forces such as the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, as well as rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and cross-border attacks by Gazan militant groups against Israeli troops. Human Rights Watch argues that Israel is still an occupying power and is responsible for Gaza under the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, which seeks to protect the civilian population.[37] BBC's World Affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds said that if Gaza is treated as a "hostile entity" the question is whether the measures used by Israel and Egypt sufficiently distinguish between civilian and military. The 1977 amendment to the Geneva Conventions protocols prohibits the use of collective measures that do not distinguish between civilians and military.[37] The amendment protects civilian populations in time of conflicts that fall short of war. Israel has not signed these protocols but there is an expectation internationally that it should respect them.[37] Hamas does not administer an internationally recognized state and also has not signed these protocols. Amnesty International said that “The blockade constitutes collective punishment under international law and must be lifted immediately,” and that as the occupying power, Israel has a duty under international law to ensure the welfare of Gaza’s inhabitants, including their rights to health, education, food and adequate housing.[155] Justus Weiner and Avi Bell of the JCPA said that Israel’s combat actions and blockade cannot be considered collective punishment. They cite Article 75(4)(b) of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, which says the bar on collective punishment forbids the imposition of criminal-type penalties on individuals or groups on the basis of another’s guilt, or the commission of acts that would otherwise violate the rules of distinction and/or proportionality.[156] According to Weiner and Bell, the blockade does not "involve the imposition of criminal-type penalties or the violation of the rules of distinction and proportionality."[157] source
So the blockade is illegal... that's what we are saying.
In September 2011, a UN investigative committee concluded in the Palmer Report that the blockade is legal Nope, navel is legal according to the UN
Are you kidding ? The article you posted contains EIGHT people/organisations that deem the blockade illegal, and five of them work for the UN. 8 to 1 is pretty good odds you know.
But they are not the UN, they are private NGO's with agendas and individuals with personal opinion.
Goozen. Before you mentioned UN to prove your point and dismissed other organization as biased. Now you say the opposte. What's going on here?
Not at all, if i claim that the UN has a pro Palestinian biased and yet they found Israel in the right, it means that there is no doubt they were in the right.
Show me proof of this that Israel targets these systematically and its not collateral from Hamas storing weapons in them. Saying we bomb hospitals, water stations and power plants (we supply water and power to gaza) is slander unless you show me hard proof that this is so. During cast led the entirety of Hamas's leadership hid under the hospital, so why not raze it?
Yeah why not, even tho the hospital is filled with civilians? right? The goal justifies the means.
The point was he was making baseless claims that if were true would show that Israel has no qualms doing this.
The report disputes Israel's claim that the Gaza war would have been conducted as a response to rockets fired from the Gaza Strip, saying that at least in part the war was targeted against the "people of Gaza as a whole". Intimidation against the population was seen as an aim of the war. The report also says that Israel's military assault on Gaza was designed to "humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability". The report focused on 36 cases that it said constituted a representative sample. In 11 of these episodes, it said the Israeli military carried out direct attacks against civilians, including some in which civilians were shot "while they were trying to leave their homes to walk to a safer place, waving white flags". Talking to Bill Moyers Journal, Goldstone said that the committee chose 36 incidents that represented the highest death toll, where there seemed to be little or no military justification for what happened. According to the report, another alleged war crime committed by IDF include "wanton" destruction of food production, water and sewerage facilities; the report also asserts that some attacks, which were supposedly aimed to kill small number of combatants amidst significant numbers of civilians, were disproportionate. The report concluded that Israel violated the Fourth Geneva Convention by targeting civilians, which it labeled "a grave breach". It also claimed that the violations were "systematic and deliberate", which placed the blame in the first place on those who designed, planned, ordered and oversaw the operations. The report recommended, inter alia, that Israel pay reparations to Palestinians living in Gaza for property damage caused during the conflict.
Now tell me how the UN is pro palestinian.... lol
Hi dog, once again misinterpreting what i said? I said they didnt target hospitals power station and waterworks as policy, but targeting weapon caches. Civilians will die in such conflicts because its a urban area and hamas makes use of it, here is a vid that will show the problem in a nutshell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uOug-mN3Tw
Did you read the quote ? It is specified that : the IDF targetted civilians and not fighters, the IDF targetted food production, water and sewerage facilities, in order to "humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself". Well, the goldstone report suggest that the attacks were design to do that, and not to kill hamas fighters or destroy weapon caches. It is 540 + pages documented and focus on 36 cases with highest death toll and no military justifications.
And yes, you link be a pityfull IDF bullshit video. Enlighten yourself.
So basically the IDF killed civilians by mistake and targetd weapon cache (but the UN says otherwise, clearly they are a pure and unbiased group) and yet the Hamas targeted civilians and used its own population as a human shield, but they are the good guys. right....
Who said that IDF killed civilians by mistake. Just because they say it that doesn't make it true, now does it? And this human shield talk is blown out of proportion. They can either go outside the cities and be seen from the moon or hide among the buildings hoping for the better. And are you aware that these Hamas fighters are trying to protect their families, so purposely hiding among their own family is stupid. Take for example Syria just because FSA is battling the regime in the cities, does it mean that they are hiding behind the people? Not to mention that the majority of the sources claiming it are pro-Israel.
And let's define this human shield thing: ''Human shield is a military and political term describing the deliberate placement of civilians in or around combat targets to deter an enemy from attacking those targets''. So the emphasis is on the attacker. If he attacks he deliberately killed civilians, because he knew it beforehand. That doesn't make Israel any better in thhe human shield story
If they choose to act from civilian populations and make full use of it, you cant expect Israel to not respond to attacks. The thing is its a win/win for them, or Israel dosnt risk hurting civilians and they have a free hand or civilians die go to heaven and win the PR game. Also they are not trying to protect their familys in the lest, if they were they wouldnt launce rockets in to civilian populations.
So you believe that Palestinians are fighting solely to destroy Israel. Like they have nothing more interesting to do? You are brainwashed my friend and I repeat the world isn't so black and white like you appear to think.
Show me proof of this that Israel targets these systematically and its not collateral from Hamas storing weapons in them. Saying we bomb hospitals, water stations and power plants (we supply water and power to gaza) is slander unless you show me hard proof that this is so. During cast led the entirety of Hamas's leadership hid under the hospital, so why not raze it?
Yeah why not, even tho the hospital is filled with civilians? right? The goal justifies the means.
The point was he was making baseless claims that if were true would show that Israel has no qualms doing this.
The report disputes Israel's claim that the Gaza war would have been conducted as a response to rockets fired from the Gaza Strip, saying that at least in part the war was targeted against the "people of Gaza as a whole". Intimidation against the population was seen as an aim of the war. The report also says that Israel's military assault on Gaza was designed to "humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability". The report focused on 36 cases that it said constituted a representative sample. In 11 of these episodes, it said the Israeli military carried out direct attacks against civilians, including some in which civilians were shot "while they were trying to leave their homes to walk to a safer place, waving white flags". Talking to Bill Moyers Journal, Goldstone said that the committee chose 36 incidents that represented the highest death toll, where there seemed to be little or no military justification for what happened. According to the report, another alleged war crime committed by IDF include "wanton" destruction of food production, water and sewerage facilities; the report also asserts that some attacks, which were supposedly aimed to kill small number of combatants amidst significant numbers of civilians, were disproportionate. The report concluded that Israel violated the Fourth Geneva Convention by targeting civilians, which it labeled "a grave breach". It also claimed that the violations were "systematic and deliberate", which placed the blame in the first place on those who designed, planned, ordered and oversaw the operations. The report recommended, inter alia, that Israel pay reparations to Palestinians living in Gaza for property damage caused during the conflict.
Now tell me how the UN is pro palestinian.... lol
Hi dog, once again misinterpreting what i said? I said they didnt target hospitals power station and waterworks as policy, but targeting weapon caches. Civilians will die in such conflicts because its a urban area and hamas makes use of it, here is a vid that will show the problem in a nutshell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uOug-mN3Tw
Did you read the quote ? It is specified that : the IDF targetted civilians and not fighters, the IDF targetted food production, water and sewerage facilities, in order to "humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself". Well, the goldstone report suggest that the attacks were design to do that, and not to kill hamas fighters or destroy weapon caches. It is 540 + pages documented and focus on 36 cases with highest death toll and no military justifications.
And yes, you link be a pityfull IDF bullshit video. Enlighten yourself.
So basically the IDF killed civilians by mistake and targetd weapon cache (but the UN says otherwise, clearly they are a pure and unbiased group) and yet the Hamas targeted civilians and used its own population as a human shield, but they are the good guys. right....
Who said that IDF killed civilians by mistake. Just because they say it that doesn't make it true, now does it? And this human shield talk is blown out of proportion. They can either go outside the cities and be seen from the moon or hide among the buildings hoping for the better. And are you aware that these Hamas fighters are trying to protect their families, so purposely hiding among their own family is stupid. Take for example Syria just because FSA is battling the regime in the cities, does it mean that they are hiding behind the people? Not to mention that the majority of the sources claiming it are pro-Israel.
And let's define this human shield thing: ''Human shield is a military and political term describing the deliberate placement of civilians in or around combat targets to deter an enemy from attacking those targets''. So the emphasis is on the attacker. If he attacks he deliberately killed civilians, because he knew it beforehand. That doesn't make Israel any better in thhe human shield story
If they choose to act from civilian populations and make full use of it, you cant expect Israel to not respond to attacks. The thing is its a win/win for them, or Israel dosnt risk hurting civilians and they have a free hand or civilians die go to heaven and win the PR game. Also they are not trying to protect their familys in the lest, if they were they wouldnt launce rockets in to civilian populations.
Why would Israel not risk killing Palestinian civilians, when IDF forces have used them as human shields on numerous occasions?
On December 02 2012 03:25 Goozen wrote: Legal arguments According to Princeton University professor emeritus of international law Richard Falk, there exists an "overwhelming consensus" view among qualified international law specialists that both the blockade and its enforcement are illegal.[21] In September 2011, a UN investigative committee concluded in the Palmer Report that the blockade is legal.[18][19][20] The findings of the Palmer report on the legality of the blockade were disputed by a panel of five UN human rights experts, who said that the blockade amounted to a "flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law".[151] The panel said the Palmer report failed to recognize that the naval blockade was part of Israel's closure policy toward Gaza, which disproportionately affects civilians. Richard Falk said the authors of the Palmer report were poorly qualified to assess legal aspects of the blockade,[21] and that they were politically motivated to find the naval blockade legal.[151] Since 2005 Israel asserts that it ended its occupation of Gaza when it disengaged from the coastal strip in 2005.[152][153] After Israel's unilateral disengagement plan from the Gaza strip, Israel no longer has troops stationed within Gaza. Israel has retained control over Gaza's airspace and coastline, and over its own border with the territory. Egypt has control of its border with Gaza. Israel and Egypt also control the flow of goods in and out. Israel controls fuel imports to Gaza, and also controls the majority of electricity used in Gaza (approximately 60%), which it supplies from the Israeli electrical grid.[37][154] There have been a series of attacks by Israeli ground forces such as the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, as well as rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and cross-border attacks by Gazan militant groups against Israeli troops. Human Rights Watch argues that Israel is still an occupying power and is responsible for Gaza under the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, which seeks to protect the civilian population.[37] BBC's World Affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds said that if Gaza is treated as a "hostile entity" the question is whether the measures used by Israel and Egypt sufficiently distinguish between civilian and military. The 1977 amendment to the Geneva Conventions protocols prohibits the use of collective measures that do not distinguish between civilians and military.[37] The amendment protects civilian populations in time of conflicts that fall short of war. Israel has not signed these protocols but there is an expectation internationally that it should respect them.[37] Hamas does not administer an internationally recognized state and also has not signed these protocols. Amnesty International said that “The blockade constitutes collective punishment under international law and must be lifted immediately,” and that as the occupying power, Israel has a duty under international law to ensure the welfare of Gaza’s inhabitants, including their rights to health, education, food and adequate housing.[155] Justus Weiner and Avi Bell of the JCPA said that Israel’s combat actions and blockade cannot be considered collective punishment. They cite Article 75(4)(b) of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, which says the bar on collective punishment forbids the imposition of criminal-type penalties on individuals or groups on the basis of another’s guilt, or the commission of acts that would otherwise violate the rules of distinction and/or proportionality.[156] According to Weiner and Bell, the blockade does not "involve the imposition of criminal-type penalties or the violation of the rules of distinction and proportionality."[157] source
So the blockade is illegal... that's what we are saying.
In September 2011, a UN investigative committee concluded in the Palmer Report that the blockade is legal Nope, navel is legal according to the UN
Are you kidding ? The article you posted contains EIGHT people/organisations that deem the blockade illegal, and five of them work for the UN. 8 to 1 is pretty good odds you know.
But they are not the UN, they are private NGO's with agendas and individuals with personal opinion.
Goozen. Before you mentioned UN to prove your point and dismissed other organization as biased. Now you say the opposte. What's going on here?
Not at all, if i claim that the UN has a pro Palestinian biased and yet they found Israel in the right, it means that there is no doubt they were in the right.
The UN is dominated by the US who is pro Israelis to the core, what are you talking about.
I present to you specific evidence that Israel targetted civilians, food supply, water supply, in order to starve Gaza and put them in economical distress and you just forget about it just because it doesn't go with your own view on the matter.
On December 02 2012 03:25 Goozen wrote: Legal arguments According to Princeton University professor emeritus of international law Richard Falk, there exists an "overwhelming consensus" view among qualified international law specialists that both the blockade and its enforcement are illegal.[21] In September 2011, a UN investigative committee concluded in the Palmer Report that the blockade is legal.[18][19][20] The findings of the Palmer report on the legality of the blockade were disputed by a panel of five UN human rights experts, who said that the blockade amounted to a "flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law".[151] The panel said the Palmer report failed to recognize that the naval blockade was part of Israel's closure policy toward Gaza, which disproportionately affects civilians. Richard Falk said the authors of the Palmer report were poorly qualified to assess legal aspects of the blockade,[21] and that they were politically motivated to find the naval blockade legal.[151] Since 2005 Israel asserts that it ended its occupation of Gaza when it disengaged from the coastal strip in 2005.[152][153] After Israel's unilateral disengagement plan from the Gaza strip, Israel no longer has troops stationed within Gaza. Israel has retained control over Gaza's airspace and coastline, and over its own border with the territory. Egypt has control of its border with Gaza. Israel and Egypt also control the flow of goods in and out. Israel controls fuel imports to Gaza, and also controls the majority of electricity used in Gaza (approximately 60%), which it supplies from the Israeli electrical grid.[37][154] There have been a series of attacks by Israeli ground forces such as the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, as well as rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and cross-border attacks by Gazan militant groups against Israeli troops. Human Rights Watch argues that Israel is still an occupying power and is responsible for Gaza under the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, which seeks to protect the civilian population.[37] BBC's World Affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds said that if Gaza is treated as a "hostile entity" the question is whether the measures used by Israel and Egypt sufficiently distinguish between civilian and military. The 1977 amendment to the Geneva Conventions protocols prohibits the use of collective measures that do not distinguish between civilians and military.[37] The amendment protects civilian populations in time of conflicts that fall short of war. Israel has not signed these protocols but there is an expectation internationally that it should respect them.[37] Hamas does not administer an internationally recognized state and also has not signed these protocols. Amnesty International said that “The blockade constitutes collective punishment under international law and must be lifted immediately,” and that as the occupying power, Israel has a duty under international law to ensure the welfare of Gaza’s inhabitants, including their rights to health, education, food and adequate housing.[155] Justus Weiner and Avi Bell of the JCPA said that Israel’s combat actions and blockade cannot be considered collective punishment. They cite Article 75(4)(b) of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, which says the bar on collective punishment forbids the imposition of criminal-type penalties on individuals or groups on the basis of another’s guilt, or the commission of acts that would otherwise violate the rules of distinction and/or proportionality.[156] According to Weiner and Bell, the blockade does not "involve the imposition of criminal-type penalties or the violation of the rules of distinction and proportionality."[157] source
So the blockade is illegal... that's what we are saying.
In September 2011, a UN investigative committee concluded in the Palmer Report that the blockade is legal Nope, navel is legal according to the UN
Are you kidding ? The article you posted contains EIGHT people/organisations that deem the blockade illegal, and five of them work for the UN. 8 to 1 is pretty good odds you know.
But they are not the UN, they are private NGO's with agendas and individuals with personal opinion.
Goozen. Before you mentioned UN to prove your point and dismissed other organization as biased. Now you say the opposte. What's going on here?
Not at all, if i claim that the UN has a pro Palestinian biased and yet they found Israel in the right, it means that there is no doubt they were in the right.
The UN is dominated by the US who is pro Israelis to the core, what are you talking about.
Security council =\= Human rights, answer the question i put fourth, Israel has been singled out more then any other nation by a large margin in resolution criticizing it for human rights. Do you believe that Israel is the biggest violate of human rights or even close to it? Why would we want Gaza dependent on us? Nothing would make us happier then Egypt or the even those who live in Gaza could supply their own food/water.fuel/electricity. That would save the Israeli government billions each year.
On December 02 2012 03:25 Goozen wrote: Legal arguments According to Princeton University professor emeritus of international law Richard Falk, there exists an "overwhelming consensus" view among qualified international law specialists that both the blockade and its enforcement are illegal.[21] In September 2011, a UN investigative committee concluded in the Palmer Report that the blockade is legal.[18][19][20] The findings of the Palmer report on the legality of the blockade were disputed by a panel of five UN human rights experts, who said that the blockade amounted to a "flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law".[151] The panel said the Palmer report failed to recognize that the naval blockade was part of Israel's closure policy toward Gaza, which disproportionately affects civilians. Richard Falk said the authors of the Palmer report were poorly qualified to assess legal aspects of the blockade,[21] and that they were politically motivated to find the naval blockade legal.[151] Since 2005 Israel asserts that it ended its occupation of Gaza when it disengaged from the coastal strip in 2005.[152][153] After Israel's unilateral disengagement plan from the Gaza strip, Israel no longer has troops stationed within Gaza. Israel has retained control over Gaza's airspace and coastline, and over its own border with the territory. Egypt has control of its border with Gaza. Israel and Egypt also control the flow of goods in and out. Israel controls fuel imports to Gaza, and also controls the majority of electricity used in Gaza (approximately 60%), which it supplies from the Israeli electrical grid.[37][154] There have been a series of attacks by Israeli ground forces such as the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, as well as rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and cross-border attacks by Gazan militant groups against Israeli troops. Human Rights Watch argues that Israel is still an occupying power and is responsible for Gaza under the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, which seeks to protect the civilian population.[37] BBC's World Affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds said that if Gaza is treated as a "hostile entity" the question is whether the measures used by Israel and Egypt sufficiently distinguish between civilian and military. The 1977 amendment to the Geneva Conventions protocols prohibits the use of collective measures that do not distinguish between civilians and military.[37] The amendment protects civilian populations in time of conflicts that fall short of war. Israel has not signed these protocols but there is an expectation internationally that it should respect them.[37] Hamas does not administer an internationally recognized state and also has not signed these protocols. Amnesty International said that “The blockade constitutes collective punishment under international law and must be lifted immediately,” and that as the occupying power, Israel has a duty under international law to ensure the welfare of Gaza’s inhabitants, including their rights to health, education, food and adequate housing.[155] Justus Weiner and Avi Bell of the JCPA said that Israel’s combat actions and blockade cannot be considered collective punishment. They cite Article 75(4)(b) of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, which says the bar on collective punishment forbids the imposition of criminal-type penalties on individuals or groups on the basis of another’s guilt, or the commission of acts that would otherwise violate the rules of distinction and/or proportionality.[156] According to Weiner and Bell, the blockade does not "involve the imposition of criminal-type penalties or the violation of the rules of distinction and proportionality."[157] source
So the blockade is illegal... that's what we are saying.
In September 2011, a UN investigative committee concluded in the Palmer Report that the blockade is legal Nope, navel is legal according to the UN
Are you kidding ? The article you posted contains EIGHT people/organisations that deem the blockade illegal, and five of them work for the UN. 8 to 1 is pretty good odds you know.
But they are not the UN, they are private NGO's with agendas and individuals with personal opinion.
Goozen. Before you mentioned UN to prove your point and dismissed other organization as biased. Now you say the opposte. What's going on here?
Not at all, if i claim that the UN has a pro Palestinian biased and yet they found Israel in the right, it means that there is no doubt they were in the right.
That's an elegant way of saving your back. Whenever something isn't the way you like it to be, you call it biased. Fair enough. I suppose everyone and everything is biased against Israel except Israeli media.
Do you believe that Israel is the biggest violate of human rights or even close to it?
The biggest isn't, but it is very close to it. Your IDF is an army and therefore isn't really morally constrained.
Pay attention to the quote they mention about the lives of Palestinians. Do you agree with it?
On December 02 2012 03:25 Goozen wrote: Legal arguments According to Princeton University professor emeritus of international law Richard Falk, there exists an "overwhelming consensus" view among qualified international law specialists that both the blockade and its enforcement are illegal.[21] In September 2011, a UN investigative committee concluded in the Palmer Report that the blockade is legal.[18][19][20] The findings of the Palmer report on the legality of the blockade were disputed by a panel of five UN human rights experts, who said that the blockade amounted to a "flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law".[151] The panel said the Palmer report failed to recognize that the naval blockade was part of Israel's closure policy toward Gaza, which disproportionately affects civilians. Richard Falk said the authors of the Palmer report were poorly qualified to assess legal aspects of the blockade,[21] and that they were politically motivated to find the naval blockade legal.[151] Since 2005 Israel asserts that it ended its occupation of Gaza when it disengaged from the coastal strip in 2005.[152][153] After Israel's unilateral disengagement plan from the Gaza strip, Israel no longer has troops stationed within Gaza. Israel has retained control over Gaza's airspace and coastline, and over its own border with the territory. Egypt has control of its border with Gaza. Israel and Egypt also control the flow of goods in and out. Israel controls fuel imports to Gaza, and also controls the majority of electricity used in Gaza (approximately 60%), which it supplies from the Israeli electrical grid.[37][154] There have been a series of attacks by Israeli ground forces such as the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, as well as rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and cross-border attacks by Gazan militant groups against Israeli troops. Human Rights Watch argues that Israel is still an occupying power and is responsible for Gaza under the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, which seeks to protect the civilian population.[37] BBC's World Affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds said that if Gaza is treated as a "hostile entity" the question is whether the measures used by Israel and Egypt sufficiently distinguish between civilian and military. The 1977 amendment to the Geneva Conventions protocols prohibits the use of collective measures that do not distinguish between civilians and military.[37] The amendment protects civilian populations in time of conflicts that fall short of war. Israel has not signed these protocols but there is an expectation internationally that it should respect them.[37] Hamas does not administer an internationally recognized state and also has not signed these protocols. Amnesty International said that “The blockade constitutes collective punishment under international law and must be lifted immediately,” and that as the occupying power, Israel has a duty under international law to ensure the welfare of Gaza’s inhabitants, including their rights to health, education, food and adequate housing.[155] Justus Weiner and Avi Bell of the JCPA said that Israel’s combat actions and blockade cannot be considered collective punishment. They cite Article 75(4)(b) of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, which says the bar on collective punishment forbids the imposition of criminal-type penalties on individuals or groups on the basis of another’s guilt, or the commission of acts that would otherwise violate the rules of distinction and/or proportionality.[156] According to Weiner and Bell, the blockade does not "involve the imposition of criminal-type penalties or the violation of the rules of distinction and proportionality."[157] source
So the blockade is illegal... that's what we are saying.
In September 2011, a UN investigative committee concluded in the Palmer Report that the blockade is legal Nope, navel is legal according to the UN
Are you kidding ? The article you posted contains EIGHT people/organisations that deem the blockade illegal, and five of them work for the UN. 8 to 1 is pretty good odds you know.
But they are not the UN, they are private NGO's with agendas and individuals with personal opinion.
Goozen. Before you mentioned UN to prove your point and dismissed other organization as biased. Now you say the opposte. What's going on here?
Not at all, if i claim that the UN has a pro Palestinian biased and yet they found Israel in the right, it means that there is no doubt they were in the right.
The UN is dominated by the US who is pro Israelis to the core, what are you talking about.
Security council =\= Human rights, answer the question i put fourth, Israel has been singled out more then any other nation by a large margin in resolution criticizing it for human rights. Do you believe that Israel is the biggest violate of human rights or even close to it?
Israel is the only country that is in a state of war with an underdevelopped soon to be legitimate country since sixty years, so I guess it explains why they are considered one of the biggest violate of human rights.
On December 01 2012 19:10 NEEDZMOAR wrote: [quote]
Im sorry but how is it terrorism when hamas is using guerilla tactics (because of their arsenal, believe me if they had access to the same weapons Israel have, they would use them...) but when Israeli forces are bombing waterstations, hospitals, powerplants etc its "just" Warfare??? HOW does this make any sense whatsoever?
its not its terror too.
Show me proof of this that Israel targets these systematically and its not collateral from Hamas storing weapons in them. Saying we bomb hospitals, water stations and power plants (we supply water and power to gaza) is slander unless you show me hard proof that this is so. During cast led the entirety of Hamas's leadership hid under the hospital, so why not raze it?
Yeah why not, even tho the hospital is filled with civilians? right? The goal justifies the means.
The point was he was making baseless claims that if were true would show that Israel has no qualms doing this.
The report disputes Israel's claim that the Gaza war would have been conducted as a response to rockets fired from the Gaza Strip, saying that at least in part the war was targeted against the "people of Gaza as a whole". Intimidation against the population was seen as an aim of the war. The report also says that Israel's military assault on Gaza was designed to "humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability". The report focused on 36 cases that it said constituted a representative sample. In 11 of these episodes, it said the Israeli military carried out direct attacks against civilians, including some in which civilians were shot "while they were trying to leave their homes to walk to a safer place, waving white flags". Talking to Bill Moyers Journal, Goldstone said that the committee chose 36 incidents that represented the highest death toll, where there seemed to be little or no military justification for what happened. According to the report, another alleged war crime committed by IDF include "wanton" destruction of food production, water and sewerage facilities; the report also asserts that some attacks, which were supposedly aimed to kill small number of combatants amidst significant numbers of civilians, were disproportionate. The report concluded that Israel violated the Fourth Geneva Convention by targeting civilians, which it labeled "a grave breach". It also claimed that the violations were "systematic and deliberate", which placed the blame in the first place on those who designed, planned, ordered and oversaw the operations. The report recommended, inter alia, that Israel pay reparations to Palestinians living in Gaza for property damage caused during the conflict.
Now tell me how the UN is pro palestinian.... lol
Hi dog, once again misinterpreting what i said? I said they didnt target hospitals power station and waterworks as policy, but targeting weapon caches. Civilians will die in such conflicts because its a urban area and hamas makes use of it, here is a vid that will show the problem in a nutshell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uOug-mN3Tw
Did you read the quote ? It is specified that : the IDF targetted civilians and not fighters, the IDF targetted food production, water and sewerage facilities, in order to "humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself". Well, the goldstone report suggest that the attacks were design to do that, and not to kill hamas fighters or destroy weapon caches. It is 540 + pages documented and focus on 36 cases with highest death toll and no military justifications.
And yes, you link be a pityfull IDF bullshit video. Enlighten yourself.
So basically the IDF killed civilians by mistake and targetd weapon cache (but the UN says otherwise, clearly they are a pure and unbiased group) and yet the Hamas targeted civilians and used its own population as a human shield, but they are the good guys. right....
Who said that IDF killed civilians by mistake. Just because they say it that doesn't make it true, now does it? And this human shield talk is blown out of proportion. They can either go outside the cities and be seen from the moon or hide among the buildings hoping for the better. And are you aware that these Hamas fighters are trying to protect their families, so purposely hiding among their own family is stupid. Take for example Syria just because FSA is battling the regime in the cities, does it mean that they are hiding behind the people? Not to mention that the majority of the sources claiming it are pro-Israel.
And let's define this human shield thing: ''Human shield is a military and political term describing the deliberate placement of civilians in or around combat targets to deter an enemy from attacking those targets''. So the emphasis is on the attacker. If he attacks he deliberately killed civilians, because he knew it beforehand. That doesn't make Israel any better in thhe human shield story
It's intellectually dishonest to say that the good old rocket launchers are protecting their families. I have it from a trustworthy source that firing off rockets at Israel definitively increases your chances of being shot or exploded.
Furthermore your conclusion about human shields is wrong. Human shields are acceptable losses. This is because 1 Israeli life is worth at least 100 Palestinian casualties, in the same way that 1 Palestinian life is worth 100 Israeli casualties.
On December 02 2012 03:25 Goozen wrote: Legal arguments According to Princeton University professor emeritus of international law Richard Falk, there exists an "overwhelming consensus" view among qualified international law specialists that both the blockade and its enforcement are illegal.[21] In September 2011, a UN investigative committee concluded in the Palmer Report that the blockade is legal.[18][19][20] The findings of the Palmer report on the legality of the blockade were disputed by a panel of five UN human rights experts, who said that the blockade amounted to a "flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law".[151] The panel said the Palmer report failed to recognize that the naval blockade was part of Israel's closure policy toward Gaza, which disproportionately affects civilians. Richard Falk said the authors of the Palmer report were poorly qualified to assess legal aspects of the blockade,[21] and that they were politically motivated to find the naval blockade legal.[151] Since 2005 Israel asserts that it ended its occupation of Gaza when it disengaged from the coastal strip in 2005.[152][153] After Israel's unilateral disengagement plan from the Gaza strip, Israel no longer has troops stationed within Gaza. Israel has retained control over Gaza's airspace and coastline, and over its own border with the territory. Egypt has control of its border with Gaza. Israel and Egypt also control the flow of goods in and out. Israel controls fuel imports to Gaza, and also controls the majority of electricity used in Gaza (approximately 60%), which it supplies from the Israeli electrical grid.[37][154] There have been a series of attacks by Israeli ground forces such as the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, as well as rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and cross-border attacks by Gazan militant groups against Israeli troops. Human Rights Watch argues that Israel is still an occupying power and is responsible for Gaza under the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, which seeks to protect the civilian population.[37] BBC's World Affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds said that if Gaza is treated as a "hostile entity" the question is whether the measures used by Israel and Egypt sufficiently distinguish between civilian and military. The 1977 amendment to the Geneva Conventions protocols prohibits the use of collective measures that do not distinguish between civilians and military.[37] The amendment protects civilian populations in time of conflicts that fall short of war. Israel has not signed these protocols but there is an expectation internationally that it should respect them.[37] Hamas does not administer an internationally recognized state and also has not signed these protocols. Amnesty International said that “The blockade constitutes collective punishment under international law and must be lifted immediately,” and that as the occupying power, Israel has a duty under international law to ensure the welfare of Gaza’s inhabitants, including their rights to health, education, food and adequate housing.[155] Justus Weiner and Avi Bell of the JCPA said that Israel’s combat actions and blockade cannot be considered collective punishment. They cite Article 75(4)(b) of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, which says the bar on collective punishment forbids the imposition of criminal-type penalties on individuals or groups on the basis of another’s guilt, or the commission of acts that would otherwise violate the rules of distinction and/or proportionality.[156] According to Weiner and Bell, the blockade does not "involve the imposition of criminal-type penalties or the violation of the rules of distinction and proportionality."[157] source
So the blockade is illegal... that's what we are saying.
In September 2011, a UN investigative committee concluded in the Palmer Report that the blockade is legal Nope, navel is legal according to the UN
Are you kidding ? The article you posted contains EIGHT people/organisations that deem the blockade illegal, and five of them work for the UN. 8 to 1 is pretty good odds you know.
But they are not the UN, they are private NGO's with agendas and individuals with personal opinion.
Goozen. Before you mentioned UN to prove your point and dismissed other organization as biased. Now you say the opposte. What's going on here?
Not at all, if i claim that the UN has a pro Palestinian biased and yet they found Israel in the right, it means that there is no doubt they were in the right.
That's an elegant way of saving your back. Whenever something isn't the way you like it to be, you call it biased. Fair enough. I suppose everyone and everything is biased against Israel except Israeli media.
Not what i claimed, however as i told dog Israel has been singled out more times then any nation on human rights by a large margin, are they the worst violators or even close to it globally?
On December 02 2012 03:25 Goozen wrote: Legal arguments According to Princeton University professor emeritus of international law Richard Falk, there exists an "overwhelming consensus" view among qualified international law specialists that both the blockade and its enforcement are illegal.[21] In September 2011, a UN investigative committee concluded in the Palmer Report that the blockade is legal.[18][19][20] The findings of the Palmer report on the legality of the blockade were disputed by a panel of five UN human rights experts, who said that the blockade amounted to a "flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law".[151] The panel said the Palmer report failed to recognize that the naval blockade was part of Israel's closure policy toward Gaza, which disproportionately affects civilians. Richard Falk said the authors of the Palmer report were poorly qualified to assess legal aspects of the blockade,[21] and that they were politically motivated to find the naval blockade legal.[151] Since 2005 Israel asserts that it ended its occupation of Gaza when it disengaged from the coastal strip in 2005.[152][153] After Israel's unilateral disengagement plan from the Gaza strip, Israel no longer has troops stationed within Gaza. Israel has retained control over Gaza's airspace and coastline, and over its own border with the territory. Egypt has control of its border with Gaza. Israel and Egypt also control the flow of goods in and out. Israel controls fuel imports to Gaza, and also controls the majority of electricity used in Gaza (approximately 60%), which it supplies from the Israeli electrical grid.[37][154] There have been a series of attacks by Israeli ground forces such as the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, as well as rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and cross-border attacks by Gazan militant groups against Israeli troops. Human Rights Watch argues that Israel is still an occupying power and is responsible for Gaza under the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, which seeks to protect the civilian population.[37] BBC's World Affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds said that if Gaza is treated as a "hostile entity" the question is whether the measures used by Israel and Egypt sufficiently distinguish between civilian and military. The 1977 amendment to the Geneva Conventions protocols prohibits the use of collective measures that do not distinguish between civilians and military.[37] The amendment protects civilian populations in time of conflicts that fall short of war. Israel has not signed these protocols but there is an expectation internationally that it should respect them.[37] Hamas does not administer an internationally recognized state and also has not signed these protocols. Amnesty International said that “The blockade constitutes collective punishment under international law and must be lifted immediately,” and that as the occupying power, Israel has a duty under international law to ensure the welfare of Gaza’s inhabitants, including their rights to health, education, food and adequate housing.[155] Justus Weiner and Avi Bell of the JCPA said that Israel’s combat actions and blockade cannot be considered collective punishment. They cite Article 75(4)(b) of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, which says the bar on collective punishment forbids the imposition of criminal-type penalties on individuals or groups on the basis of another’s guilt, or the commission of acts that would otherwise violate the rules of distinction and/or proportionality.[156] According to Weiner and Bell, the blockade does not "involve the imposition of criminal-type penalties or the violation of the rules of distinction and proportionality."[157] source
So the blockade is illegal... that's what we are saying.
In September 2011, a UN investigative committee concluded in the Palmer Report that the blockade is legal Nope, navel is legal according to the UN
Are you kidding ? The article you posted contains EIGHT people/organisations that deem the blockade illegal, and five of them work for the UN. 8 to 1 is pretty good odds you know.
But they are not the UN, they are private NGO's with agendas and individuals with personal opinion.
Goozen. Before you mentioned UN to prove your point and dismissed other organization as biased. Now you say the opposte. What's going on here?
Not at all, if i claim that the UN has a pro Palestinian biased and yet they found Israel in the right, it means that there is no doubt they were in the right.
That's an elegant way of saving your back. Whenever something isn't the way you like it to be, you call it biased. Fair enough. I suppose everyone and everything is biased against Israel except Israeli media.
Not what i claimed, however as i told dog Israel has been singled out more times then any nation on human rights by a large margin, are they the worst violators or even close to it globally?
Israel victim of international human right pro palestinian lobby.
On December 02 2012 03:25 Goozen wrote: Legal arguments According to Princeton University professor emeritus of international law Richard Falk, there exists an "overwhelming consensus" view among qualified international law specialists that both the blockade and its enforcement are illegal.[21] In September 2011, a UN investigative committee concluded in the Palmer Report that the blockade is legal.[18][19][20] The findings of the Palmer report on the legality of the blockade were disputed by a panel of five UN human rights experts, who said that the blockade amounted to a "flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law".[151] The panel said the Palmer report failed to recognize that the naval blockade was part of Israel's closure policy toward Gaza, which disproportionately affects civilians. Richard Falk said the authors of the Palmer report were poorly qualified to assess legal aspects of the blockade,[21] and that they were politically motivated to find the naval blockade legal.[151] Since 2005 Israel asserts that it ended its occupation of Gaza when it disengaged from the coastal strip in 2005.[152][153] After Israel's unilateral disengagement plan from the Gaza strip, Israel no longer has troops stationed within Gaza. Israel has retained control over Gaza's airspace and coastline, and over its own border with the territory. Egypt has control of its border with Gaza. Israel and Egypt also control the flow of goods in and out. Israel controls fuel imports to Gaza, and also controls the majority of electricity used in Gaza (approximately 60%), which it supplies from the Israeli electrical grid.[37][154] There have been a series of attacks by Israeli ground forces such as the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, as well as rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and cross-border attacks by Gazan militant groups against Israeli troops. Human Rights Watch argues that Israel is still an occupying power and is responsible for Gaza under the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, which seeks to protect the civilian population.[37] BBC's World Affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds said that if Gaza is treated as a "hostile entity" the question is whether the measures used by Israel and Egypt sufficiently distinguish between civilian and military. The 1977 amendment to the Geneva Conventions protocols prohibits the use of collective measures that do not distinguish between civilians and military.[37] The amendment protects civilian populations in time of conflicts that fall short of war. Israel has not signed these protocols but there is an expectation internationally that it should respect them.[37] Hamas does not administer an internationally recognized state and also has not signed these protocols. Amnesty International said that “The blockade constitutes collective punishment under international law and must be lifted immediately,” and that as the occupying power, Israel has a duty under international law to ensure the welfare of Gaza’s inhabitants, including their rights to health, education, food and adequate housing.[155] Justus Weiner and Avi Bell of the JCPA said that Israel’s combat actions and blockade cannot be considered collective punishment. They cite Article 75(4)(b) of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, which says the bar on collective punishment forbids the imposition of criminal-type penalties on individuals or groups on the basis of another’s guilt, or the commission of acts that would otherwise violate the rules of distinction and/or proportionality.[156] According to Weiner and Bell, the blockade does not "involve the imposition of criminal-type penalties or the violation of the rules of distinction and proportionality."[157] source
So the blockade is illegal... that's what we are saying.
In September 2011, a UN investigative committee concluded in the Palmer Report that the blockade is legal Nope, navel is legal according to the UN
Are you kidding ? The article you posted contains EIGHT people/organisations that deem the blockade illegal, and five of them work for the UN. 8 to 1 is pretty good odds you know.
But they are not the UN, they are private NGO's with agendas and individuals with personal opinion.
Goozen. Before you mentioned UN to prove your point and dismissed other organization as biased. Now you say the opposte. What's going on here?
Not at all, if i claim that the UN has a pro Palestinian biased and yet they found Israel in the right, it means that there is no doubt they were in the right.
That's an elegant way of saving your back. Whenever something isn't the way you like it to be, you call it biased. Fair enough. I suppose everyone and everything is biased against Israel except Israeli media.
Not what i claimed, however as i told dog Israel has been singled out more times then any nation on human rights by a large margin, are they the worst violators or even close to it globally?
Just curious why are you calling him 'dog'? No point in that and I answered already your question whether it was referred to me or not.
Show me proof of this that Israel targets these systematically and its not collateral from Hamas storing weapons in them. Saying we bomb hospitals, water stations and power plants (we supply water and power to gaza) is slander unless you show me hard proof that this is so. During cast led the entirety of Hamas's leadership hid under the hospital, so why not raze it?
Yeah why not, even tho the hospital is filled with civilians? right? The goal justifies the means.
The point was he was making baseless claims that if were true would show that Israel has no qualms doing this.
The report disputes Israel's claim that the Gaza war would have been conducted as a response to rockets fired from the Gaza Strip, saying that at least in part the war was targeted against the "people of Gaza as a whole". Intimidation against the population was seen as an aim of the war. The report also says that Israel's military assault on Gaza was designed to "humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability". The report focused on 36 cases that it said constituted a representative sample. In 11 of these episodes, it said the Israeli military carried out direct attacks against civilians, including some in which civilians were shot "while they were trying to leave their homes to walk to a safer place, waving white flags". Talking to Bill Moyers Journal, Goldstone said that the committee chose 36 incidents that represented the highest death toll, where there seemed to be little or no military justification for what happened. According to the report, another alleged war crime committed by IDF include "wanton" destruction of food production, water and sewerage facilities; the report also asserts that some attacks, which were supposedly aimed to kill small number of combatants amidst significant numbers of civilians, were disproportionate. The report concluded that Israel violated the Fourth Geneva Convention by targeting civilians, which it labeled "a grave breach". It also claimed that the violations were "systematic and deliberate", which placed the blame in the first place on those who designed, planned, ordered and oversaw the operations. The report recommended, inter alia, that Israel pay reparations to Palestinians living in Gaza for property damage caused during the conflict.
Now tell me how the UN is pro palestinian.... lol
Hi dog, once again misinterpreting what i said? I said they didnt target hospitals power station and waterworks as policy, but targeting weapon caches. Civilians will die in such conflicts because its a urban area and hamas makes use of it, here is a vid that will show the problem in a nutshell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uOug-mN3Tw
Did you read the quote ? It is specified that : the IDF targetted civilians and not fighters, the IDF targetted food production, water and sewerage facilities, in order to "humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself". Well, the goldstone report suggest that the attacks were design to do that, and not to kill hamas fighters or destroy weapon caches. It is 540 + pages documented and focus on 36 cases with highest death toll and no military justifications.
And yes, you link be a pityfull IDF bullshit video. Enlighten yourself.
So basically the IDF killed civilians by mistake and targetd weapon cache (but the UN says otherwise, clearly they are a pure and unbiased group) and yet the Hamas targeted civilians and used its own population as a human shield, but they are the good guys. right....
Who said that IDF killed civilians by mistake. Just because they say it that doesn't make it true, now does it? And this human shield talk is blown out of proportion. They can either go outside the cities and be seen from the moon or hide among the buildings hoping for the better. And are you aware that these Hamas fighters are trying to protect their families, so purposely hiding among their own family is stupid. Take for example Syria just because FSA is battling the regime in the cities, does it mean that they are hiding behind the people? Not to mention that the majority of the sources claiming it are pro-Israel.
And let's define this human shield thing: ''Human shield is a military and political term describing the deliberate placement of civilians in or around combat targets to deter an enemy from attacking those targets''. So the emphasis is on the attacker. If he attacks he deliberately killed civilians, because he knew it beforehand. That doesn't make Israel any better in thhe human shield story
It's intellectually dishonest to say that the good old rocket launchers are protecting their families. I have it from a trustworthy source that firing off rockets at Israel definitively increases your chances of being shot or exploded.
Furthermore your conclusion about human shields is wrong. Human shields are acceptable losses. This is because 1 Israeli life is worth at least 100 Palestinian casualties, in the same way that 1 Palestinian life is worth 100 Israeli casualties.
Don't understand your thing about lives, explain more? How are human shields acceptable losses? and what you too think that they fire rockets only to destroy Israel, as if!
On December 02 2012 03:25 Goozen wrote: Legal arguments According to Princeton University professor emeritus of international law Richard Falk, there exists an "overwhelming consensus" view among qualified international law specialists that both the blockade and its enforcement are illegal.[21] In September 2011, a UN investigative committee concluded in the Palmer Report that the blockade is legal.[18][19][20] The findings of the Palmer report on the legality of the blockade were disputed by a panel of five UN human rights experts, who said that the blockade amounted to a "flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law".[151] The panel said the Palmer report failed to recognize that the naval blockade was part of Israel's closure policy toward Gaza, which disproportionately affects civilians. Richard Falk said the authors of the Palmer report were poorly qualified to assess legal aspects of the blockade,[21] and that they were politically motivated to find the naval blockade legal.[151] Since 2005 Israel asserts that it ended its occupation of Gaza when it disengaged from the coastal strip in 2005.[152][153] After Israel's unilateral disengagement plan from the Gaza strip, Israel no longer has troops stationed within Gaza. Israel has retained control over Gaza's airspace and coastline, and over its own border with the territory. Egypt has control of its border with Gaza. Israel and Egypt also control the flow of goods in and out. Israel controls fuel imports to Gaza, and also controls the majority of electricity used in Gaza (approximately 60%), which it supplies from the Israeli electrical grid.[37][154] There have been a series of attacks by Israeli ground forces such as the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, as well as rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and cross-border attacks by Gazan militant groups against Israeli troops. Human Rights Watch argues that Israel is still an occupying power and is responsible for Gaza under the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, which seeks to protect the civilian population.[37] BBC's World Affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds said that if Gaza is treated as a "hostile entity" the question is whether the measures used by Israel and Egypt sufficiently distinguish between civilian and military. The 1977 amendment to the Geneva Conventions protocols prohibits the use of collective measures that do not distinguish between civilians and military.[37] The amendment protects civilian populations in time of conflicts that fall short of war. Israel has not signed these protocols but there is an expectation internationally that it should respect them.[37] Hamas does not administer an internationally recognized state and also has not signed these protocols. Amnesty International said that “The blockade constitutes collective punishment under international law and must be lifted immediately,” and that as the occupying power, Israel has a duty under international law to ensure the welfare of Gaza’s inhabitants, including their rights to health, education, food and adequate housing.[155] Justus Weiner and Avi Bell of the JCPA said that Israel’s combat actions and blockade cannot be considered collective punishment. They cite Article 75(4)(b) of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, which says the bar on collective punishment forbids the imposition of criminal-type penalties on individuals or groups on the basis of another’s guilt, or the commission of acts that would otherwise violate the rules of distinction and/or proportionality.[156] According to Weiner and Bell, the blockade does not "involve the imposition of criminal-type penalties or the violation of the rules of distinction and proportionality."[157] source
So the blockade is illegal... that's what we are saying.
In September 2011, a UN investigative committee concluded in the Palmer Report that the blockade is legal Nope, navel is legal according to the UN
Are you kidding ? The article you posted contains EIGHT people/organisations that deem the blockade illegal, and five of them work for the UN. 8 to 1 is pretty good odds you know.
But they are not the UN, they are private NGO's with agendas and individuals with personal opinion.
Goozen. Before you mentioned UN to prove your point and dismissed other organization as biased. Now you say the opposte. What's going on here?
Not at all, if i claim that the UN has a pro Palestinian biased and yet they found Israel in the right, it means that there is no doubt they were in the right.
That's an elegant way of saving your back. Whenever something isn't the way you like it to be, you call it biased. Fair enough. I suppose everyone and everything is biased against Israel except Israeli media.
Not what i claimed, however as i told dog Israel has been singled out more times then any nation on human rights by a large margin, are they the worst violators or even close to it globally?
Just curious why are you calling him 'dog'? No point in that and I answered already your question whether it was referred to me or not.
Just short for whitedog, nothing else. we have also talked before.
On December 02 2012 05:39 Goozen wrote: No we dont, the reason Jabri was eliminated was due to good inelegance. Once he was targeted the rest went in to hiding and the only way to reach them without raising entire blocks with people in them would be a ground assault. Even if we were to kill all of the Hamas this wouldn't bring peace, only way to achieve peace is by having negotiations with those who accept your right to exist.
From what I understand Abbas accepts Israel's right to exist, and he has been stopping the violence from the West-Bank. Why doesn't Israel negotiate with him ? and show that Abbas' attitude is the correct one, by coming to a deal with him ? This will show Hamas that their violent approach is wrong and will not lead to anything.
Not an expert on Israeli politics but it seems some people like Olmert would be in favor of this, whereas Netanyahu seems to focus on Hamas being evil in order to avoid advancing anywhere with Abbas. Would a change in the Israeli government mean a better chance for peace ?
On December 02 2012 05:39 Goozen wrote: No we dont, the reason Jabri was eliminated was due to good inelegance. Once he was targeted the rest went in to hiding and the only way to reach them without raising entire blocks with people in them would be a ground assault. Even if we were to kill all of the Hamas this wouldn't bring peace, only way to achieve peace is by having negotiations with those who accept your right to exist.
From what I understand Abbas accepts Israel's right to exist, and he has been stopping the violence from the West-Bank. Why doesn't Israel negotiate with him ? and show that Abbas' attitude is the correct one, by coming to a deal with him ? This will show Hamas that their violent approach is wrong and will not lead to anything.
Not an expert on Israeli politics but it seems some people like Olmert would be in favor of this, whereas Netanyahu seems to focus on Hamas being evil in order to avoid advancing anywhere with Abbas. Would a change in the Israeli government mean a better chance for peace ?
West Bank will definitely be annexed by Israel, what's the point of building settlements there? There is still much space inside Israel. And Netanyahu is one of those a bit eccentric leaders capable of great things.
On December 02 2012 05:39 Goozen wrote: No we dont, the reason Jabri was eliminated was due to good inelegance. Once he was targeted the rest went in to hiding and the only way to reach them without raising entire blocks with people in them would be a ground assault. Even if we were to kill all of the Hamas this wouldn't bring peace, only way to achieve peace is by having negotiations with those who accept your right to exist.
From what I understand Abbas accepts Israel's right to exist, and he has been stopping the violence from the West-Bank. Why doesn't Israel negotiate with him ? and show that Abbas' attitude is the correct one, by coming to a deal with him ? This will show Hamas that their violent approach is wrong and will not lead to anything.
Not an expert on Israeli politics but it seems some people like Olmert would be in favor of this, whereas Netanyahu seems to focus on Hamas being evil in order to avoid advancing anywhere with Abbas. Would a change in the Israeli government mean a better chance for peace ?
He wont agree to negotiate with us without preconditions.
On December 02 2012 05:39 Goozen wrote: No we dont, the reason Jabri was eliminated was due to good inelegance. Once he was targeted the rest went in to hiding and the only way to reach them without raising entire blocks with people in them would be a ground assault. Even if we were to kill all of the Hamas this wouldn't bring peace, only way to achieve peace is by having negotiations with those who accept your right to exist.
From what I understand Abbas accepts Israel's right to exist, and he has been stopping the violence from the West-Bank. Why doesn't Israel negotiate with him ? and show that Abbas' attitude is the correct one, by coming to a deal with him ? This will show Hamas that their violent approach is wrong and will not lead to anything.
Not an expert on Israeli politics but it seems some people like Olmert would be in favor of this, whereas Netanyahu seems to focus on Hamas being evil in order to avoid advancing anywhere with Abbas. Would a change in the Israeli government mean a better chance for peace ?
He wont agree to negotiate with us without preconditions.
Do you know what are these pre-conditions ? Does Netanyahu also have any pre-conditions or is he willing to negotiate ?
EPT
