|
09 Apr 02 - 10:55 PM (#686726) Subject: War crimes ljc From: little john cameron What do you think of this then.No opinion from me,I am just posing the question. ljc War crimes Petition |
|
09 Apr 02 - 10:57 PM (#686728) Subject: RE: War crimes ljc From: Lepus Rex Here it is: To: Mrs. Mary Robinson, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights "History teaches that as long as the duty of justice has not been discharged, the spectre of war can re-emerge", Judge Claude Jorda. WE, the undersigned, as the people of this planet, call urgently on Mrs. Mary Robinson to set up a committee to investigate the involvement of Ariel Sharon in war crimes against humanity according to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the General Assembly resolutions 260, 2391, 3074 and Security Council resolution 1296 of United Nations, on behalf of the victims of 1982 massacre of Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon. UN's resolutions have made it clear that the perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity and War Crimes should be prosecuted and duly punished. It is also made clear that the total protection of civilians in an occupied country is in the hands of occupying army. In 1982, Israeli Army was an occupying force in Beirut (Lebanon); according to the international laws they had the responsibility of protection of all civilians under their control. At that time the Israeli Army was under total control of Israeli Defence Ministry, and Ariel Sharon was the Defence Minister. He visited Beirut and pledged total support for the Israeli allied Lebanese Christian Militia. Ariel Sharon himself gave the green light to Lebanese Christian Militia to enter the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila in west Beirut, which consequently resulted in the massacre, torture and rape of hundreds of unarmed civilians, mainly women and children. The Israeli Army was not only monitoring the camps and did nothing to stop the massacre, but as a matter of fact, they paved the path for Militias to enter the camps. They had their direct and clear orders from the Israeli Defence Ministry not to interfere and give free hands and assistance to the Lebanese Christian Militia. "There was a clear obligation on political and military leaders to take reasonable steps to protect civilians when they made their orders. In a situation where civilians' lives were clearly at risk, the person giving orders was even more responsible than the ones carrying them out", Judge Richard Goldstone. With the outbreak of news of massacre in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila, Israeli public was outraged and went on demonstration, and demanded the resignation of Ariel Sharon and an inquiry to the matter. Israeli Knesset took action and sat up a parliamentary committee to investigate Ariel Sharon's involvement in this inhumane act of atrocity. As result of that inquiry, Ariel Sharon was found responsible for the actions of Lebanese Christian Militia, and consequently forced him to resign from his post as Defence Minister. But of course, as he is an Israeli and these crimes were not committed against Israeli nationals, he was never charged and never appeared in any court of justice in Israel. Now the time has come, all evidences and documents are gathered and ready to set up an investigation committee in order to bring those responsible ones to justice beyond their social or political status. May justice prevails and heals the wounds of survived victims. < Sincerely, The Undersigned
|
|
09 Apr 02 - 10:59 PM (#686730) Subject: RE: War crimes ljc From: Lepus Rex Oh, and I like it. :) But I thought he already was considered a war criminal? ---Lepus Rex |
|
09 Apr 02 - 11:18 PM (#686738) Subject: RE: War crimes ljc From: CarolC Thank you for this thread ljc. |
|
10 Apr 02 - 07:50 PM (#687477) Subject: RE: War crimes ljc From: GUEST If you have no opinion ljc why did you post? |
|
10 Apr 02 - 08:06 PM (#687490) Subject: RE: War crimes ljc From: McGrath of Harlow Aiece from the Guardian about the birth today of "the long-awaited international criminal court"
"On Thursday, at a ceremony at UN headquarters in New York, the international criminal court will be born. Enough states will ratify the Rome statute of the ICC to bring the total from its present 56 to above the critical number of 60 needed to activate the treaty. The statute, the text of which was drawn up and first signed in 1998, will then come into force on July 1. Acts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed from then onwards can be investigated and prosecuted by the court. By 2003, the ICC will be up and running, with headquarters in the Hague."
Unfortunately Israel, along with the USA, China, Russia and a lot of others are refusing to be parties to it. And that's all in the article I linked to there. But it'd be much better to have a properly established court to hear these kind of cases rather than cobble together some special tribunal for particular cases, which effectively means war criminals getting away with it unless they come up against what can be dismissed as victors' justice.
|
|
10 Apr 02 - 09:42 PM (#687542) Subject: RE: War crimes ljc From: GUEST What do you think of this then.No opinion from me,I am just posing the question. ljc How do you spell troll? I spell it l j c |
|
10 Apr 02 - 11:27 PM (#687600) Subject: RE: War crimes ljc From: CarolC A moment of sober reflection is perhaps what is needed with this thread, rather than opinions or discussion. And perhaps contributions like McGrath's. Feels like that to me, anyway. |
|
15 Apr 02 - 10:13 AM (#690425) Subject: RE: War crimes ljc From: Wolfgang MidEastChamber That's where the petition comes from. Wolfgang |
|
15 Apr 02 - 10:43 AM (#690454) Subject: RE: War crimes ljc From: GUEST War is murder and therefore not lightly entered into. Ariel Sharon is no more a criminal than Arafat nor less of one for his actions. The UN has for the most part been totally ineffective throughout its lamentable existance and should be tried for similar crimes itself. Somalia and several other examples.... "Judge Not lest ye yourself be judged" |
|
16 Apr 02 - 01:35 AM (#691012) Subject: RE: War crimes ljc From: The Pooka I too would see both Arafat & Sharon investigated and, if probable cause found, both put on trial. I gotchyer "moral equivalency", riiight heeeah! If it should be answered that Arafat is exempt because he does not lead a nation-state at formal war, then Israelis need only harken back to the early days of the Irgun guerrillas and send unofficial, "private" death squads---citizen militias, y'know, just expressing their deep anger & frustration---in to "take care of business". (Hey, the IRA and the Orange paramilitaries did it; and now their "political wings" have honored seats at the tables of government. "So it goes." - Vonnegut War IS criminal, God damn it. |
|
16 Apr 02 - 01:43 AM (#691018) Subject: RE: War crimes ljc From: CarolC I don't know, The Pooka. It looks like the Israeli military is doing a pretty good job of expressing their deep anger and frustration as it is. Or are you saying that they should send in some terrorists to take up any slack left by the Military? |
|
16 Apr 02 - 08:43 AM (#691181) Subject: RE: War crimes ljc From: McGrath of Harlow Things can only start getting better when the peoples involved put their own leaders on trial for leading them into disaster. And the more they are actually in control of events, the greater the responsibility. |
|
16 Apr 02 - 08:57 AM (#691191) Subject: RE: War crimes ljc From: GUEST Perhaps it would help if the Arabs would stop shouting Holy War, and teaching young children to commit suicide in the name of Allah. Strange how Arafat's wife can live in Paris and go shopping with her daughter, and at the same time give an interview about how concerned she is about Arabs living in poverty; and "if she had a son she would be proud if he died as a suicide bomber" Perhaps its time they spread some of that oil wealth around their own people and gave them something worth living for? Educate women instead of treating them like chattel; and join the rest of the world in the 21st century. |
|
16 Apr 02 - 09:08 AM (#691206) Subject: RE: War crimes ljc From: RichM War is not murder. Look at any legal definition. The reverse "is killing murder?" is a subject that philosophies, creeds, ethicists, and religions have and will continue to debate, for as long as the human race endures. Does war work? Unfortunately it does. Either one side defeats the other, or both sides eventually become weary of destruction--weary enough to consider nonviolent alternatives.
War is endemic to the human social process. This isn't debatable, since war has always been with us. In the context of the Palestine-Israeli conflict: the combattants have yet to reach the point where the heat of emotions gives way to a weary halt, and then a search for accommodation.
What complicates the solution is that potential intervenors--the USA, EU, Muslim nations, all have their own agendas. Beyond this is the question as to the aims and effects on the world, of the religion of Islam. So far, no one has been able to offer the magic solution to this conflict. So, we wait....
|
|
16 Apr 02 - 11:40 AM (#691299) Subject: RE: War crimes ljc From: McGrath of Harlow The problem with "all war is murder" is that it tends in practice to be interpreted to mean that any attempts to pout a limit on the murder is futile, and undermines the concept of war crimes.
Trying to construct agreed limits is frustrating, and has a risk of appearing to legitimise terrible things - but the alternative is even worse.
War crimes include such practices as killing prisoners, targetting civilians, using civilian prisoners as shields, torturing captives, ethnic cleansing, and other things like that.
Outlaw them and war is still horrible. But at least in wars where people in power knew that they would have to answer in court for it, even if their side won, we might get away from a world in which the vast majority of people killed in wars are non-combatant civilians of all ages. |
|
16 Apr 02 - 03:00 PM (#691386) Subject: RE: War crimes ljc From: Mrrzy And what about the Dutch government resigning en masse for their role in the Serbian massacre? Now that is taking responsibility. A little too late, but still, better than most! |
|
16 Apr 02 - 03:28 PM (#691409) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: GUEST If you have any experience in it you know war is murder.. Dont sugar coat it with any idea you can apply civilized rules to combat. You kill the enemy as required, sometimes because you cant take them prisoner, or leave them in the field. Going too far and commiting murder on a mass scale can be judged but who is going to do the judging? The UN is a fucking farce, and the International Court of the Hague not much better. The winners judge the losers and all the rest be damned...An impartial judge doesnt exist except in fiction. |
|
16 Apr 02 - 05:58 PM (#691514) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: RichM The problem with treating *war* as something beyond any rules, is that humans are consistent; once you dismiss rules in one arena(war), it starts to be applied to other arenas (civilian). Where do you draw the line? All human activity should be subject to some ethical standards. |
|
16 Apr 02 - 06:12 PM (#691525) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: McGrath of Harlow An honest judge could tell the difference between killing in battle and carrying out massacres of prisoners and murdering civilians. It's just a question of the evidence being produced, and the judge having the courage to do what's right.
I suspect that most people in most countries would have no problems with their politicians being given a fair trial for any crimes they were accused of, and being found guilty and punished if the crimes were proved.
Do people really feel a sense of solidarity with war criminals just because they come from their own country? Or because they are powerful and important people? I think the closer such people were to me the more sense of outrage against them I would feel. |
|
16 Apr 02 - 08:11 PM (#691615) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: The Pooka Carol C, your Q. earlier - nonono. I wrote (emphasis added) "**If it should be answered that Arafat is exempt because he does not lead a nation-state at formal war**, then Israelis need only harken back to the early days of the Irgun guerrillas ..." My point, ineptly expressed, was simply that *Arafat* must not be let off the hook simply because he's not prime minister of a nation or general of an army as such. That's all. If only Sharon is now accountable, then the Israelis in future could escape trial by *switching* to guerrilla terror tactics (which they used to be *very* good at) *instead* of organized military operations. It's not a serious suggestion; it's just to support the point that if both sides commit atrocities, both sides must stand so accused. As for reference to Israeli "deep anger and frustration", that was, quite frankly, satirical of the proposition that the Palestinian terrorists conduct their suicide/homicide bombings because they feel severely pissed off and terribly thwarted and we must be understanding of this. I agree with McGrath. |
|
16 Apr 02 - 08:27 PM (#691628) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: McGrath of Harlow The question with Arafat wouldn't be whether he was prime minister or whatever, it would be whether he was in fact in a position to control and stop violence that amounted to war crimes.
Sharon managed to avoid getting tried for the massacres in Lebanon, on the grounds that, though he was in chrge of the miliart operation, he wasn't in fact in full control of what his agents did in Sabra and Shatilla. In Qibya in 1953, where his men killed scores of civilians in an attack on a village that involved blowing up houses, the excuse was, I gather, that they didn't actually know there were people in the houses... Unfortunately perhaps it never ever went to trial in either case, which might have cleared up a lot of things.
I'd like to see them both in the dock in some neutral country. Maybe they'd even get cleared. Being put on trial should have nothing at all to do with whether your side wins or not. If you pull off a successful bank raid, that isn't normally seen as a reason you shouldn't be tried for it, so why should it be different for politicians and generals and other public servants? |
|
16 Apr 02 - 08:33 PM (#691633) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: The Pooka McGrath - "The question with Arafat...would be whether he was in fact in a position to control and stop violence that amounted to war crimes." / Yes -- or, whether he in fact ordered, inspired, and/or facilitated it. "Being put on trial should have nothing at all to do with whether your side wins or not. " / AMEN. Well said.
|
|
16 Apr 02 - 08:36 PM (#691636) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Amos Perhaps a new look at what constitutes "legal" war should be entered -- not allowing it to simply be legal by reason of declaration but only under conditions of certain defined threats to the survival of a people or the people of a state -- NOT merely to the leaders of the state. The problem is that wars are often caused by insanity and incompetence. Even insanity can sometimes pass, but the death of young, able, intelligent people who step forward in relatively good-faith responses to a PR campaign about defending a homer country against an eneemy country is extremely permanent. I seriously wonder how many soldiers Germany would have raised if the strategies being considered by Hitler and his cohorts were to have been made public BEFORE they were executed under military commannd? A |
|
16 Apr 02 - 08:50 PM (#691645) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: CarolC Ok, The Pooka. I think I understand the distinction you're making. However, I think it would be a lot more accurate to say that the reason the Palestinians use the tactics they've been using is because they don't have a military force at all. Whereas the Israelis have the fourth biggest military force in the world (at least that's the figure I've been hearing). Maybe if the Palestinians had a military force of their own, they would be using it instead of suicide bombers. |
|
16 Apr 02 - 08:53 PM (#691648) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: CarolC ...and then the Palestinian leaders could be held accountable to the standards that are set for military forces who are defending their homeland against occupying forces. |
|
16 Apr 02 - 09:13 PM (#691657) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: DougR No, the Palestinians do not have a standing army. Palestine has standing terrorists. Those are the ones Israel is trying to eradicate. For the life of me, McGrath, I don't understand why you, and many others who agree with you, believe that an International Tribunal would be fairer than each individual country trying those who commit crimes against them. I don't agree with your P.O.V. at all (not that it will come as a surprise to you of course :>)) I doubt very seriously if any of the countries you name in one of your earlier posts would agree to by-pass their own courts in favor of a world court or tribunal. DougR |
|
16 Apr 02 - 09:28 PM (#691668) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: CarolC No, the Palestinians do not have a standing army. Palestine has standing terrorists. Those are the ones Israel is trying to eradicate. And in going about it the way they have, the only thing they have succeded in accomplishing is to create a whole new generation of terrorists. The problem can't be solved with the use of military force. It has to be a political process if the Israelis want to see lasting relief from terrorism. |
|
16 Apr 02 - 09:49 PM (#691683) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Celtic Soul This has nothing at all to do with this thread really, but I am curious here...Israel is the size of New Jersey. For those on the other side of the pond, I can drive the long way through N.J. in less than 3 hours, and across it in one. How can they have the 4th largest military in the world?
|
|
16 Apr 02 - 10:14 PM (#691703) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: CarolC I can't answer the "how" question, but according to the results of the Google search I just did, it appears that Israel shares the distinction of having the fourth largest military in the world with India and Iraq. So I guess not everyone is in agreement about who has the fourth largest. |
|
16 Apr 02 - 10:33 PM (#691713) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: CarolC Correction: Aparently the figures on Iraq were prior to the Gulf War. And one site I visited claims that India has the third largest military force in the world. |
|
16 Apr 02 - 10:39 PM (#691716) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: DougR Carol C: I will pose the same question to you I posed in a thread several weeks ago. When has a conflict of the magnitude that exists between the Palestinians and the Israelies at the present time been resolved over a "peace" table? The Israelies and the Palestinians are at war. Pure and simple. Like it or not. The winner, which will be determined when the loser says "enough" will dictate the terms of the truce. DougR |
|
16 Apr 02 - 11:10 PM (#691748) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: GUEST,.gargoyle Those Brits that read the lovely pink paper Financial Times know this, it was in the Tueday, April 16, 2002 edition. Perhaps, Americans will see it on their way to the funny pages. A quick synopsis.
The Dutch cabinet resigned on Tuesday, after two ministers forced the hand of premier Wim Kok by saying they would quit over the country's role in the Srebrenica massacre.
This follows a report last week commissioned by the government into how its troops failed to defend the Muslim enclave in Bosnia against a 1995 incursion by Serb forces that left 7,000 inhabitants dead.
After a cabinet meeting lasting nearly four hours, Mr Kok said he was going to see Queen Beatrix to hand in their collective resignation.
At least seven-and-a half thousand Bosnian Muslims missing, presumed dead. Some six thousand of them were the victims of mass executions. That is the dreadful outcome of the events following the invasion and capture of the Srebrenica enclave - an official Safe Area.
At least seven-and-a-half thousand Bosnian Muslims went missing; it is virtually certain that all of them were killed. Around six thousand of these people were slaughtered in mass executions. This is the sad balance of the events of July 1995 that followed the Bosnian-Serbian army's capture of Srebrenica, which had been declared a United Nations 'Safe Area' in 1993. These atrocities have evoked deep emotions.
Dutch troops (Dutchbat) were present at the fall of Srebrenica. Therefore, the ensuing debate was particularly heated in the Netherlands. There were numerous uncertainties about exactly what had occurred. But, the ruling party of the Dutch government took the "hit." |
|
16 Apr 02 - 11:25 PM (#691762) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Troll A bit of thread creep here but somewhat relevant to the discussion. It is from an article published on 11 April in FrontPageMagazine.com entitled "Ten Tips On Being An Arafat Apologist". Thei "tip" deals with the "Palestinian Homeland"; a term that is much used these days and has been used in this thread. "Tip #1 – Imagine that the Palestinians are fighting for a homeland that was taken away from them by the evil Jews. That's right. The foundation to becoming and remaining a faithful pro-Arafat enthusiast is to intoxicate yourself with the belief that the Palestinians actually once owned a homeland that was, in turn, stolen by the greedy and parasitic Jews. While trying to convince yourself of this fantasy, ignore the historical fact that the Palestine Mandate was never a nation, let alone even a political entity of any kind. It was a "mandate" that was created by the British from the remnants of the Turkish Empire after World War I. 10% of it was given to the Jews and 90% was given to the Palestinian Arabs. The key here is that you should never worry about where 90% of Palestine actually is. Just obsess with the miniscule tiny bit of land that the Israelis "occupy" now. It's not important that this land was never officially "owned" by anyone in the first place. You should also never reflect on whether all of your rage and hatred on this issue is proportional to the fact that Israel consists of 1% of the land in the Middle East. Just get really angry that Israel is on territory that you think should be given to the Palestinians. And because you think this, then it automatically makes it right and historically correct. You should never wonder how your moral indignation on this issue fits with your complete indifference to the fact that Jordan occupies 80% of the land that made up the original Palestine Mandate. So if you really cared about the Palestinians, you would obviously be focusing your energy on protesting the crime being perpetrated by the Jordanians against the Palestinians. But the key here is that, well, deep down, you don't really care about the Palestinians -– and neither should you. You must never admit this, but the Palestinians are only there for you to cynically exploit as pawns in your contributory effort to finish off what Adolph Hitler started. That's right. You know what I'm talking about. And even the Palestinians are in on this with you. I mean, think about it: if the Palestinians themselves really cared about getting a homeland, don't you think that they would be screaming about -- and fighting for -- the land that Jordan occupies? Don't you think it is somewhat curious that Jordan has never, even for a second, been the target of a Palestine liberation movement? Don't you think it is a little bit curious that, in 1948, the Palestinian Arabs rejected an international resolution that would have established a Palestinian state, and instead focused all of their energies on destroying the new Jewish state? You're starting to get the picture now, right? So be a smart and clever Arafat apologist. The overall objective of your life should be facilitating the killing of Jews and destroying the state of Israel. The last thing you should be doing is worrying about the Palestinians. At the same time, however, in terms of what you actually say in public, you must always discuss the Middle East "problem" on the assumption that you are agonizing over the Palestinians' plight and how their entire "homeland" somehow lies in tiny little Israel. It is also a very good idea that you always refer to the myth of how the Jews "stole" the Palestinian "homeland" in passing, because then it makes its reality appear to be a given. You can't believe how effective this ploy can be, especially in the midst of people who know nothing about Middle East history. So believe in yourself and just do it!" I'll try to find the url and post it if anyone waoul care to read the entire piece. I also posted this on 13 April on the "who are the terrorists now" thread. troll
|
|
16 Apr 02 - 11:33 PM (#691767) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: CarolC Israel gets 3 billion dollars from the US in foriegn aid (as opposed to 17 million to the Palestinians). The US places the condition that 2 billion of foriegn aid to Israel has to go for military purposes.
DougR, some people would say that peace negotiations are working in Northern Ireland. I don't know, myself, if that is the truth or not, but the people in the US who have been a part of that process have said that it's working.
Having said that, when did people ever go to the moon before they went to the moon? If you always use what has been done before to determine what can be done, you'll never accomplish anything at all. And short of being eliminated through ethnic cleansing, I don't really see the Palestinians giving up until they are free from Israeli occupation according to the terms of the UN resolutions (can't remember the names of them right now) that are being applied to this situation.
|
|
16 Apr 02 - 11:36 PM (#691770) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Big Mick Well said, CarolC. |
|
17 Apr 02 - 12:19 AM (#691792) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Troll I know that Saudi Arabia doesn't send money to Israel; how much do they send to their co-religionist Arab brothers in so-called Palestine? How much do the other wealthy (and not so wealthy) countries send? Israel is our only friend in the Middle-East and we have substantial national interest in what goes on in the area. It rather stands to reason that we want them to have a strong military. The Saudis et.al. have done nothing to promote growth in the region -which they could easily afford to do- because it is to their advantage to keep the West Bank as a giant refugee camp. The Saudi King could bring irrigation water (for example) to the area with his pocket change. It hasn't been done. Why? Because the Arab world wants nothing less than the destruction of the State of Israel. Their own words have proved it time and again. Should they accomplish this feat, the palestinian Arabs will be left to sink or swim with minimal support. Take a good look at how they treat them (the palestinians) now. They keep them in refugee camps and give them no opportunities to start a new life. No. they must wait until Isreal is defeated and then go back "home." Speaking of "occupation" didn't they WIN that territory in the 1967 War? Just asking. troll |
|
17 Apr 02 - 12:28 AM (#691798) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: CarolC troll, re: your accusation that everyone who doesn't agree with Sharon is a Nazi, there are Jews in the US, and even Jews in the Israeli government who don't agree with Sharon. Are they Nazis too? |
|
17 Apr 02 - 01:49 AM (#691820) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Troll Carol, I made no accusation of any kind. I posted a portion of an article satirically talking about those who support Yasser Arafat and addressing the self-deception the author feels they must find necessary to render that support. Sharons name isn't mentioned. I think that it is entirely possible to support NEITHER side or to feel that one side is more in the wrong that the other. Just my opinion> I think that the section you have based your charge on is the one which reads:"You must never admit this, but the Palestinians are only there for you to cynically exploit as pawns in your contributory effort to finish off what Adolph Hitler started. That's right. You know what I'm talking about. And even the Palestinians are in on this with you. I mean, think about it: if the Palestinians themselves really cared about getting a homeland, don't you think that they would be screaming about -- and fighting for -- the land that Jordan occupies? Don't you think it is somewhat curious that Jordan has never, even for a second, been the target of a Palestine liberation movement?
Don't you think it is a little bit curious that, in 1948, the Palestinian Arabs rejected an international resolution that would have established a Palestinian state, and instead focused all of their energies on destroying the new Jewish state?" troll |
|
17 Apr 02 - 02:02 AM (#691822) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: The Pooka Carol C - prominent Palestinian spokespersons are now accusing the Israelis of being Nazis. What a world. If I deliberately murder innocents, I am accountable, irrespective of my "cause" or my "status". Likewise if you do; if bin Laden does; if Sharon does; if Gen. Tommy Franks does; if Timothy McVeigh does; if the IRA does, or the Ulster Red Hand Defenders; --- or the Fatah militias under Arafat. In my book, one woman's terrorist is another man's terrorist. The only true Freedom Fighters are those who struggle, however forlornly, to liberate humankind *from this madness.* May God deliver us from our tribes. |
|
17 Apr 02 - 02:12 AM (#691827) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Troll Here's the address for the article. The authors name is Jaime Glazov. click here troll |
|
17 Apr 02 - 03:14 AM (#691841) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: DougR Carol C: you want to compare what is currently going on in Palestine and Israel with what has been going on in Northern Ireland? Okay, but I don't think so. The will of both sides in both confrontations might be similar, but I don't believe (and I'm ducking my head as I say this) I don't think the conflict in Ireland ever reached the same point that it has in the Mid-East at the present moment. I hope the truce in Northern Ireland results in a final solution to the problem there, but I would not bet on it. DougR |
|
17 Apr 02 - 06:10 AM (#691898) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: McGrath of Harlow "I don't understand why you, and many others who agree with you, believe that an International Tribunal would be fairer than each individual country trying those who commit crimes against them."
That's called private justice, or vengeance in normal life, and it's what the Mafia does.
The idea of an International Tribune is that is countries are unable or unwilling in particular cases to put on trial their own people who are accused of war crimes, it's there to see that justice is done.
I wouldn't think that our view on the principles involved are so far apart Doug. I think the differences would come in more about the actual facts.
The principles would be that there are some actions which deserve to be treated as criminal, whoever does them, and that where there are serious grounds for thinking that someone has committed such acts, it is right that they should be given a fair trial by a fair court.
I'd also think that we would both agree that, where crimes are committed by people acting as our representatives, we have a particular duty to ensure that they are fully investigated and punished.
Where we might disagree is about the extent to which this is already done. My view is that people in many countries, including the ones we live in, and especially important people, have been allowed to get away with murder; that sometimes there is more hope of a fair trial where the tribunal is not domestic; and that the existence of the International Tribunal is a small step towards making it more likely that these crimes will be deterred in more cases. A very small step.
|
|
17 Apr 02 - 06:23 AM (#691905) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Wolfgang That Glazov has a PhD in history should not deceive us. The article Troll has linked too isn't meant as a piece of serious research but as a piece of one-sided propaganda. I have read similar pieces from the other side and what amazes me most is that close to all of the facts mentioned are correct (as far as I can tell) but that the tales are vastly different. Both sides don't usually work with lies but with omissions. If you read about the same event from different sources you find completely different things mentioned. The only thing both parties agree is that the UN resolution # ... should be respected and isn't by the other side. The number of the resolution they want the focus the attention on, however, differs. Read on the sites Troll has linked to and on the sites of the MidEastChamber I have linked to above and you'll realise that the time for peaceful talks has not come yet as sad as this may be. The ability or the will to see the world with the eyes of the opponent (just for the sake of understanding) is still completely missing. In Northern Ireland, they are much further in that respect. I don't think that Sharon's policy is criminal but I think it is wrong, completely wrong (if that sounds familiar to you, I'm merely paraphrasing Talleyrand). Wolfgang |
|
17 Apr 02 - 01:12 PM (#692253) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: CarolC I don't think the conflict in Ireland ever reached the same point that it has in the Mid-East at the present moment. I guess I have to agree with you on that one, DougR. The magnitude of death and destruction that is currently being visited upon the Palestinians by the Israeli military is probably more comparable to what was happening in Yugoslavia a few years ago than what has happened in Northern Ireland. |
|
17 Apr 02 - 01:57 PM (#692278) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: GUEST,Ard Mhacha Doug R, I would agree with you, the conflict in the north of Ireland never got close to the terrible scenes we have witnessed on TV in Palestine. As a resident of north-east Ireland I am truly thankful. Ard Mhacha. |
|
17 Apr 02 - 02:32 PM (#692294) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Wolfgang McGrath, you have very good arguments for an International Court and I'm with you there, but you are off the mark with the Mafia comparison. Doug writes of trials and that is not what the Mafia is known for. You both disagree whether an International Court or a National Court is the better choice, but a National Court with a trial is very far from private justice or Mafia. Wolfgang |
|
17 Apr 02 - 02:36 PM (#692295) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: McGrath of Harlow Thank God they never did get to this level in the Northern Ireland war. But all the ingredients were there for it to have. The British Government botched things badly enough, and helped keep the pot boiling for long long years, but there were at least some kinds of limits, limits which were consistently disregarded in the Holy Land conflict. There's been a feedback process of violence.
Yes there was shoot-to-kill and internment, and Bloody Sunday, all feeding into the madness. But if there had been an official policy of assassination of militants on the streets of Dundalk or Dublin, or as then were driving in their cars with their families; if there had been armed colonies of Loyalist, with military garrisons to guard them set up on strategic places throughout the Republic, and checkpoints on roads everywhere, and armed incursions and raids on communities in the Republic after every bombing carried out by the IRA, or by any breakaway group of militants...
Every conflict is different - they all have their own forms of insanity. But there have been some terrible mistakes made by the Israeli government, and it looks like worse to come. And the outcome will be even worse things happening from the other side.
"This is not the way to put an end to war..." |
|
17 Apr 02 - 02:49 PM (#692302) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: McGrath of Harlow What I meant there was that being your own judge and jury and executioner against people who have offended you is a Mafia way of working. That's how far the analogy was mean to carry. The implication was that all countries should focus their main attention on their own war criminals. |
|
17 Apr 02 - 02:58 PM (#692307) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Wolfgang There have been hundreds (or thousands) of war crime trials against German perpetrators held in other countries than Germany after the last war. If a German was sentenced (sometimes in absence) in Italy or Greece or wherever for a crime he had done there I fail to see anything mafialike in that procedure. Wolfgang |
|
17 Apr 02 - 05:34 PM (#692353) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: McGrath of Harlow Fair comment Wolfgang. It was a clumsy analogy. I was aiming to criticise the idea that we should be concentrating our attention on the crimes other people did against us, rather than the crimes our people do against others.
But in principle I think it is best that the job of judging in these type of situations should be done by people who aren't too closely connected with either party. |
|
17 Apr 02 - 06:47 PM (#692405) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: DougR I guess we can agree on one thing, McGrath, the right to disagree! I suppose we have reached that point. I can't believe the majority of the population of the U. S. would ever favor turning trials for those charged with committing cimes against the U. S. over to some kind of world court. We have our own courts, as do other countries. The fact that it is a world court would not, in my opinion, ensure that the accused would receive a fairer trial than they would have received in the country that was harmed. Just my opinion. DougR |
|
17 Apr 02 - 08:24 PM (#692478) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: McGrath of Harlow The implication of that is that the American legal system has a duty to deal rigorously with any American, however important or powerful, who is reasonably suspected of responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity. I am sure that you would wish this to happen (and I am not being in any way sarcastic in saying that - I cannot imagine that you would disagree on this point).
And I think there are very few countries indeed which have lived up to that standard, including those who have signed up to the International Tribunal which starts to operate this summer (not retrospectively), as well as those, such as the USA, China, and Russia, which have not.
I think that one reason so many countries have signed up to it is because they are aware of their failings in the past, and see this as a way of doing better in the future, and of binding themselves to a higher standard. |
|
18 Apr 02 - 05:04 AM (#692662) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Wolfgang An International Court could have a lot of advantages. For instance, countries do seldom try their own citizens for war crimes done in other countries. Even Germany that had several war crime trials against Germans after the last war took a very long time before starting the first trials. There have been Germans sentenced to death in e.g. Italy who lived under their own name unharmed and with an officer pension for decades in Germany. We need the court especially for war crime trials when the perpetrators live untried in their own countries. Wolfgang |
|
18 Apr 02 - 03:42 PM (#693064) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: DougR As long as the world court or tribunal does not usurp the perogative of local courts in the individual countries to handle war crimes, I can see your point, McGrath and Wolfgang. On the other hand, wouldn't it be possible for Bush, or Blair for example, to be charged with crimes against humanity by say, the Palestine Authority, Or Iraq, or Iran, or any other country that looks favorably on terrorism, and be expected to stand trial before the world body? I don't think that would fly. DougR |
|
18 Apr 02 - 07:43 PM (#693243) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: McGrath of Harlow "I don't think that would fly." Well, it wouldn't for Bush, since America hasn't signed up, and it wouldn't for Blair at this point since it only comes in in July and won't be retrospective.
But if there's a case against either of them that would merit bringing either of them to court, that's what courts are for, testing out the evidence without any regard for how important and powerful the accused may be. "Fiat justitia, ruat coelum." Which means "let justice be done though the heavens fall", but it sounds even morespendid in the Latin.)
It'd be good to think that the domestic justice system would be strong enough and independent enough to convict them if the evidence merited it. But in the case of America, if they couldn't even convict Clinton...or Nixon... |
|
18 Apr 02 - 07:43 PM (#693244) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: McGrath of Harlow "I don't think that would fly." Well, it wouldn't for Bush, since America hasn't signed up, and it wouldn't for Blair at this point since it only comes in in July and won't be retrospective.
But if there's a case against either of them that would merit bringing either of them to court, that's what courts are for, testing out the evidence without any regard for how important and powerful the accused may be. "Fiat justitia, ruat coelum." Which means "let justice be done though the heavens fall", but it sounds even more splendid in the Latin.)
It'd be good to think that the domestic justice system would be strong enough and independent enough to convict them if the evidence merited it. But in the case of America, if they couldn't even convict Clinton...or Nixon... |
|
19 Apr 02 - 12:46 AM (#693413) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: DougR McGrath: You make my point. Any Kook could bring charges against a world leader and it would have to be treated seriously. DougR |
|
19 Apr 02 - 06:36 AM (#693557) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: GUEST Doug R... Spot on mate.. And evidence can be manufactured against them after the fact.. |
|
19 Apr 02 - 06:52 AM (#693560) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: McGrath of Harlow I think that if there is strong evidence that if anyone has committed a serious crime it should be treated seriously, and that noone should be above the law.
That is what the rule of law means. Innocent people sometimes get convicted, and guilty people sometimes escape scot free, and those are flaws on a legal system that probably can't be completely avoided. But any idea that there is some class of people who cannot be touched - that is to undermine the whole principle of the rule of law. War crimes are real crimes. |
|
19 Apr 02 - 07:53 AM (#693597) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: GUEST The principle of law applies in most countries, but punishment does not always fit the crime. Ref: Albert Speer, and Waffen SS... their punishment was way out of proportion to the real criminals of the third reich. Cooks, medics and ordinary soldiers were all treated as war criminals simply because they wore the SS uniform. Only a small percentage of SS soldiers were involved in the holocaust and other atrocities. Partizanjaeger ( partizan hunters ) who received no Geneva Convention treatment when caught alive by their adversaries, after Germanys surrender were attacked by the Russian airforce; this was after they laid down their weapons. No trials for Russians? Food for thought (BTW I have Jewish blood in me) The Viet Cong murdered thousands of non combatants, and failed to observe the Geneva Conventions, but no Interrnational Trials yet???? |
|
19 Apr 02 - 08:09 AM (#693617) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: McGrath of Harlow And those are some of the reasons why setting up a standing International Tribunal makes sense. |
|
19 Apr 02 - 08:13 AM (#693621) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: GUEST Ahem... It was an International Tribunal Mc Grath |
|
19 Apr 02 - 09:16 AM (#693666) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Grab Doug, there's a very simple reason for the US opposing an international court. It's not that the US doesn't trust the rest of the world to give Americans a fair trial, it's that the US (a) still has senior politicians who can be held accountable for war crimes in Vietnam, and (b) could be held responsible for propping up regimes who are busy committing crimes against humanity (eg. Iraq and Israel). If anyone can show that the Reagan administration knew Saddam Hussein was gassing the Kurds and Marsh Arabs whilst the US was providing him with the equipment to do it, things could get real interesting for a lot of American politicians. It certainly puts the US into an interesting group though, doesn't it? Who opposes impartial trials for war crimes? well, Russia, China, the Arab states, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, anywhere else where you can be tortured by the police and "disappeared"... and the US. Marvellous. Certainly there are American courts. However, they've not been conspicuously enthusiastic in their actions, and they have no jurisdiction to prevent the President or other senior officials from taking action either to authorise crimes against humanity or to assist those who do. It's simply not in their remit, and being countrymen of these officials they are unlikely to oppose them. I'd go so far to say that an American could never receive a fair trial in the US if convicted of crimes against humanity - no matter what the evidence, he'd either be found not guilty or get off with little/no penalty. This isn't a criticism of the US specifically - the same holds true for every country. Only independent courts can do the job properly without bias towards their countrymen. Graham. |
|
19 Apr 02 - 09:27 AM (#693674) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: McGrath of Harlow No Grab. It can't very well be worries about past war crimes or alleged war crimes that get in the way of America or any other country backing the new Tribunal, since the court won't have any retrospective powers.
In other words, nothing that has happened in the past can ever be brought before the new Tribunal. Only things that haven't yet happened, where the hope is that the existence of the Tribunal might make it a little less likely that they will happen.
|
|
19 Apr 02 - 09:43 AM (#693684) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: GUEST "Fidel dies and goes to heaven. But he's turned away. A room has been prepared for him in hell. When he gets down there, he doesn't like the accommodations. So he tells the Devil he has to go back to heaven to get his luggage. The Devil, no fool, sends two assistant devils to bring it back. When nobody in heaven answers their knock, they climb over the wall. A passing angel, seeing them, says: "Fidel got down there not five minutes ago, and already we have rafters." |
|
19 Apr 02 - 02:31 PM (#693849) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Mrrzy Ah, but Bush isn't just ANY kook! |
|
19 Apr 02 - 02:32 PM (#693851) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Troll "... regimes who are busy committing crimes against humanity (eg. Iraq and Israel)." Amazing, Grab! The Palestinian Arabs can send out suicide bombers to commit homicide against women and children and they get no mention as committing crimes against humanity. The Israelis try to stop the bombers, and they are war criminals. By what feat of sophistry do you reconcile this seemingly illogical statement? troll |
|
19 Apr 02 - 03:14 PM (#693896) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: GUEST,Roger O'K How about Sharon for the Nobel peace prize? By killing a mere few hundred Palestinians (and they don't have oil so they don't matter) he's making it impossible for Bush and his poodle to get on with the business of killing thousands of Iraquis. |
|
19 Apr 02 - 04:40 PM (#693955) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: DougR "A few hundred Palestinians," Roger O'K? Where is the evidence? So far twenty-seven bodies have been found in the area where the Palestinians were claiming that there had been a massacre of "hundreds of innocent people." DougR |
|
19 Apr 02 - 04:51 PM (#693962) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: GUEST What the Palestinians ment to say was "hundreds of pieces of valiant martyrs" or something similar..... |
|
19 Apr 02 - 04:52 PM (#693963) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: alanabit I haven't got time to read all this thread. However, thanks for posting it LJC. I read the petition and signed it immediately. I like to think of myself as a friend of a peaceful, secure Israel. By God they make it hard work at times. The news at the moment is just unbearable. Sharon is certainly not the only criminal out there, but for sure he should be brought to book. |
|
19 Apr 02 - 05:22 PM (#693984) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: CarolC Palestinians have repeatedly stated that they want independent observers to come in and investigate Palestinian claims of a massacre by the Israeli military. If Israel has nothing to hide, I'm sure they'll have no objection to independent observers making such an investigation. |
|
19 Apr 02 - 07:07 PM (#694026) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: GUEST,Roger O'K DougR- sources 1 the Israeli Defence Forces Radio - until they realised they had been overheard and then "corrected" the statement. 2 a whole bunch of journalists in the highly-respected Guardian newspaper. I hope that if I mention the fact that several of these journalists who oppose the war have "Jewish-sounding" names, you won't call me an anti-Semite. I have long been favourably disposed to Israel, but Sharon is a disgrace to it. |
|
19 Apr 02 - 09:04 PM (#694082) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: McGrath of Harlow The Israelis made very sure indeed to keep any observers or reporters or camera crews well away from whatever was going on.
In the light of that, how is it possible not to be deeply suspicious of anything the Israeli government and military say at this time?
There desperately needs to be a proper independent investigation. No botched up effort, with an Israeli equivalent of Justice Widgery, the judge who carried out the totally discredited whitewash of Bloody Sunday.
It is going to be terribly hard to do, and every days delay makes it harder to get at the truth, and provides more opportunity for people to tamper with the evidence. But whatever the actual truth may be, it cannot, please God, be as bad as the stories that will become accepted as the truth, in the absence of a proper investigation. |
|
19 Apr 02 - 09:32 PM (#694093) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: DougR Conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy! Come on guys, I don't know what television coverage you are watching, but I've certainly seen scenes of where the fighting has taken place. And Guest Roger O'K, you didn't even come close. DougR |
|
19 Apr 02 - 09:53 PM (#694104) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: McGrath of Harlow Not so much a conspiracy, more a cover-up. Which is pretty common in situations like this. The only thing that is absolutely certain is that some people are lying.
"I've certainly seen scenes of where the fighting has taken place." "has taken place" - past tense
Pictures of scenes of "where fighting has taken place" and where buildings have been demolished does nothing to reveal whether the stories that have been appearing in our papers are true or not. Stories about field executions, about Israeli soldiers using civilian prisoners as human shields, and about houses being bulldozed with families inside them, without giving them a chance to come out. Someone is undoubtedly lying. Maybe it is the people who say they saw those things happening. Maybe it is the people who deny that they happened.
If the reporters had not been kept out until after the fighting and the bulldozing and all that was finished with, there would have been a lot more evidence to help determine the truth.
|
|
19 Apr 02 - 11:36 PM (#694132) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: DougR Thank you so much for correcting my grammar, McGrath. Thoughtful of you. For someone so cynical, I doubt there is any evidence, good or bad that would be satisfactory. :>) DougR |
|
19 Apr 02 - 11:46 PM (#694136) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: CarolC I'd love to know how you define the word "cynical", DougR. |
|
20 Apr 02 - 12:31 AM (#694151) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Troll Roger O'K, when the "freedom fighters" crashed their "borrowed" planes into the World Trade Center, the estimate of the dead ran as high as 15,000 or more. As more became known, the numbers were revised downward. But you intimate that the IDF Radio published correct figures in the middle of a battle and then revised the numbers downward when " they realised they had been overheard and then "corrected" the statement." And just how did the reporters (with "jewish-sounding names") obtain their evidence if the IDF has been keeping all news media out of the area? Does the Guardian have clairvoyants on its staff? Carol, Websters defines "cynical" as "contemptously distrustful of human nature and motives" and a "cynic" as "a faultfinding, captious critic; a misanthrope; specif., one who believes that human conduct is motivated wholly by self-interest." I'm not sure what definition Doug uses, but I'll stand by Webster. troll |
|
20 Apr 02 - 12:49 AM (#694155) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: CarolC Thanks troll. I'd still like to know how DougR defines "cynical" though. |
|
20 Apr 02 - 12:56 AM (#694158) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Troll Just giving everyone a base-line. Mother always told me to do one good deed a day. This is my good deed for August 3, 1978. troll |
|
20 Apr 02 - 03:56 PM (#694479) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: McGrath of Harlow Cynical to me means you want to believe the worst of people. That doesn't include me, I hate believing the worst of people. But sometimes the worst happens.
There are two very diffeent stories about what happened in Jenin. Somebody is lying. I want to see a proper investigation carried out by people who aren't in anybody's pocket. I gather Bush has just said that is what he wants too.
I don't see anything intrinsically improbable in the suggestion that Israeli troops might have commuitted atrocities. British troops, American troops, Russian troops, French troops and troops of any number of other countries have committed atrocities, and proved to have done so. And in all these countries initial efforts have been made to cover-up the facts, and sometimes these efforts were more successful than at other times.
And to set against that, there is nothing intrinsically improbable in the suggestion that some of the eyewitnesses might be lying or exaggerating.
Or maybe there are lies and truth on both sides. It makes sense to try to find out what actually happened. |
|
20 Apr 02 - 05:14 PM (#694512) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: GUEST Prayer Before Birth (Louis MacNiece)
I am not yet born, console me,
I am not yet born; provide me,
I am not yet born; Oh fill me ,
Let them not drill me,
|
|
20 Apr 02 - 05:32 PM (#694525) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: DougR Carol C: What's satisfactory to Webster is satisfactory to me too. I don't doubt for a minute, McGrath, that Israeli soldiers might have committed atrocities. As you point out, armies of all nations are capable of it and perhaps they often do. However, I am willing to give them the benefit of a doubt rather than just assume that they did. A full investigation is called for, I agree. My comment regarding cynicism had less to do with with people, McGrath, but more to do with organizations and governments. Many posters to the Mudcat are so suspicious of governments, and of "big" business I wonder if either of them were to do something exlemplary, the posters would recognize that they did it! DougR
|
|
20 Apr 02 - 09:37 PM (#694603) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: McGrath of Harlow Suspicion and scepticism is not the same as cynicism. In the UK there's a thing called the 30 year rule, and this means that after 30 years, at particular times of the year various secret papers, from the government of the time get released. And invariably, when they come out, we find that we were being lied to about all kinds of things. Not about everything, but about enough things to make it impossible ever simply to assume that we are being told the truth.
Giving the benefit of the doubt to the Israeli armed forces means that, until the facts have come out and been examined and tested, it's wrong to assume the worst. And indeed it's quite right to keep an open mind on that.
But that doesn't mean assuming that their version is the truth. Doing that would be to deny the same benefit of the doubt to those Palestinian survivors who have told reporters graphic stories of atrocities. And there are some very sceptical reporters, on papers that are in general inclined to be sympathetic to Israel, who have said some of those stories sound pretty convincing.
My gut feeling is that the truth lies somewhere between the rival pictures being painted by spin doctors for both sides. But gut feelings aren't what's needed, proper investigation is.
And in the meantime it's desperately important that the Israeli forces stop blocking rescue teams and aid getting through. There are probably still people dying under those bulldozed buildings. |
|
20 Apr 02 - 10:20 PM (#694626) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Troll Palestinian sources are already saying that an investigation is too late; that the IDF have had enough time to cover everything up. This is, of course, a totally non-falsifiable statement. If little or nothing is found, they have only to say that it was covered up and there's no way to prove otherwise. Very slick. troll |
|
20 Apr 02 - 11:18 PM (#694672) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: CarolC I haven't heard anything about Palestinians saying the investigation is too late. Where did you hear that troll? |
|
21 Apr 02 - 01:10 AM (#694698) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Troll Heard it on the evening news on the radio. Local station so I don't know what network -if any- they are affiliated with. I will try to get further verification. troll |
|
21 Apr 02 - 07:14 AM (#694784) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: McGrath of Harlow Delaying investigations, and acting in a way that ensured trhat there were not observers and reporters on tye scene at the relevant times have inevitably had the effect of making allegations against the Israel forces more credible than they would otherwise have been.
Unless it was part of a cover up, acting in this way has been both damaging and pointless. |
|
21 Apr 02 - 06:19 PM (#695092) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: GUEST,Roger O'K Dubya's peace-lovin' good buddy Sharon is now reported as saying that he will accept a UN commission of inquiry provided it doesn't include Mary Robinson (UN High Commissioner for Human Rights) or the UN envoy (Norwegion, his name escapes me) who was the first senior UN official into Jenin after the IDF's partial withdrawal. Magnanimous of him, and really reassures us that he has nothing to hide. But then, if he feels he can give Dubya and Powell the finger, he's hardly going to be too accommodating to the UN which was, let us not forget, the international forum whose recognition brought the State of Israel into being. |
|
21 Apr 02 - 10:02 PM (#695254) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: GUEST,mg I know nothing about Mary Robinson's politics or performance...but I do know I saw her on T.V. many years ago, not knowing who she was, and I thought..there is a great woman...Not many others I would say that about...I would say Princess Dianna, Audrey Hepborn..Olympia Snowe in the U.S....watch Queen Rania over the years...I believe she has a very important role to play...mg |
|
21 Apr 02 - 11:43 PM (#695320) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Troll Carol, as far as I have been able to find out, the radio station gets its news from ABC. I have been unable to find any verfication on any of the ABC sites I have tried, but I did get this from The Electronic Intifada...According to eyewitnesses, an Israeli truck was repeatedly seen entering the refugee camp and then leaving it loaded with bodies of Palestinians, heading towards Israel. Some journalists risked their lives to enter the refugee camps and photographed burnt and decayed bodies under the ruins.
This was dated two days ago. So far the photos have not surfaced, at least not to my knowledge. troll |
|
22 Apr 02 - 12:08 AM (#695330) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: CarolC Thanks troll. This all points to the fact that if Israel had allowed observers while the operations were going on, they would have been much less vulnerable to accusations of this sort. If Sharon gets to hand pick the people on the investigative team, it sort of cancels out the whole point of having an independent team in the first place. The idea is to have people who are neutral to whatever extent is possible, as well as having people representing both sides of the dispute. |
|
22 Apr 02 - 12:42 AM (#695341) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Troll It is my understanding that he is not hand-picking the team, he has simply named people that he does not want on the team. There's a vast difference. I'm sure that the UN, with all the world to choose from, can field a team without Ms. Robinson and Mr. Larsen. The following is from the UPI Inyternational desk. Israel, UN spar over envoy By Joshua Brilliant United Press International From the International Desk Published 4/21/2002 8:20 PM JERUSALEM, April 22 (UPI) -- Israeli officials -- considering whether to proclaim United Nation's Middle East envoy Terje Roed-Larsen persona non grata -- said Sunday that the U.N. fact-finding group due to visit the Jenin refugee camp to investigate allegations of killings of non-combatants by the Israeli military, must comprise experts, not politicians.
Three senior U.N. officials who have already criticized Israel's military operation in the camp would also not be accepted on the fact-finding group, the officials said. The officials insist that Roed-Larsen, UNRWA's chief Peter Hansen and Human Rights Commissioner Mary Robinson -- all of whom have criticized Israel's actions in Jenin -- not be on the committee. "They disqualified themselves," Sharon's media advisor Raanan Gissin said. The Cabinet official said the fact-finding committee's composition should reflect "an objective, professional approach, without political intentions."
I have edited this news story in the interest of saving space. Anyone who wants to read it in its entirety can find it on the UPI web site. troll |
|
22 Apr 02 - 01:17 AM (#695351) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: DougR I don't understand all this flack about observers. Are you suggesting, Carol C, that soldiers going into battle should be monitored by "observers?" Pray tell would you find "observers" crazy enough to do that? A person could get killed observing, you know. I doubt very much that that will ever happen in a battle. They might allow volunteers, of course, if any mudcatters feel so inclined. :>) DougR
|
|
22 Apr 02 - 02:16 AM (#695370) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: CarolC DougR, there were plenty of observers who wanted to be present during the operations. The Israeli military shot at a lot of them. But some of them got in anyway. At any rate, DougR and troll, I'm in some real distress here. For the first time in my life, I have found myself in agreement with Robert Novak and Pat Buchanan (sp?) on an important issue. Believe me when I tell you that for a good little liberal like me, this is cause for some serious nightmares. |
|
22 Apr 02 - 07:38 AM (#695447) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: McGrath of Harlow Reporters and camera crews get wounded and killed in this kind of situation, it's part of the job. It happened in Vietnam, it's happened often enough in the Holy Land.
And the same happens to observers who are not part of the media.
But then soldiers get killed in battles as well. And so do medics and so forth. It goes with the territory, and there are brave people who are willing to take the risk and pay the price, beccause they think what they are doing is something that needs to be done.
There were reporters and camera crews and observers, and rescue workers and medics trying to get into Jenin, and willing to risk their lives - and they were kept out. And it's not unreasonable to be suspicious of why this was done. |
|
22 Apr 02 - 07:57 AM (#695456) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Troll When you are fighting house-to-house against an enemy who is not in uniform, so that it is difficult to identify him anyway, the LAST thing you need is some civilian "observer" getting in the line of fire. In that kind of situation you have to assume that anyone not wearing a uniform is an enemy bent on killing you and you don't have time to ask for someones press card. While it certainly can give rise to all kinds of suspicions, the real reasons are really pretty clear. It's simply too damn dangerous to the men doing the fighting. I feel confident that any combat veterans on the forum will back me up on this. Journalists traveling with you on an operation is one thing; journalists wandering around loose in a half-destroyed city are something else entirely. troll |
|
22 Apr 02 - 08:09 AM (#695462) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: McGrath of Harlow "You have to assume that anyone not wearing a uniform is an enemy bent on killing you."
Since most of the people in the place actually were unarmed civilians of all ages, if the troops were actually working on that kind of assumption, it's hard to see how there could possibly not have been a massacre.
If the Israelis are right, and there was no massacre, it means that care was taken to avoid killing civiian non-combatants, in accordance with the rules of war.
|
|
22 Apr 02 - 08:59 AM (#695497) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Troll You are correct Kevin. But in a war situation such as we have just seen in Jenine(?) it is reasonable to assume -and indeed reports bear out- that non-combatant civilians will keep under cover. Therefore it also seems reasonable to assume that anyone moving around must be considered an enemy. Journalists and "observers" don't do their jobs sitting in a hole behind the lines and in a house-to-house fight such as was fought in Nablus and Jenine it's hard enough to keep track of your own men sometimes, never mind some civvie who "just wants a closer look." The Israeli troops had trouble enough deciding who was an armed enemy and who was not. They certainly didn't need a covey of self-important civilians getting in the way. And if you think that war correspondents and the like don't have inflated ideas about their importance and invunerability, you haven't ever had to deal with them. troll |
|
22 Apr 02 - 09:07 AM (#695500) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Troll With regard to the purported massacre at Jenin,click here . This from the Wall Street Journal. troll |
|
22 Apr 02 - 12:37 PM (#695643) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: CarolC I thought this bit was pretty interesting. It shows that the Palestinians' anger is not just with Jews, but with anyone who is subjugating them. Seems like it's about time to let them govern themselves. They've waited long enough for it... _______________
In 1938 Britain ruled what was then known as Palestine. The Jerusalem Post looks at British documents, declassified in 1989, that "provide details of the British Mandatory government's response to the assassination of a British district commissioner by a Palestinian Arab terrorist in Jenin in the summer of 1938":
Even after the suspected assassin was captured (and then shot dead while allegedly trying to escape), the British authorities decided that "a large portion of the town [Jenin] should be blown up" as punishment. On August 25 of that year, a British convoy brought 4,200 kilos of explosives to Jenin for that purpose.
In the Jenin operation and on other occasions, local Arabs were forced to drive "mine-sweeping taxis" ahead of British vehicles in areas where Palestinian Arab terrorists were believed to have planted mines, in order "to reduce [British] landmine casualties." |
|
22 Apr 02 - 12:58 PM (#695669) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: DougR Carol C: The question of whether or not Palestinians should have their own country and govern themselves has already been established. Both sides just need to come to an agreement as to the territory that will be governed by each. According to reports I have heard (FOX New Network, Sunday April 21, Britt Hume filling in for Tony Snow)Arafat was offered 97% of what he had been demanding in 1997 or 98, I forget which date. He accepted the agreement, but then refused to perform any of the tasks required of him to implement the agreement. This was reported on the program by a member of the Clinton administration who was present during the negotiations. This same former government official opined that he thought the reason Arafat does not want to agree to a settlement of the dispute is because the dispute has been Arafat's life. He has always been a terrorist, and that is the only life he knows. If there is no dispute, there is no reason for life. That's his opinion anyway, and it seems plausable to me. Troll: thanks for posting that Wall Street Journal article. I think it is one of the fairest appraisals of the situation I have read. Carol C: I think if you will take a good dose of Castor Oil, that feeling of agreement you have with Novak and Buchanan will pass. :>) DougR |
|
22 Apr 02 - 01:18 PM (#695692) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: CarolC DougR, I have heard credible people report an entirely different version of events than what you have posted, and I think, considering Sharon's dimantling of the Oslo accord, we can say that he is no more interested in peace than Arafat. If I can find any on-line sources for this, I'll post them. I don't think I'm going to get any relief on the Novak and Buchanan thing until the US govt. gets it's act together in the middle east. Castor oil or no castor oil. |
|
22 Apr 02 - 02:43 PM (#695780) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Troll I have read both versions of the breakdown of the Oslo Accords. Both sound entirely plausible. I have a feeling that what we have here is blind men describing an elephant. troll |
|
22 Apr 02 - 04:19 PM (#695871) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: McGrath of Harlow "It is reasonable to assume - and indeed reports bear out- that non-combatant civilians will keep under cover" - if it is true that large numbers of people were buried alive in the rubble of their bulldozed houses that would be consistent with that.
As I said, reporters, photographers, observers and medics knew they would be risking their lives, and they were willing to take that risk. The same way people like that took the risk on Bloody Sunday, though of course the risk then was far less.
Maybe it is a lie that captured prisoners were lined up and shot, and that civilians were used as human shields by Israeli soldiers. Maybe it is the truth. If there had been independent witnesses of what happened it would be a lot easier to know either way.
Thanks, Carol C, for reminding us that there are precedents for what is alleged to have taken place, which is in fact not untypical of what happens in colonial wars carried out by Western countries.
And not just Western countries - here's a quote from a report in today's Guardiuan from Ramallah:
"Alsakakimi was a distinguished Palestinian educator and writer. He was imprisoned by the Ottoman authorities during the first world war and was hanged for protecting a Jewish friend in his house. Eighty-five years later, the Israelis are paying back Alsakakimi's favour... I set off on foot for the Khalil Alsakakimi cultural centre, 100 metres from my house.... When I reached the once beautiful building, I found that the doors had been blown off. Broken glass covered the floor. Paintings hung off the walls or lay on the ground. The office of the poet Mahmoud Darwish was vandalised. Books and manuscripts of his poems were strewn over the floor, with soldiers' boot prints stamped on them."
|
|
22 Apr 02 - 08:54 PM (#696102) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: robomatic There already exists a Palestinian State. It is called Jordan. Israel has a right to exist within defenesible borders. A good deal of the Palestinian problem was created by the Arab states surrounding the area using them as pawns the way bullys use their lackeys to trigger fights. When the United States was formed, a good deal of the loyalists either went (or were sent) back to England, or emigrated to Canada. Many Jews were exiled from the Arab lands of their ancestors during the formation of the Jewish state, it is somehow considered okay for that to have happened, but not for the same to happen to unhappy so-called 'Palestinians' who don't want to live under an Israeli government. I repeat, there is a Palestinian state in existence right now. It is called Jordan |
|
22 Apr 02 - 11:49 PM (#696213) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Troll Kevin, the reason that soldiers don't like civilian observers hanging around the scene of battles is that they don't always keep under cover. They move with the troops and give away positions as they try to "get the story" be they reporters or Amnesty International observers. How do they give away positions? They look at you behind that bit of wall. They try to talk to you as you share a bit of cover, distracting you from your job which is keeping you and your buddies alive. That bit of distraction, that look could tip off a sniper that here is a target or that it might be a good time to move since you aren't paying attention. I could go on but I think you get the picture. I'm not saying that the IDF banned reporters etc. from Nablus and Jenin for this reason, but it would be a damn good reason if they did. troll |
|
23 Apr 02 - 04:38 AM (#696312) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: CarolC Some different perspectives on the question of the Palestinian homeland...
|
|
23 Apr 02 - 10:11 AM (#696448) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: GUEST Vietnam tortured protestors, human rights group says Last Updated Mon Apr 22 23:52:45 2002 PHNOM PENH - An international human rights group says Vietnam has used torture and arbitrary arrest to crush dissent among ethnic minorities. Human Rights Watch says the country is violating international agreements in its Central Highlands area. The report released Monday also criticizes neighbouring Cambodia for sealing its borders to fleeing hill tribe refugees. The 200-page report comes after ethnic minorities staged protests over religious freedoms and land rights beginning in February of last year. Hanoi responded by sending thousands of troops and police to the Central Highlands. The report says that in the past year, Vietnamese authorities burned churches and tortured protesters with electric shocks and beatings. Written by CBC News Online staff
|
|
23 Apr 02 - 02:11 PM (#696655) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: DougR And, I assume, Carol C., that your idea of the "U.S. getting it's act together" would consist of the U. S. denouncing Israel, and throwing it's support entirely behind the Palestinians and Arafat? DougR |
|
23 Apr 02 - 02:11 PM (#696656) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: DougR And, I assume, Carol C., that your idea of the "U.S. getting it's act together" would consist of the U. S. denouncing Israel, and throwing it's support entirely behind the Palestinians and Arafat? DougR |
|
23 Apr 02 - 03:34 PM (#696735) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: GUEST,mg I certainly never meant to imply civilian observers. Military observers with weapons to defend themselves from all sides. And aren't we watching all this from the sky? mg |
|
23 Apr 02 - 04:01 PM (#696758) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: CarolC Why would you assume that, DougR? |
|
23 Apr 02 - 04:04 PM (#696762) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: CarolC And I think the fact that you would assume such a thing says much more about you than it does about me. |
|
23 Apr 02 - 04:21 PM (#696785) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: DougR Because, dear Carol, to me it appears that you are very anti-Israel, and very pro-Palestine. Nothing wrong with that. I lean toward Israel myself. DougR |
|
23 Apr 02 - 04:24 PM (#696790) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: CarolC You need to get a new prescription in your glasses, DougR. You're missing too much with the one you've got now. After you get your new glasses, go back and read what I've posted on the subject again. If, after doing that, you still labor under such a distorted perception, let me know and I'll try to explain it to you in language you can understand. |
|
23 Apr 02 - 04:44 PM (#696815) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: DougR Oooo. Touched a nerve, eh? Well Carol, I have read all of your posts. I arrive at my original conclusion. You appear to me to be very Pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli. Please 'splain so an old codger like me can undestand what your POV is. No more blue clickies pointing to articles articulating what other writer's think. I truly would be interest in what you think. Better still, 'splain to me what the U. S. should do to get it's act in order. :>) DougR |
|
23 Apr 02 - 05:00 PM (#696824) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: CarolC My problem is with hardliners in the Israeli government such as Sharon and Netanyahu. I do not support Arafat. I don't approve of the ways that the current Israeli government is using US taxpayer money.
I would like to see less hateful language directed at Arabs and Palestinians. Both from the current Israeli government as well as from Sharon supporters in the US and Israel.
I would like the US to make foriegn aid to Israel contingent upon the Israeli government pulling out of the occupied territories, stopping the settlements (and removal of the settlers), and I would like to see George Mitchell and Colin Powell in Israel, facilitating negotiations with either Sharon and Arafat, or neither Sharon or Arafat, but with other, more moderate representitives of both peoples. And I would like to see US foriegn aid to Israel (and to the Palestinians, if necessary) contingent upon both sides being willing to make consessions in a fair and balanced way, and both sides honoring the agreements that emerge from the negotiations. |
|
23 Apr 02 - 07:35 PM (#696951) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: McGrath of Harlow I imagine in most parts of the world what Carol outlined there would be seen as a very moderate non-partisan position.
The impression I get is that in the USA it is likely to be seen as an extremist anti-Israeli way of seeing things. Someone has shifted the goal posts rather radically over the last few months. |
|
23 Apr 02 - 08:38 PM (#697016) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: DougR Thank you Carol C, for that well written summation of how you view the situation. I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph. I question that what you suggest in the balance of your post is feasible though. Arafat is the elected leader of the Palestinians and Sharon is the elected leader of Israel. Wishing we could negotiate with someone other than those two, I fear is wishful thinking. I don't question that it would be desirable but I don't see it happening as long as Arafat and Sharon draw a breath. I think the hateful language requirement you would impose goes both ways though. I don't think the Israeli leadership is any more guilty of that than Arafat and his spokespeople. Nor do I understand why you believe Arafat is less a hardliner than Sharon is though. I think they both are. Personally, I am leaning more toward our (the U.S.) washing its hands of the whole thing, and letting them duke it out. Whoever is the strongest wins the war. That's what has happened in other major conflicts, and I think it may be the only way they can be settled. An unpopular view on the Mudcat, of course, but so be it. DougR |
|
23 Apr 02 - 09:10 PM (#697049) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: GUEST,mg I have no problem at all with refusing to communicate with Arafat. I have no idea why we do. I have no problem of spelling out specifically what can and can't be done in a Palestinian charter..no terrorism period..supervised schools with an emphasis on skills training and occupational education (which I would recommend for all schools worldwide). No talk of destroying Israel. Acknowledgement of borders. Acknowledgement that because of the terrorist activities, there will be more checkpoints and intrusions than there would have been. Water rights spelled out in serious detail. Minimal, mostly symbolic, right of return. Some right of reaping the fruits of the land, such as traditional orchards, without actually owning the land or being able to vote in some disputed areas. I think that we have to impose some structure over there, and that means on both sides. Arafat is a terrorist and I believe that Sharon is at the very least a thug and doesn't want borders at all. He wants the whole enchilada. Someone has to tell Arafat's successor..just bypass Arafat..and Sharon and hopefully his successor..that this is just how it is. And tough if you don't like it because our support is based on this and this happening. I am also sure that Sharon, not being dumb, has a few contingency plans up his sleeve should our support waver. mg |
|
23 Apr 02 - 11:42 PM (#697139) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: CarolC I question that what you suggest in the balance of your post is feasible though. Arafat is the elected leader of the Palestinians and Sharon is the elected leader of Israel. Wishing we could negotiate with someone other than those two, I fear is wishful thinking. I don't question that it would be desirable but I don't see it happening as long as Arafat and Sharon draw a breath.
If you read my post again (haven't gotten those new glasses yet, have you?) you will see that I put that as a second possibility after I mentioned Sharon and Arafat. What I would have an objection to would be if we negotiated with only Sharon and not Arafat. I think that would not work, and if Arafat can't be a part of negotiations, I don't think Sharon should be either.
I think the hateful language requirement you would impose goes both ways though. I don't think the Israeli leadership is any more guilty of that than Arafat and his spokespeople.
That wasn't a requirement. That's what I would like to see. The vast majority of the hateful language I've been reading and hearing in the past few weeks, especially, has been aimed toward Arabs and Palestinians and not toward Jews or Israel.
Nor do I understand why you believe Arafat is less a hardliner than Sharon is though. I think they both are.
Please show me where I said I believe Arafat is less a hardliner than Saron.
Personally, I am leaning more toward our (the U.S.) washing its hands of the whole thing, and letting them duke it out. Whoever is the strongest wins the war. That's what has happened in other major conflicts, and I think it may be the only way they can be settled. An unpopular view on the Mudcat, of course, but so be it. I don't necessarily have a problem with that idea, as long as we really remove our support for both sides. That means no more foriegn aid from the US to Israel. (Or to the Palestinians.) And also, no more veto support (for Israel) from the US delegation to the UN.
|
|
24 Apr 02 - 12:05 AM (#697149) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Troll Carol, if you want to find hateful anti-Israel language in the media you need look no further than the Islamic Republic Wire, any of the newspapers from Cairo, or the Electronic Intifada. When police officials in Berlin suggest that Jews not wear clothing that can identify them as Jews (Star of David and Kipat or skullcap) that sounds pretty hateful to me. When the chief Imam in Mecca calls the Jews "pigs and dogs" i'd say that was right up there with calling Arafat a terrorist, wouldn't you? You need to expand your reading horizons a bit. I am grateful that you made a statement outlining your feelings because, by and large, I agree with you. troll
|
|
24 Apr 02 - 12:17 AM (#697158) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: CarolC I was talking about coverage here in the US, troll. And that's where I would like to see less hateful language toward Arabs and Palestinians. |
|
24 Apr 02 - 12:19 AM (#697160) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: CarolC Let me rephrase. I'm talking about people who are appearing on US television, speaking to the US audience. I'm not talking about coverage of events in other parts of the world. |
|
24 Apr 02 - 12:56 AM (#697181) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Troll we've got to stop meeting like this. The others are getting suspicious. troll *****"G"***** |
|
24 Apr 02 - 01:02 AM (#697187) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: CarolC Well, troll, I hate to break it to you, but I've been seeing Freddie behind your back for quite a while now. |
|
24 Apr 02 - 01:13 AM (#697195) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Troll So THAT'S what Angie was trying to tell me! Typical. I'm running around on myself. But...Freddie? troll |
|
24 Apr 02 - 01:25 AM (#697199) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: CarolC Yeah, I know. But you gotta admit, he's never boring. |
|
24 Apr 02 - 11:35 AM (#697505) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: DougR Freddie MUST be a Liberal, right? :>) DougR |
|
24 Apr 02 - 02:10 PM (#697632) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: Troll No, Doug. Freddie is just weird. troll |
|
25 Apr 02 - 12:10 AM (#698000) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: GUEST So because ljc is "a member" this is NOT a troll thread? |
|
25 Apr 02 - 12:16 AM (#698005) Subject: RE: BS: War crimes ljc From: DougR No. Members troll from time to time I suppose. I don't think the member contributed to the thread after it was started by (I assuming the poster is a him), and he admitted upon posting that he had no opinion, so I suppose he could have been trolling. DougR |