Israeli War Crimes?

[Elfie]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525925700&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

In at least one instance, the new evidence is damning. On August 16, Hassan Fattah reported in The New York Times on the return of Lebanese civilians to the village of Srifa (spelled Sreifa by the Times). The following sentences are particularly striking: "Hussein Kamaleldin, a local official ... estimated that up to two-thirds of the town's homes and buildings were demolished, leaving more than 43 people buried in the rubble. A majority of them were fighters belonging to Hizbullah and the allied Amal Party, residents said."

At least in this instance, it is beginning to look like Israel was falsely accused.

The article also mentions civilian housing being built on top of Hezbollah bunkers.

[Bogie603rd]

Hezbollah should've listened when Israel said, "Give us back our soldiers". Israel had a reason to take the Lebaneese Soldiers, they were infiltrating on Israeli soil, and therefore the government took action.

[Fishu]

When do they start investigating the war crimes of Hizbollah?
It's easy for the other to commit war crimes when Hizbollah is using civilians as a live cover of their operatives.
Not to mention deliberate targeting of civilians in their rocket attacks (which of most casualties were arabs with israeli citizenship).

[Bogie603rd]

There ya go, everyone looks at the "civilized" nations, when the "rebellious" countries are never investigated because of "religious purposes".

[Elfie]

Originally posted by Fishu
When do they start investigating the war crimes of Hizbollah?
It's easy for the other to commit war crimes when Hizbollah is using civilians as a live cover of their operatives.
Not to mention deliberate targeting of civilians in their rocket attacks (which of most casualties were arabs with israeli citizenship).

Dunno yet Fishu, been thinking about this though.

What happens if they do investigate Hezbollah and find that Hezbollah is in fact guilty of using human shields and attacking civilians. What then? UN sanctions? (dont make me laugh) How do you impose the rules of war and the consequences for breaking them on a group like Hezbollah that operates outside a normal gov't for the most part?

I really dont know of a solution that is workable here, but I am interested in hearing possible solutions from others.

[lasersailor184]

Israel?  Falsely accused by blatant anti-semitists?  SAY IT ISN'T SO!

[Elfie]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Israel?  Falsely accused by blatant anti-semitists?  SAY IT ISN'T SO!

Yeah I know, hard to believe isnt it?

[-dead-]

Rupert Murdoch's New York Times, the Jerusalem Post,  and a staff sergeant in a reserve IDF Paratroopers brigade fielding pro-sraeli stories? Say it isn't so!

Some corroborating evidence from less partisan sources would be nice.

[FUNKED1]

Exactly

[Brenjen]

Anything radical muslims say is a lie. Israel is right, the U.S. is right, Britain is right.

 I wish "you're either with us or against us" was enforced more harshly & much more often.

 You can't negotiate with terrorists so the only thing left is to kill them, all of them, everywhere they are.

[Elfie]

Originally posted by -dead-
Rupert Murdoch's New York Times, the Jerusalem Post,  and a staff sergeant in a reserve IDF Paratroopers brigade fielding pro-sraeli stories? Say it isn't so!

Some corroborating evidence from less partisan sources would be nice.

Funny how no one questioned the sources when the stories were about Israeli atrocities. There are no non-partisan media sources in the world today imo.

[-dead-]

Originally posted by Brenjen
Anything radical muslims say is a lie. Israel is right, the U.S. is right, Britain is right.

 I wish "you're either with us or against us" was enforced more harshly & much more often.

 You can't negotiate with terrorists so the only thing left is to kill them, all of them, everywhere they are.

Israel negotiates with terrorists. They funded Hamas, they negotiate and swap prisoners with Hizbollah.
The US negotiates with terrorists, they even train and fund them. That's what Iran-contra was about: negotiating with one set of terrorists and training and funding another set.
The UK negotiates with terrorists: there were prisoner swaps in the 70s and 80s and the IRA are now a political party.

Sooner or later everyone negotiates with terrorists. That's why there are terrorists: it's a dirty little secret, and certainly not PC in world according to TWOT, but terrorism works.

[-dead-]

Originally posted by Elfie
Funny how no one questioned the sources when the stories were about Israeli atrocities. There are no non-partisan media sources in the world today imo.

Human Rights Watch annoys almost all governments equally, so I'd take them as a far less partisan source than anything owned by Murdoch, or an IDF reservist's op-ed for the Jerusalem Post. If a Hizbollah reservist claimed that Hizbollah's killing of civilians were being over played and they really were IDF and not civilians, I'd treat the claims with an equal pinch of salt.

[bj229r]

Originally posted by -dead-
Human Rights Watch annoys almost all governments equally, so I'd take them as a far less partisan source than anything owned by Murdoch, or an IDF reservist's op-ed for the Jerusalem Post. If a Hizbollah reservist claimed that Hizbollah's killing of civilians were being over played and they really were IDF and not civilians, I'd treat the claims with an equal pinch of salt.

Actually, HRW spends an inordinate amount of time going after the REAL abusers of rights, the United States and Israel


http://fdd.typepad.com/fdd/2006/08/human_rights_wa.html

Human Rights Watch, a study in bias [AV]

Human Rights Watch has issues a scathing attack on Israel's conduct in its war with Hezbollah. The tragedy of this report is that, because it is selective, disingenuous and biased, it undermines Human Rights Watch's credibility, and threatens the organization's noble vision of strengthening the international protection of human rights.

The report's executive summary criticizes Israel for its attacks on Lebanese homes. Human Rights Watch calls them "civilian targets." Tragically, this is only half the story, as many of the homes are also used to store missiles. They are, properly understood, dual-use - and are therefore similar to bridges and roads. That does not per se make them lawful targets, but it does mean that in determining whether Israel is committing war crimes by bombing them one needs to look at the totality of the circumstances, including the likelihood that the area as a whole is dual-use. The Human Rights Watch summary gives only a passing treatment to what is, frankly, the heart of the issue.

More problematically, the Human Rights Watch report, at least in its executive summary, does not adequately consider Hezbollah's obligation to to protect civilians from dangers, and that using civilian shields to protect military assets, as Hezbollah does, is itself a war crime. In fact, a previous Human Rights Watch report - one that was far more fair and balanced - does make this point explicitly.

It is truly worrying that from its previous report (which was good) to its current report (which is bad), Human Rights Watch seems to have abandoned the idea that Hezbollah also has obligations to minimize Lebanese civilian casualties, and that because it is a non-state party to the conflict, Hezbollah is also bound by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
 [AV]

http://www.nysun.com/article/37473

After The New York Sun ran an editorial and two op-ed pieces taking Human Rights Watch to task for anti-Israel bias, the organization's executive director, Kenneth Roth, has finally found it in himself to denounce Hezbollah for placing troops and weapons near Lebanese civilians. And to acknowledge, for the first time, that the use of ambulances by Palestinian groups to transport weapons or suicide bombers is "a clear humanitarian violation." We're tempted to congratulate Mr. Roth. Too bad it had to be wrung out of him.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzdkNDA3NTY4ZmMwMzFmNWYwYTBkMWU4MzFiMTMxNGM=

As a detailed NGO Monitor study has shown, between 2001 and 2004, during the height of the terror attacks against Israel, HRW focused one-third of its entire Middle East effort on condemnations directed at Israel. This went far beyond legitimate criticism, and suggested an obsession. Far more pages, reports, press conferences, letters, films, and photography-exhibits sponsored by HRW were devoted to allegations against Israel than to the slaughter taking place in Sudan, or the Palestinian terror campaign. Roth and other HRW officials adopted the false characterization of an �all powerful and aggressive Israel� in contrast to �Palestinian victimization.� In the process, human-rights norms were reduced to instruments used to promote personal ideologies and entirely subjective perceptions of power.

The most infuriating instance of HRW�s bias came in 2004, when Roth went to the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem to promote �Razing Rafah,� a one sided denunciation of Israeli policy. Its contents were based primarily on unsubstantiated reports of Palestinians, selected journalists, and so-called experts on tunneling. (The IDF actions were in response to the smuggling of weapons and explosives through tunnels under the border with Egypt.)

[~Caligula~]

last night i had a talk with the security guard at the bar that i work at. he was in lebanon as a reservist. he had been in lebanon before, but he says what was going on there this time,was just plain unbelivable. hezbollah fighters would come at them with a child (he actually used the word "tinuk" what means baby) in one hand and AK in the other. using the child as shild. he saw israelis getting killed,because they wouldn`t shoot at the child, but of course the hezbollah shot at them. than he talked about the bunkers, where the hezbollah was stocked up with months of supplies and built so that getting them out of there would cause massive casualties for the IDF. napalm would smoke them out,but they`re built under houses. i asked him about the rocket launchers,what they looked like, and why was it so difficult to take them out. he said that they are about a 2meter long tube,looking much like a mortar and that`s it. many of them are built in the bunkers.

he says he`s all confused now,doesn`t know who to blame for the failures of the IDF or what could be done next....