January 02, 2009
STATEMENT BY THE UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES
Richard Falk:
The Israeli airstrikes on the Gaza Strip represent severe and massive violations of international humanitarian law as defined in the Geneva Conventions, both in regard to the obligations of an Occupying Power and in the requirements of the laws of war.
Those violations include:
Collective punishment - the entire 1.5 million people who live in the crowded Gaza Strip are being punished for the actions of a few militants.
Targeting civilians - the airstrikes were aimed at civilian areas in one of the most crowded stretches of land in the world, certainly the most densely populated area of the Middle East.
Disproportionate military response - the airstrikes have not only destroyed every police and security office of Gaza’s elected government, but have killed and injured hundreds of civilians; at least one strike reportedly hit groups of students attempting to find transportation home from the university.
More here.
Posted by Abbas Raza at 06:54 AM | Permalink
Comments
Somebody better keep the keys to Gitmo handy - there's some real criminals who'll be needing accomodation - for crimes against humanity, crimes already admitted by the perpetrators - and for a very long time.
Posted by: Mervyn Langford | Jan 2, 2009 7:16:42 AM
That press release is dated December 27, 2008. I wonder when I will see its contents in the Australian press?
Posted by: Pam | Jan 2, 2009 7:51:02 AM
Gideon Levi, Richard Falk, whose next in this anti Israeli crescendo- the stouthearted Ahmadinejad?
A little background:
Among Mr. Falk's views are not only his comparisons between Israel and the Nazis (a qualification in many of your eyes, I guess), but also endorsements of conspiracy theories regarding 9.11. I believe he prefaced at least one book on the subject. He also expressed support in the Iranian Islamic revolution, and called for amnesty for those convicted in violent anti-war activities.
Posted by: Yotam | Jan 2, 2009 8:03:09 AM
I wonder if the editors of this blog would care to enlighten it's readers on what the UN has to say about Hamas?
Or what Amnesty International have to say about them?
It would make for interesting reading, though a dangerous departure from the usual pro Hamas propaganda posted here.
The fact that this once respected and thoughtful blog has turned into the mouthpiece for a group that is internationally acknowledged to be a terrorist group, that sees Al -Qaeda as it's role model and has Iran as it's benefactor is sad.
To turn this conflict into a mere parody of reflection - "Israel - Bad, Hamas - Good", is ridiculous and unjust.
And I wonder if the hate filled crazies that have commented profusly on the unfortunate Palestinian flag post is the kind of readership you wish to attract and be associated with.
Posted by: J.D. Foley | Jan 2, 2009 8:37:57 AM
Yotam,
The evidence for Israeli involvement in the attacks of 9/11 is overwhelming. Not everyone can be fooled.
Posted by: Jared | Jan 2, 2009 10:24:28 AM
And many thanks to "Jared", of the post above, for illustrating my last point.
Posted by: J.D. Foley | Jan 2, 2009 10:41:00 AM
Perhaps what could be considered here is that the Palastinian people are not "the Hamas." I don't wonder that one contribution to this whole mess is the insistance that these issues be reduced to and spoken of only as political abstractions. Why must it be one or the other? Why must it be either good Israeli/bad Palastenian or vice versa? Why do we say "just" killing/"unjust" killing? What about the idea that two wrongs don't make a right? People are getting oppressed and killed, and for what? Are political abstractions really worth all this bloodshed? Why can't it be good Israeli/good Palastenian/bad war?
Posted by: Lambness | Jan 2, 2009 11:30:37 AM
Jared:...
J.D Foley:
Sadly, I can't say I really disagree with you.
The thing that bothers me most about the editors' behavior is that not once have I seen Abass
or the others seek dialogue with the readers on this matter. I assume they deem the whole thing so obvious as to be beyond discussion... this I find lamentable, surely counterproductive, and frankly unbecoming of people who wish to be considered as intellectuals
or something of that nature.
Posted by: Yotam | Jan 2, 2009 11:33:02 AM
J.D. Foley
I don't think anyone is saying "Israel-Bad, Hamas - Good" but yourself. Such distortion is obviously useful to a partisan though, as you make clear. Try reading (again?) the UN analysis and engaging with it, but please don't change the subject. The repugnant character of Hamas is understood by most people, even those of us who are sympathetic to the displaced and persecuted Palestinians. The Jareds of the world illustrate nothing more than the brain's tragic ability to sometimes hit failure mode, and such people crop up all over the political map, as every honest person knows.
Yotam,
What is there really to say as we watch another round of the class shrimp getting his nose bloodied? Whether or not he threw the first punch out of frustration at his predicament or was freshly picked on this time is simply not an important question for an adult.
Posted by: Jesse | Jan 2, 2009 12:15:14 PM
Jesse:
You're metaphor, as well as being patently patronizing, isn't helpful. Do you mean that there is no difference, morally, between a situation where Gaza is suddenly attacked by the aggressor Israel and one where the Gaza military-I'll grant full legitimacy to hamas in this regard, against their will by the way-is shooting incessantly towards Israel and
it responds. Both descriptions
are probably too simplistic, but nevertheless the difference
is hardly immaterial. Human suffering is, surely, more
important than the sometimes byzantine recriminations. But
this is hardly a valid argument
when considering the justness
of wars or policies, inasmuch as when thinking of those, one
is always in the business of
quantifying absolutes.
Posted by: Yotam | Jan 2, 2009 12:51:51 PM
Israel has behaved in a far more humane manner than the UN. Israel has afforded their enemies more mercy than the UN and its supporters afford their victims.
The UN has no moral voice. It is one humanities greatest scourges. Just look at Africa. The hopelessness and misery the UN has inflicted upon the people of Africa is without words.
The vast oil wealth is not held by Israel but Arabs. When will it flow for the advancement of humanity and not violence and hatred. Peace in the middle east will arise when arabs seek peace and not hatred.
Posted by: sally | Jan 2, 2009 3:02:25 PM
Yotam - "Gideon Levi, Richard Falk, whose next in this anti Israeli crescendo".
Well mate, I for one will always be prepared to say that this sort of killing has got to be stopped; that people who commit war crimes and genocide and who willfully violate international law through a murderous onslaught against others have to be stopped, removed from office, and tried in open international courts of justice.
And in my life time I not only expect to see some of the current Israeli and US establishment in such circumstances, but also leaders of violent governments like Hamas, North Korea, Iran, The Congo, Burma, China, etc.
As is happening in a faltering and tentative way in The Hague presently. Mate, the Pinochet precedent was only the beginning.
I fail to understand how anyone with any common sense or the slightest understanding of human psyche and emotions cannot see that while Israel controls Gaza like a prison - no, I'll rephrase that: a controlled ghetto, similar to what the Nazis did in cities throughout Europe - that they are not preparing the seeds for further retaliation and revenge killings.
If this is the case, you have to ask the question: Why does the Israeli establishment need a tinder box of maniacs on its' door step, plotting and waiting a chance to make a suicide mission, a rocket attack or other such atrocious incursion? Why is it not prepared - ever - to work to live peace-ably with its' neighbours?
To the editors of 3 Quarks: you do a fine job - great work.
Posted by: Mervyn Langford | Jan 2, 2009 5:30:30 PM
"But, as long as 3QD's vehement, one sided propaganda persists,"
Please, don't shoot the messenger.
Posted by: Sagredo | Jan 2, 2009 5:32:13 PM
Yotam,
I risk taking a patronizing stance intentionally, as I think any observer who inherits the spectacle of a violent back and forth playing out – a tortuous skipping record of bloodshed and excuses- that his been raging since his father was a young man ultimately must. Both sides should be ashamed of their childishness. If all the actors can do is fight, than what other lens can the civilized person use? Such a stance does not preclude the presence of “adults” in Israel/Palestine, both have their fine minds, but the local agora as conduit to political action seems to be closed for repairs.
The peace agreement that putters along in fits and starts for Northern Ireland is by and large, the same one that was on the table in the late sixties. The extra slaughter we all got to watch was for nothing; just the unappetizing product of stubborn, infantile zealots and opportunistic gangsters. We all know that a two state solution is the answer and until negotiations progress and violence wanes this onlooker has no choice, but to wish for a more assertive principal’s office.
Posted by: Jesse | Jan 2, 2009 7:13:37 PM
No, don't shoot the messenger.
I personally do not know if Abbas and the other editors of 3QD are of utterly one mind here, so that they speak as one. In case they do speak as one -- it's their blog, after all, and there is nothing wrong with their taking an editorial position -- let's look at what they said that day. I'm going to quote the whole post. Under the flag of Palestine, there appeared these words.
"The flag of Palestine is here to symbolize our solidarity with the innocents being massacred and maimed in unbelievable numbers in Gaza. All justifications for the brutal Israeli assault are utter nonsense."
People, that is not solidarity with Hamas. That is solidarity with innocents whose lives have been taken or ruined. It's also to say that the disproportionality of the assault admits of no justification, and constitutes senseless brutality rather than self-defense.
I ask you, who has a problem feeling solidarity with children and other civilians in such a wretched situation as those in Gaza? That is not going out on an editorial limb, if you ask me. To maintain that Israel is extremely guilty of overkill in this instance, and that no excuse is good enough, is not exactly an editorial call for the destruction of the Jewish state, either.
Neither the flag of Palestine nor the actual words of Abbas and -- by extension -- the other editors seem like "one-sided propaganda" to me. Or if they are, you will find many Israeli Jews who agree with them.
I am sad and offended that both an expression of solidarity with innocents in Gaza and a statement of Zero Tolerance for the hideous abuses of Israeli military power have occasioned some of the wilder, more hostile comments on this thread. We have seen before on this blog that the I/P conflict is nothing if not polarizing, so that literally any part one takes in its discussion causes suffering to someone. And, unless I am incorrect, none of us is in line for a seat at the negotiating table. We only read, demonstrate, give money, and hope for outcomes that seem reasonable to us -- whatever those outcomes are. If we, ourselves, cannot read a two-line post accurately, or react to what those two lines in fact said and not to some fantasy of what they must mean, then how are the Israelis and the Palestinians, operating under pressures inconceivable to most of us, supposed to write and sign a whole peace treaty for themselves one of these years? Speaking purely personally, my solidarity is with every Palestinian and every Israeli whose deepest wish, whose political aim, is to set aside this conflict that promises not resolution but only injustice for all, and create a better future. Do we not owe the people who must struggle for this the clarity that comes with attention?
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jan 2, 2009 7:24:36 PM
"The flag of Palestine is here to symbolize our solidarity with the innocents being massacred and maimed in unbelievable numbers in Gaza. All justifications for the brutal Israeli assault are utter nonsense."
People, that is not solidarity with Hamas.
Hamas is the elected government of Gaza, in one of the most legitimate elections in the Islamic world. Denying Palestinian association with Hamas is denying the results of a election. It may not be comfortable, and a way for the politically uneasy to justify a more politically correct view, but it is not the truth.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Jan 2, 2009 10:52:16 PM
Dave, I am aware of how Hamas represents, and does not represent, the will of the Palestinian people. I've been an American in the Bush Years, too, when our own Supreme Court decided he was the legitimately elected president. The responsibility I take for the Bush presidency is for trying less hard than was humanly possible to prevent it. Let's say the Palestinians are as complex as we are, and can be lawfully represented by an elected government they do not ALL feel offers them the best future of which they're capable. My reading of events tells me there are Palestinians who don't think Hamas is their best shot. Probably fewer now than a last fall, alas.
But that's almost beside the point I was trying to make, which concerned the editorial choice that some on this thread, and related threads, bemoan. I am sure that if Abbas and the other editors had wanted to express solidarity with the Palestinian people by declaring support of Hamas at this time, they would have done so. They didn't.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jan 2, 2009 11:31:58 PM
Elatia Harris:
I think it's rather naive to think that 3QD's editors (they practically submitted vicarious editorials) have not been expressing support for the Hamas. Look, to condemn the killing of citizens is one thing, but after you do that, you still need to take a side as to the justness of Israeli policies, because Israel isn't committing genocide that is a priori despicable. (If you think it is I'll elaborate my argument later.)
The extent to which this site seems to abhor these policies- considering the fact Hamas has been firing rockets into Israel and that the justness of its actions to a great extent determine the justness of the Israeli ones-this I think leads us to the aforementioned conclusion.
Posted by: Yotam | Jan 3, 2009 3:12:28 AM
Which has been responsible for more suffering, Hamas' rocket attacks on Israel, or Israel's blockade of Gaza?
Posted by: Sagredo | Jan 3, 2009 7:13:33 AM
Yotam, I can't speak for the editors. I only work here. But in general, I think it's possible to find Hamas repugnant without believing the Israeli assault on Gaza is justifiable in the name of self-defense. I am familiar with the argument that Israel is acting in proportion to provocation and danger, but to my mind it does lead to the conclusion that either one supports Hamas, or one supports the actions of the IDF. Hamas and the IDF do not always look so very different to one another -- they just happen to be on opposite sides. You know the old saying: Be careful who your enemy is, for you will become him.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jan 3, 2009 10:50:00 AM
Elatia,
It is obvious that the editors of this blog are entitled to use it to promote whatever political views they wish.
The question to be asked is what are they giving up as they do so?
The answer, to my mind - and this is what saddens me - is that this blog ceases to be a thoughtful, critical "Filter site", as defined in the "About" section here, but becomes a propaganda mouthpiece of Hamas.
The essence of propaganda is showing only one side and telling only one story, vilifying your adversaries and claiming that there is no other truth but your own.
I tried to show in my last post that 12 out of 12 posts in the last few days were completely one sided, pro Hamas.
3QD did not stay in the so called ethical, moral high ground of defending innocents (Israeli innocent civilians killed by the attacks are not mentioned, nor the fact that Hamas targets Civilians exclusively) but waded into the muddy waters of political accusations.
As to the accusation of Overkill - I would be quite interested to see one instance of this suggested conduct (exact, mathematical quid pro quo) by any Western power in the past century in retaliation to attacks perpetrated on it's unarmed citizens.
If you live in the US or the UK, then your country has been waging deadly war and killing far more civilians than Israel for the past six years in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Would an Israeli policy of firing "only" 80 rockets into populated civilian areas every day have been acceptable to you? This is naive posturing, and has nothing to do with harsh, complex realities.
I was tempted to remark about the slight unease I felt while first reading Mr Raza's delightful accounts of his invigorating hiking trips in the Alps, and then reading his one sentence condemnation of an almost unbearably complex situation in Israel and Gaza, but thought the better of it.
Posted by: J.D. Foley | Jan 3, 2009 11:12:08 AM
J.D. Foley:
Again I largely agree with you.
Elatia Harris:
This is quite an awkward discussion since we're both not editors, so all I'll do is reiterate my request that the editors explain their views for the sake of a serious dialogue with the readers of this admirable site.
Posted by: Yotam | Jan 3, 2009 11:42:41 AM
The funny thing about the Israeli attack on Gaza following its long blockade is that Israel's original justification for taking over Gaza in 1967 was that Israel was being subject to a blockade. This is from the official Knesset history of the Six Day War:
Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser blockaded the Straits of Tiran on May 21st and 22nd to all shipping from and to Eilat; the area was open to Israeli ships under UN supervision since 1957, and Israel repeatedly stated that such a blockade will be considered as casus belli (justification for acts of war).
Ooops.
On a side note, I carpooled the other night with a Palestinian Buddhist and a Japanese Integrated Psychologist.
Change is possible.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Jan 3, 2009 11:50:51 AM
---editors explain their views for the sake of a serious dialogue with the readers of this admirable site.
I think this is a outrageous statement. The UN and the rest of the world have made their moral stand clear, as the article above has stated. It is Israel and the US that must justify their stand to the rest of the civilized world.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Jan 3, 2009 12:00:49 PM
Yotam, the editors' views need no explanation in that they are very clear. They made a statement -- with visual aids -- of solidarity with innocents in Gaza. They condemn the slaughter of these innocents as inexcusable. From this, you extrapolate support for Hamas, and for that, you demand a further explanation.
If I were a Martian dropping in on this blog, a being who cared neither for the survival of Israel nor for justice for the Palestinian people, if my sole mission were to learn English, starting with simple sentences and leading up to complex ones, I think I would be forced to the conclusion that the editors here must believe there were circumstances in which the killing of non-military personnel could not be excused on strategic grounds, and that this was one such circumstance.
It would be a sad day for me that the editors came out for Hamas. That day is not here.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jan 3, 2009 12:24:44 PM
Dave Ranning:
First, I didn't mean anything in particular by "explain", all I'm saying is that I'd hope that they'd engage the readership (Was this not clear?). So I'm surprised that you're so taken aback by this rather uncontentious remark. Second, it would be nice if you were to clarify your confident use of "the rest of the world" and "civilized world", because I have never seen these entities make any single, unified moral stand, certainly not lately.
Posted by: Yotam | Jan 3, 2009 12:27:37 PM
Yotam-
Where else is Israel being supported on it's Gaza action other than the US? Let me know and we can continue this discussion.
Disclaimer: My wife is Jewish, and I'm off a Jewish Community Center to work out.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Jan 3, 2009 12:51:49 PM
All I ever meant was that I'd seen the editors respond to the readers plenty of times before,
and I took Abass' first statement to indicate that they felt it "beneath them" to do so now. I didn't mean "explain" in the sense that I had trouble understanding them. Onto more important issues:
killing of innocents is inexcusable but ineluctable, and simple analysis of numbers would show you that despite the extremely difficult conditions the IDF is not waging a particularly "inexcusable" campaign, to the contrary. The reality of war is heinous, and I've never found myself on the "pro-war" side before. However,
when I hear the views that have been expressed here, the first two words I think of are "self righteous", and they're still in my head, perhaps blinding me to some extent.
(Sorry for the double post and all this verbage.)
Posted by: Yotam | Jan 3, 2009 12:56:37 PM
The IDF has entered Gaza.
Posted by: Yotam | Jan 3, 2009 2:10:09 PM
"Coming out for Hamas" is a tricky statement in this current, deplorable context. Like it or not, they are democratically elected government of a miserable population, corned into a tiny area, surrounded by a massive, hostile army that has systematically put them under siege conditions. As I write this, I read that the Israeli army has invaded. All of this because of rocket fire? What's the relative death toll now? 500 to 5, without even counting the indirect deaths caused by the siege? The deliberate bombing of mosques? Never has the moral status of the state of Israel been lower.
Posted by: Jonathan | Jan 3, 2009 2:42:37 PM
Jonathan: "Never has the moral status of the state of Israel been lower."
Never has the stupidity of a murderous government been so highlighted.
Never has the need for 'regime change' in Israel been so obviously necessary.
Never has the 'security' of all the people of the 'Middle East' been so compromised.
Never has the likelihood of retaliation, retribution and escalation been so obvious.
Never has the glibeness of a propaganda machine been so out of touch with reality.
Never has your future and mine - and our children's and grand-children's - been so obviously blackened.
Posted by: Mervyn Langford | Jan 3, 2009 5:25:07 PM
Jonathan-
Well stated. I believe that was my point on Hamas also.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Jan 3, 2009 6:40:55 PM
Yotam appeals to an easy demonization of Hamas to make his point against 3qd. Apparently he wants to elicit the outrage of the reader at Abbas position. His main criticism of 3qd seems to be "How dare you pronounce yourself on the side of Hamas". Never mind the fact that any impartial reader can see that the crimes of Hamas pale in comparison with the crimes of the Israeli state and could easily ask the same thing of him with respect to Israel. Of course, Yotam has his own selfish reasons to downplay Israeli terrorism.
Posted by: Pepito | Jan 3, 2009 7:48:24 PM
Chris Hedges in truthdig:
truthdig
Excerpt from War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning:
powells
Posted by: CriticalMassI | Jan 3, 2009 10:09:04 PM
Post a comment