Amnesty accuses Israel of 'serious rights abuses'

[JMS]

Amnesty accuses Israel of 'serious rights abuses'



Israeli soldiers (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22Israeli+soldiers%22&sid=breitbart.com) and Jewish settlers committed "serious human rights abuses" against the Palestinians in 2006, mostly with impunity, Amnesty International said in its annual report issued Wednesday.


It also said civilians bore the brunt of rising violence last year between Israelis and Palestinians that saw a three-fold jump in Palestinians killed, although the number of Israelis killed fell by half.

During the 34-day Lebanon conflict last summer "both Hezbollah and Israel committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, including war crimes (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22war+crimes%22&sid=breitbart.com)," said the report.

"In particular Israeli forces carried out indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on a large scale."

"Israeli forces also appear to have carried out direct attacks on civilian infrastructure intended to inflict a form of collective punishment on Lebanon's people."

Meanwhile "Hezbollah's rocket attacks on northern Israel amounted to deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian objects, as well as indiscriminate attacks.

"Its attacks also violated other rules of international humanitarian law, including the prohibition on reprisal attacks on the civilian population."

In the Palestinian territories, Israeli air and artillery strikes killed some 650 people, half of them unarmed civilians and including some 120 children, "a three-fold increase compared with 2005."

Much of the killing occurred in the Gaza Strip (http://www.breitbart.com/detail.php?searchText=%22Gaza+Strip%22&searchChannel=FTimes) during an Israeli offensive launched after militants there seized a soldier in a deadly cross-border raid in late June.

Palestinian militant groups killed 21 Israeli civilians, including one child, half the figure of the previous year and the lowest since the intifada flared in September 2000.

But rockets fired by Palestinian militants (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22Palestinian+militants%22&sid=breitbart.com) from Gaza into Israel saw a "significant increase" compared with the previous year and killed two civilians.

The number of attacks on Palestinians by Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank decreased after a supreme court ruling ordering the army and police to protect farmers working their land, but several more such attacks were carried out nonetheless.

"Israeli soldiers and settlers committed serious human rights abuses, including unlawful killings, against Palestinians, mostly with impunity," said the Amnesty report.

The Israeli justice system continued to show wide discrepancies, with harsh responses against Palestinians suspected of attacks on Israelis, and lenient or no measures against Israeli soldiers and settlers accused of unlawful killings and abuse of Palestinians.

"Military blockades and increased restrictions imposed by Israel on the movement of Palestinians and the confiscation by Israel of Palestinian custom duties caused a significant deterioration in living conditions for Palestinian inhabitants of the occupied territories (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22occupied+territories%22&sid=breitbart.com), with poverty, food aid dependency, health problems and unemployment reaching crisis levels."

Israel began withholding custom duties collected on behalf of the Palestinian Authority (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22Palestinian+Authority%22&sid=breitbart.com) after Hamas, which it considers a terror group, came to power.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070523114347.wrsivmo1&show_article=1

[Destino]

"In particular Israeli forces carried out indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on a large scale."


I don't understand this logic. Where the hell did the idea come from that nations warring with eachother have to fight tit for tat battles based on the weaker of the two? You blow up my car, I blow up one of yours! If I were to say, send in 40 tanks to clear out an entire neighborhood... the ref runs throws a flag, faces the international community and says into his mic "Disproportionate attacks, 20 yard penalty repeat this endless war for another 10 years."



Do people not see that this is why the wars aren't ending? This makes war easy and managable.

[Zen-like Todd]

"In particular Israeli forces carried out indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on a large scale."


I don't understand this logic. Where the hell did the idea come from that nations warring with eachother have to fight tit for tat battles based on the weaker of the two? You blow up my car, I blow up one of yours! If I were to say, send in 40 tanks to clear out an entire neighborhood... the ref runs throws a flag, faces the international community and says into his mic "Disproportionate attacks, 20 yard penalty repeat this endless war for another 10 years."



Do people not see that this is why the wars aren't ending? This makes war easy and managable.

Destino becomes more and more like me every day, although I'm sure he's not happy to hear that. :D

On another note, JMS is the anti-israeli equivalent of Sarge. That's not a compliment.

[Sarge]

I eagerly await the amnesty report on the rights abuses committed by the Hezzbo's:rolleyes:

[Larry]

I eagerly await the amnesty report on the rights abuses committed by the Hezzbo's:rolleyes:

Perhaps if you'd read the threads, instead of just assuming you know what they say, jumping in with your assumptions, and running away, you wouldn't have to wait so long.

[Prosperity]

"In particular Israeli forces carried out indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on a large scale."


I don't understand this logic. Where the hell did the idea come from that nations warring with eachother have to fight tit for tat battles based on the weaker of the two? You blow up my car, I blow up one of yours! If I were to say, send in 40 tanks to clear out an entire neighborhood... the ref runs throws a flag, faces the international community and says into his mic "Disproportionate attacks, 20 yard penalty repeat this endless war for another 10 years."



Do people not see that this is why the wars aren't ending? This makes war easy and managable.

Personally I think any action Israel takes against warring "nations" is appropriate... **** the kids the elderly and the innocent... Israeli security is worth all of them dead and buried.



During the first part of the nineteenth century, an anti-British insurrection was taking place in Canada. At the time, Canada was under British rule, while the United States and Great Britain were in a state of peace. There was, however, a ship owned by U.S. nationals, the Caroline, that was allegedly providing assistance to the rebels in Canada. On the night of December 29, 1837, while the ship was moored on the U.S. side of the Niagara River, British troops crossed the river, boarded the ship, killed several U.S. nationals, set the ship on fire, and sent the vessel over Niagara Falls. The British claimed that tthey were acting in self-defense, but after some heated exchanges with the Secretary of State Daniel Webster, the British government ultimately apologized. Nonethelss over the course of diplomatic communication between the Americans and the British, two criteria for permissible self-defense-including preemptive self-defense- were articulated: necessity and proportionality.



First, the state seeking to exercise force in self-defense would need to demonstrate necessity. As Webster explained in a letter to Lord Ashburton, a special British representative to Washington, the state would have to demonstrate that the "necessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation." In other words, the state would need to show that the use of force by the other state was imminent and that there was essentially nothing but forcible action that would forestall such attack.



Second, the state using force in self-defense would be obliged to respond in a manner proportionate to the threat. In making the argument to the British, Webster explained that, in order for Canada's action to be permissible, it would be necessary to prove that "the local authorities of Canada, even supposing the necessity of the moment authorized them to enter the territories of the United States at all, did nothing unreasonable or excessive; since the act, justified by the necessity of self-defense, must be limited by that necessity and kept clearly within it."

Copyright © 2003 by The Center for Strategic and International Studies and the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
The Washington Quarterly • 26:2 pp. 89–103.

[Larry]

I'm with Destino. There may well be things about Israel's military actions that I'd disagree with, but this whole "disproportionate response" thing just makes me say "Is that another word for winning?"

However, this part jumps out at me:


The number of attacks on Palestinians by Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank decreased after a supreme court ruling ordering the army and police to protect farmers working their land, but several more such attacks were carried out nonetheless.

"Israeli soldiers and settlers committed serious human rights abuses, including unlawful killings, against Palestinians, mostly with impunity," said the Amnesty report.

The Israeli justice system continued to show wide discrepancies, with harsh responses against Palestinians suspected of attacks on Israelis, and lenient or no measures against Israeli soldiers and settlers accused of unlawful killings and abuse of Palestinians.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that I hadn't heard of that before.

It actually took a Supreme Court ruling to order Israeli cops not to look the other way when an Israeli kills a Palestinian?

(I also seem to have missed the part, when Israel canceled sending money to the Palestinians because Hezbollah got elected, that the money Israel was withholding came from a tax that Israel was collecting on Palestinian customs, and that Israel was going to continue collecting the tax, it was just going to go to Israel now, instead.)

(Isn't that called "piracy"? Intercepting cargo that's bound for somebody else's country and demanding that the shippers pay you a tax?"

[Larry]

Liberty,

I pretty much agree with your stated point: If the Palestinian want to complain about Israel, then they should end their war against Israel. Until that time, then well, I won't say that "All's fair", there are some things that aren't fair in war, but 80 civilian deaths a year isn't one of them.

But I'll point out that the thing you quoted about proportional response is a) somebody's opinion, and b) is discussing preemptive action. To me, it's tough to say Israel's actions were unprovoked or preemptive.

[JMS]

"In particular Israeli forces carried out indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on a large scale."


I don't understand this logic. Where the hell did the idea come from that nations warring with eachother have to fight tit for tat battles based on the weaker of the two?


Problem with your analogy is that Israel hasn't declared war on any other countries nor have any other countries declared war on her.



You blow up my car, I blow up one of yours! If I were to say, send in 40 tanks to clear out an entire neighborhood... the ref runs throws a flag, faces the international community and says into his mic "Disproportionate attacks, 20 yard penalty repeat this endless war for another 10 years."

Do people not see that this is why the wars aren't ending? This makes war easy and manageable.

Ahhh, that's the ticket. The problem with the middle east is always been too many people holding back... Brilliant.

The problem with the middle east is neither side is powerful enough to remove the threat from the other side. Not tiny Israel and her 5 million population. Not the 200 million Arabs and Persians who have at one time or another waged war against her. The problem with the middle east is that radicals on both sides see opportunity and profit in continuing hostilities which will never lead to peace. 60 years on continuous wars, attacks and reprisals all of which have been miraculous victories by Israel, should demonstrate to even the thickest of individuals that military action isn't a path to peace. Continued hostilities grow the numbers of radicals on both sides in a never ending self perpetuating trail of death. Also, the moderates who exist on both sides have no voice with the one remaining super power able to bring them back to the forefront of the debate.

Destino more death is not a path to peace for Israel, nor the Arabs. It's just more death, which creates more radicals.

[Sarge]

Destino more death is not a path to peace for Israel, nor the Arabs. It's just more death, which creates more radicals.

Dead people don't make very good radicals

[techboy]

"In particular Israeli forces carried out indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on a large scale."


I don't understand this logic. Where the hell did the idea come from that nations warring with eachother have to fight tit for tat battles based on the weaker of the two? You blow up my car, I blow up one of yours! If I were to say, send in 40 tanks to clear out an entire neighborhood... the ref runs throws a flag, faces the international community and says into his mic "Disproportionate attacks, 20 yard penalty repeat this endless war for another 10 years."



Do people not see that this is why the wars aren't ending? This makes war easy and managable.

I totally agree. In the long run, the modern "clean" war leads to more death and suffering. Stuff like this reminds me of that Star Trek episode where the two planets were at war for hundreds of years, and had two computers telling them to report to disintegration chambers when they were "dead". The war became clean and easy, and it never stopped.

[JMS]

Dead people don't make very good radicals

Their relatives do. Their fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, uncles aunts and cousins do. 200 million Arabs and Persians who at one time or another have all been at war with Israel, vs 5 million Israeli's.

Clearly 6-7 wars over the last sixty years inform us that there is no military solution to this problem for either side. And I'll leave it to you to decide if you think American unprecedented unilateral rubber stamp support of Israel is as reliable as the Arab Persian birth rate. The two key issue in future conflicts down through time...

[Predicto]

Dead people don't make very good radicals

No, but their brothers and cousins and neighbors sure do.

[Destino]

Destino more death is not a path to peace for Israel, nor the Arabs. It's just more death, which creates more radicals.

Your post sounds nice. It really does. I just don't think it does well in the real world.

I hate using WWII as an example but... Had the allies in WWII not bombed Germany and Japan into surrender, the war wouldn't have ended. Imagine if in response to pearl harbor we had bombed them once in retaliation. Japan bombs us, we bomb them back then stop... is there any doubt the entire episode would be repeated? Does anyone think that in response to a single bombing of their military assest the Japanese would have called it even and left us alone? Fire bombing their cities was not in proportion to what was done to us.

Israel and Palestine need to either have it out and be done with it, or stop entirely. One or the other. Perpetual war is not a good option.

Also yes... I do think part of the problem in the middle east is that they are holding back. They choose to fight through terrorist factions so their nations can remain mostly out of it.

[JMS]

I totally agree. In the long run, the modern "clean" war leads to more death and suffering. Stuff like this reminds me of that Star Trek episode where the two planets were at war for hundreds of years, and had two computers telling them to report to disintegration chambers when they were "dead". The war became clean and easy, and it never stopped.


Problem with the analogy is that those two enemies were equally matched. It was a show about the Soviet Union and the US. Mutually assured destruction. While neither side can remove the other side from the conflict, they are not equally matched. Israel can wage war in relative security while she decimates her oposition. But the decimation just leaves Israel with more radical opponents on her boarders.

The problem in the middle east is not to many moderates, or one side holding back. That has never been the problem.

[Predicto]

Your post sounds nice. It really does. I just don't think it does well in the real world.

I hate using WWII as an example but... Had the allies in WWII not bombed Germany and Japan into surrender, the war wouldn't have ended. Imagine if in response to pearl harbor we had bombed them once in retaliation. Japan bombs us, we bomb them back then stop... is there any doubt the entire episode would be repeated? Does anyone think that in response to a single bombing of their military assest the Japanese would have called it even and left us alone? Fire bombing their cities was not in proportion to what was done to us.

Israel and Palestine need to either have it out and be done with it, or stop entirely. One or the other. Perpetual war is not a good option.

Also yes... I do think part of the problem in the middle east is that they are holding back. They choose to fight through terrorist factions so their nations can remain mostly out of it.

You should hate using WWII as an example because it is a terrible example. Israel and Palestine are not two separate countries having a war. Israel is the country, Palestine is basically a bunch of refugee camps in that country. They are occupying the same space. The Palestinians have nowhere else to go - it is their home too. Some long term diplomatic solution needs to be found that accomodates both of them or it will go on forever. War won't solve it, unless you think that just killing every civilian on one side or another is a good solution.

[jpyaks3]

Problem with the analogy is that those two enemies were equally matched. It was a show about the Soviet Union and the US. Mutually assured destruction. While neither side can remove the other side from the conflict, they are not equally matched. Israel can wage war in relative security while she decimates her oposition. But the decimation just leaves Israel with more radical opponents on her boarders.

The problem in the middle east is not to many moderates, or one side holding back. That has never been the problem.

Would you still hold the same view that counties need to stop holding back once Iran has a nuclear weapon? OR should Israel just stop holding back?

[Destino]

You should hate using WWII as an example because it is a terrible example. Israel and Palestine are not two separate countries having a war. Israel is the country, Palestine is basically a bunch of refugee camps in that country. They are occupying the same space. The Palestinians have nowhere else to go - it is their home too. Some long term diplomatic solution needs to be found that accomodates both of them or it will go on forever. War won't solve it, unless you think that just killing every civilian on one side or another is a good solution.

They should be two seperate countries having a war. Oddly Israel has accepted the idea that Palestine has to agree to the terms of the split. Why is this? Why doesn't the stronger side simply say "screw you, I'm bigger!"

Also again I disagree with the notion that war won't solve anything. This type of war solves nothing. Making every building from which a terrorist attack is launched or planned dissapear and bombing not a few but ALL targets available will eventually break the enemies spirit. People won't fight forever for the losing side... unless you never really fight them and instead engage in fancy assassinations.

[JMS]

Your post sounds nice. It really does. I just don't think it does well in the real world.

My example was the real world. It's your analogies which continue to bring up fantasy metaphors.



I hate using WWII as an example but... Had the allies in WWII not bombed Germany and Japan into surrender, the war wouldn't have ended. Imagine if in response to pearl harbor we had bombed them once in retaliation. Japan bombs us, we bomb them back then stop... is there any doubt the entire episode would be repeated? Does anyone think that in response to a single bombing of their military assets the Japanese would have called it even and left us alone? Fire bombing their cities was not in proportion to what was done to us.


If Israel had the military capacity to win, they would have done so more than five decades ago. Fact is 5 million Israeli's are not significant enough to occupy and thus remove even the smallest of the countries on Israel's boarders, much less all of them. There is no military solution for Israel. The best Israel can hope for is a continued stale mate, continued US support, and continued miraculous one sided victories.



Israel and Palestine need to either have it out and be done with it, or stop entirely. One or the other. Perpetual war is not a good option.


Well perpetual war is the only option until something changes, like both parties tire of it, or someone from an enabling country decides they're tired of funding it. It's unlikely the 200 million Muslims will evaporate; and it's unlikely if they don't more killing will help matters much. Not for Israel, Not for the Muslim Arabs and Persians.



Also yes... I do think part of the problem in the middle east is that they are holding back. They choose to fight through terrorist factions so their nations can remain mostly out of it.

Ah, you think the Arab's aren't fighting fairly. Israel currently enjoys a 10 to 1 murder advantage over the unfair Arabs. At times that has been 20 to one. The murder of Israeli's dropped in half last year while the murder done by Israel doubled. Clearly the problem isn't exclusively on the Arab side of this dispute. Clearly more killing by Israel proportionately hasn't gotten them any closer to the solution.

Again I don't think the problem is not enough killing and murder, not on either side.

[luckydevil]

I hate using WWII as an example but... Had the allies in WWII not bombed Germany and Japan into surrender, the war wouldn't have ended.

Well, they were offering conditional surrender. The notion that the nukes ended the war is classic American mythology.

[Destino]

The problem in the middle east is not to many moderates, or one side holding back. That has never been the problem.

Who said anything about moderates? The leaders are holding back, the evidence is in the fact that Israel is constantly fighting groups funded by other middle eastern nations. Always little groups and almost never the nations themselves. When they do fight they never reach a point of complete surrender.

If tomorrow Israel started bombing someone and promised not to stop until complete surrender was given... and followed through with it, then we could say no one is holding back. Anything less then that is holding back.

[Destino]

Well, they were offering conditional surrender. The notion that the nukes ended the war is classic American mythology.
Conditional wasn't good enough.

[luckydevil]

Conditional wasn't good enough.

And we know the story, Emperor Hirohito stayed in power anyway.

[JMS]

Would you still hold the same view that counties need to stop holding back once Iran has a nuclear weapon? OR should Israel just stop holding back?

I'm saying Israel hasn't held back. Not in their short troubled history. And it hasn't gotten them any closer to peace. Peace through negotiation is the only positive solution for all parties.

As for Iran getting nukes.. Israel is part of the problem, not part of the solution. So is the Iranian government and the Arab terrorists. Live by the sword die by the sword, that goes for Israel and all of her antagonists.

Nukes is only one technological advancement that the Arabs are working on which could change the landscape.

[luckydevil]

You should hate using WWII as an example because it is a terrible example. Israel and Palestine are not two separate countries having a war. Israel is the country, Palestine is basically a bunch of refugee camps in that country. They are occupying the same space. The Palestinians have nowhere else to go - it is their home too. Some long term diplomatic solution needs to be found that accomodates both of them or it will go on forever. War won't solve it, unless you think that just killing every civilian on one side or another is a good solution.

Good post, the nature of the war is radically different than it was in WW2, it was a centralized war fought by centralized powers. What we are dealing with now is a decentralized phenomenon (fourth generation warfare).

[JMS]

Who said anything about moderates? The leaders are holding back, the evidence is in the fact that Israel is constantly fighting groups funded by other middle eastern nations. Always little groups and almost never the nations themselves. When they do fight they never reach a point of complete surrender.

If tomorrow Israel started bombing someone and promised not to stop until complete surrender was given... and followed through with it, then we could say no one is holding back. Anything less then that is holding back.


If Israel had that ability then sure, you are right. But Israel doesn't have that ability. The weapons they use are designed and built for a super power with about 100x the ISraeli economy. Israel ran out of bombs in the Leboneese winter war last december and had to be resupplied daily from the US. Like I said, Israel isn't the US. There is no military solution to this war for Israel.

[JMS]

Well, they were offering conditional surrender. The notion that the nukes ended the war is classic American mythology.


It's true the Japanese were offering a cessation of hostilities since shortly after Pearl Harbor. Their plan all along was to hit us, grab a bunch of territory and hope we sue for peace as the Russians did in the Russo–Japanese War or 1904 where Japan also used a sneak attack to start the war.

It's also true the Japanese renewed their offer of a cessation of hostilities weeks before we dropped two nukes on them.

The terms of the cessation of hostilities were not acceptable.


Japan wanted to keep the territories they had taken after Pearl harbor.
Japan wanted the emperor to remain in power.
Japan wanted to remain a feudalistic monarchy.
Truman wanted an unconditional surrender. He didn't get it, as we ultimately did allow the emperor to escape the hangman's noose. But the Emperor did not remain in power, Japan did give up their war won territories, and the government did become a constitutional republic; non of which were on the table when Japan proposed peace.

We even made them pacifists, which we are trying to reverse now.

[Larry]

Well, they were offering conditional surrender. The notion that the nukes ended the war is classic American mythology.

In fact, as I understand it, the only condition Japan wanted was that they'd keep their Emperor.

And what do you know, after using nukes on them, we allowed them to surrender, and keep their Emperor.

When we used nuclear weapons, Japan's negotiating terms didn't change, ours did.

Edit: jms seems to have more info than I did.

[Predicto]

And we know the story, Emperor Hirohito stayed in power anyway.

No he didn't. First of all, he was never "in power." The power was held by Tojo and the military. After the war, Hirohito became a figurehead because WE wanted him to be one to help pacify the Japanese people.

[Predicto]

In fact, as I understand it, the only condition Japan wanted was that they'd keep their Emperor.

And what do you know, after using nukes on them, we allowed them to surrender, and keep their Emperor.

When we used nuclear weapons, Japan's negotiating terms didn't change, ours did.

Edit: jms seems to have more info than I did.


whoops, you edited. NM

[Switchgear]

Israel and Palestine are not two separate countries having a war. Israel is the country, Palestine is basically a bunch of refugee camps in that country. They are occupying the same space. The Palestinians have nowhere else to go - it is their home too.

It's a shame there aren't any other nearby Arab states that could take the refugees in.

[Prosperity]

Liberty,

I pretty much agree with your stated point: If the Palestinian want to complain about Israel, then they should end their war against Israel. Until that time, then well, I won't say that "All's fair", there are some things that aren't fair in war, but 80 civilian deaths a year isn't one of them.

But I'll point out that the thing you quoted about proportional response is a) somebody's opinion, and b) is discussing preemptive action. To me, it's tough to say Israel's actions were unprovoked or preemptive.

a) a very credible opinion, at least as good if not better supported than the others here (until they are backed up further)

b) meh its not tough, but it depends on circumstances... i think it applies in many cases

i think it shows that what some people consider reasonable today has some solid history in international relations

and let's use our brains there are different levels and kinds of war... this also has a solid base in history. The "war" the (*Some*) Palestinians are committing against israel shouldn't be treated like ww2 for example.

[Prosperity]

It's a shame there aren't any other nearby Arab states that could take the refugees in.

those countries have accepted quiet a few refugees, its hard to really accept a lot of people that had their homes seized when they were fleeing a war zone.

[Sarge]

It's a shame there aren't any other nearby Arab states that could take the refugees in.

That would settle things down, and the arab states don't want things to settle down

[JMS]

No he didn't. First of all, he was never "in power." The power was held by Tojo and the military. After the war, Hirohito became a figurehead because WE wanted him to be one to help pacify the Japanese people.


Fact is the image of Hirohito as a remote figure head of feudalistic japan was bogus. Hirohito ruled that country and Tojo worked for him. America perpetrated that myth because it made his escape from prosecution more acceptable. America saw Hirohito, El Douche(sic), and Hitler as all guilty while we fought that war. Hirohito even more so because Pearl harbor brought us into the war and Americans held him responsible for that act. So did our government during war propaganda. When Truman allowed Hirohito to escape trial and execution, he had to have some explanation for the voting public. His story was Hirohito was not the real ruler of Japan but just a figure head. Which was false. Hirohito was just as powerful as any medieval European king. Togo was his minister and implemented his will, but he could have done nothing without the backing of the Emperor.

You are right though that allowing him to live was a concession because even after the nukes Japan was willing to fight for their emperor. We said we would continue bombing with nukes, which was a bluff because we had no more. We definitely caved on that one, although it likely saved 1 million casualties on both sides of the conflict.

You are also right that allowing the emperor to live worked to MacArthur's advantage later during the occupation.