Please Hit

Folks, This is a Free Site and will ALWAYS stay that way. But the only way I offset my expenses is through the donations of my readers. PLEASE Consider Making a Donation to Keep This Site Going. SO HIT THE TIP JAR (it's on the left-hand column).

Monday, April 16, 2007

High Kangaroo Court at Hague to Crap on Jews Again

Its that time again its been a while since the High Kangaroo Court at the Hague got involved with crapping on Jews is when they ruled that Israel was not allowed too build a fence to keep terrorists from blowing up Israeli citizens. Israeli activists even brought a bus to the Hague, one that carried school children (among others) when it was blown up by Palestinian Terrorists.

This time they will be considering whether or not the IDF committed war crimes by defending itself against rockets being fired at its citizens as well as other terrorist acts. Maybe this time to prove their point the protesters will fire rockets at the worthless hypocrites on this Kangaroo Court.

High Court to weigh probe on alleged IDF war crimes in Gaza

By Yuval Yoaz, Haaretz Correspondent

The High Court of Justice will begin deliberations Sunday on whether to open a criminal investigation into allegations that the Israel Defense Forces committed war crimes during two operations in the Gaza Strip in 2004.

The court will hold the hearing following a petition by Adalah, the legal center for Arab minority rights in Israel. The organization petitioned the court to order a criminal investigation concerning the death of Palestinian citizens during Operation Rainbow in May 2004 and Operation Days of Penitence the following October.

Dozens of Palestinians - 44 of them children - were killed in the two operations, and 258 houses were destroyed. According to the petition, the houses were home to 522 families.

Adalah's petition charges Attorney General Menachem Mazuz, the military advocate general, Brigadier General Avichai Mandelblitt and Brigadier General (res.) Shmuel Zakai, then commander of the Gaza Region Division, with war crimes.

In addition, it accuses the top echelon of the defense establishment of complicity in the killings. The officials named include Major-General Dan Harel, who was then chief of the Southern Command, as well as then chief-of-staff Moshe Ya'alon and then defense minister Shaul Mofaz.

According to Adalah, the two operations constituted a violation of humanitarian laws as well as the Geneva Convention of 1949. They claim that the IDF also violated the Hague Convention of 1907 and international law. "The parties named as well as those who acted on their orders are responsible for the crimes," the petition reads.

Mazuz and Mandelblitt have so far rejected Adalah's demands to initiate a criminal investigation regarding the two operations. "The refusal is dangerous even from their point of view, since they are ignoring war crimes that can be specified before an international legal instance that upholds the principles of international law," Adalah wrote.

Adalah has warned that if the court refuses to initiate a criminal investigation, then it will petition international courts.

Adalah included in the petition reports by human rights organizations regarding the actions of the IDF. Among them were reports by organizations belonging to the United Nations, which told of massive destruction and damages to the local population. The petition also included journalistic accounts by Haaretz correspondents Gideon Levi and Amira Hass.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) also contributed to the petition. The organization refuted the claims of the IDF that Operation Rainbow was aimed at halting smuggling from Egypt to Gaza. HRW suggested that smuggling can be prevented in other ways than massive urban destruction. HRW claims the operation was motivated by revenge for the killing of soldiers in the area the previous week.

"The impunity which commanders and soldiers enjoy in Israel does not impress international legal instances, which aim to implement international law with honesty and fairness," Adalah wrote.

14 comments:

Rich M said...

Wow. That's an entirely one-sided take on the situation.

By the dictionary definition of the word, Israel's actions are also often terrorism. Take for example the destruction of civilian buildings and infrastructure in Gaza following the kidnap of IDF personel.

In the case of the defence wall, is it not reasonable for a farmer to be upset if the wall is built seperating his home from his fields? Is that not a crime to him, even if performed in self-defence by Israel?

While both sides shout about each others crimes and refuse to accept their own there will never be peace; and "never" is a long time.

Unknown said...

Richard
If you left a way to contact you I would be doing it publicly.

YOu aren't showing a great grasp of what is going on. Lets just say for someone at your level that the fence Has prevented many deaths Palestinian and Israeli. That the last 3 Israeli PMs have said there should should be a Palestinian State. Not one of the ruling organization have said they recognize a Jewish Israel. there's tons more...maybe you can read this site and learn

Jack Steiner said...

The Hague and the UN are a joke.

Anonymous said...

The overwhelming majority of Israelis, of every political stripe, are convinced that there should be a two state solution. No Jewish Rabbi gets up on a pulpit to advocate the death of even one Palestinian.

By contrast, the Charter of the Palestinian Authority calls for the total destruction of the Jewish State (in direct violation of the United Nation's rules). The PA educational system glorifies violence against the Jews and teaches about the sublimeness of suicide bombings (to them it is obviously more important than the thre R's, or science, or geography, for that matter). The official symbols of the Palestinian Authority show the whole area (including Israel's map) as being under the PA's control, no two state solution needed from their point of view. Imans preach that every Jew must be killed for the glory of Allah, for the sake of getting 72 houris in the afterworld. And the examples abound...

The fact remains that not only does the wall mostly, except for tiny areas, follow the pre-67 borders, but had the PA controlled the terror there never would have been a wall. There would be no need for it.

For Richard to equate Israel's actions with those of the PA decries a total ignorance of the facts, at best, or an utterly despicable disregard for the truth at worst.

Rich M said...

Yid With Lid: You are contacting me publicly.

Freedom said: "For Richard to equate Israel's actions with those of the PA decries a total ignorance of the facts, at best, or an utterly despicable disregard for the truth at worst."

I didn't equate them. I compared them. Those two actions are very different.

Can you honestly say that the state of Israel has never used violence in an attempt to frighten or intimidate a population?

I'm not saying that Israel is alone, or even unusual, in its use of violence and state terrorism to secure its objectives. Most world powers do the same, the UK, the US, France, Russia, the list goes on.

I'm more than happy to for you guys to explain why I'm wrong. I accept that I could be mistaken, which is where I suspect we differ.

I challenge you to answer without disdain, hatred, or comments about people at my "level".

Unknown said...

yes Richard What I meant to say is if you left a way to contact you I wouldn't be doing it publicly
I prefer to criticize people in private but unfortunately you didn't leave an email or a web site which indicates to me that you do not have the courage to stand behind your statements.

Anonymous said...

Richard,

Let me, please, quote your opening in your first comment: "Wow. That's an entirely one-sided take on the situation.

By the dictionary definition of the word, Israel's actions are also often terrorism." If that does not sound like moral equivalency then you better run to a dictionary again...

In your response to me you said: "I challenge you to answer without disdain, hatred, or comments about people at my 'level'."

Let me clarify a thing or two, my answer to you showed neither hatred nor disdain. It did, however, challenge the narrownes, the lack of factual knowledge dispayed by your comment, as written.

The fact rermains (if facts as they happen, rather than as Chomsky paints them mean anything to you) that while terrorists from the PA go out of their way to target civilians and inflict maximum damage, the Israelis go out of their way to lessen civillian casualties.

Yes, it does sometimes happen that Palestinian civillians are victims, however not because of a concerted effort as such... and even you know it!. In every fight you run the danger of collateral damage, and you know it. Were there no Palestinian terror, there would be no Israeli incursions into PA territory and there woould have been a Palestinian by now if Arafat and his murderous cohorts really wanted one.

Meanwhile, I see that totally ignored my points... so let me ask you (and I'm asking "without disdain, hatred")... is it because you have no answers? Please explain, at any "level" you care to.

Rich M said...

Yid With Lid: "..you didn't leave an email or a web site which indicates to me that you do not have the courage to stand behind your statements"

I don't have a website, and I'm not going to hand out my email address on a blog covering such clearly emotive topics. You can read what you like into that, but trying to use my privacy to undermine me is dishonest.

Freedom: "If that does not sound like moral equivalency then you better run to a dictionary again..."

Sorry, no, I don't agree at all. Moral equivalency would be saying that both Israeli and PA actions were equally justified.

Freedom: "..my answer to you showed neither hatred nor disdain."

Then perhaps I allowed your assertions of "total ignorance" or "despicable disregard" to trigger too defensive a response. For that I apologise.

To address some of the points I "ignored"...

- I'm sure you're right to say that no Rabbi advocates the death of palestinians. However, I would be surprised if no Rabbi voted for political elements such as Likud (who's charter I understand advocates annexation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights etc). While advocating death and advocating acts that may lead to war are different things on paper, the overwhelming military superiority of Israel would probably mean the end result was the same, and the interpretation by hot-headed palestinian youths would probably be the same too.

- I agree that the PA has not done enough to distance itself from the PLO's denial of Israel's right to exist. I'd happily argue that point with pro-palestinians.

- While I'm sure some imams do preach that jews should be killed, surely it's dishonest to defend Israel's position through comparison to the ravings of zealots. Israel is a powerful first-world democracy and has a proportionally greater responsibility to ensure justice (I'll concede that one is a philosophical position rather than a provable "fact").

- The use of the word "tiny" to describe the areas where the defense wall does not follow the green line is a red herring for two reasons. Firstly, the West Bank is not a large place to begin with. Secondly, if that was your land and you had been ejected through no fault of your own, you would probably consider it a crime. The area of the land would not be relevent. You're right that without terrorism there would be no need, but for that to be a just defense you'd have to show that the people displaced were involved in that terrorism.

Unknown said...

Richard thats your choice and why I am answering you publicly

There Is no Likud charter per say, before each election they do a platform like the American Parties, Infact the last Prime Minister that was elected from the Likud party (Sharon) called for the creation of a Palestinian State.

Most of the Moderate Likudnicks moved to the Kadima party who won the election based on the fact that they called for a two state solution. No legitimate Israeli party would ever call for the death of arabs the way the charters of both Abu Mazen's fatah and Hamas does

Any Rabbi who calls for Killing Arabs or throwing them out of the country would become a pariah--its why Rabbi Kahane was thrown out.

Oh and if you search the net you can hear the actual broadcasts of Ben Gurion reaching out to the Arabs begging them not to leave saying "Lets build a country together" They weren't forced out they were told to leave by the Arab countries so they could get out of the way of the invading armies and return when the Zionist Pigs were driven out.

There were about 700,000 refugees, they were kept in "camps" by the surrounding countries instead of being absorbed. There were around 900,000 Jewish refugees thrown out of the Arab Countries see(http://www.forgottenrefugees.org/index.php), they were absorbed by Israel..

I can go on and on. But It is your response that I one-sided because it runs counter to historical facts

Rich M said...

Yid With Lid: "I can go on and on. But It is your response that I one-sided because it runs counter to historical facts"

Being inaccurate and being one-sided are two different things. One does not cause the other.

I'm certainly not being one-sided because I'm trying to understand both sides of the situation, and am willing to accept criticism. I'm can seriously say that if you argue convincingly you can change my mind. I could not be less one-sided.

Now, on to the points you raise...

Doesn't the Likud party manifesto from 1999 state that if the palestinians unilaterally declare a palestinian state they'd take immediate stringent measures against it? I would've thought the right of a nation to self-determination would be a fairly fundamental part of acknowledging that nation's right to exist. Sharon's participation in the "creation" of the palestinian state could just as easily have been a political coallition maveuver as a personal conviction, which surely makes it meaningless in the context of assessing the intentions of the people that voted for him.

Anonymous said...

Richard,

I do not know you and can only judge what you write. So let me dissect it for you...

Your first point starting with "- I'm sure you're right to say that no Rabbi advocates the death of palestinians..." I'm more than willing to bet that Rabbis may have voted for the Likud, just as you said. However, there is no such thing as a Likud Charter of any kind. Could there be any zealots who dream of a Greater Israel, encompassing those areas you spoke of? I don't doubt that either! None of them are in the government or the Likud Party, however. So much for the zealot fringe!

Your second point: "- I agree that the PA has not done enough to distance itself from the PLO's denial of Israel's right to exist..." We agree on that one, I'm glad... but I'll come back to this.

Your third point: "- While I'm sure some imams do preach that jews should be killed, surely it's dishonest to defend Israel's position through comparison to the ravings of zealots." Some imams? Some?!?!? Look at all the sites that monitor the Imams addresses from the Mosques in Jerusalem, the Mosques in the West Bank and the Mosques in Gaza, either you haven't bothered or chose to ignore those "muder the Jews" pronouncements. What about the "educational programs" on the PA's official TV station, teaching the kids to murder Jews and become glorious shaheeds? I am sure you've not heard of those either, correct?!?!? It must be they are the rantings of zealots... hmmnnn... Oh, wait! If the Imams are merely zealots then the zealots took over, and the "educational" programs on the Official TV stations are owned by the PA, hmmnn... Methinketh Richard, thou art disingenuous, or that perhaps thou mispeaketh?

Your fourth point, "- The use of the word "tiny" to describe the areas where the defense wall does not follow the green line is a red herring for two reasons." If the PA government had taken the necessary steps to stop the terror, there would neverr have been a wall (you say agree with me on this), then either the PA ruling junta is either terror's accomplice or is unable if not unwilling to control the terror thugs. If terrorists are coming through your farm to kill my people you have forfeited your right to that portion of your farm. If you feel you are helpless before the terror thugs then insist your government defend your rights and fight for them. That's what a government is for! BTW, the incidence of terror has been drastically reduced because of the wall... but that only safeguards dem Jooz, right?

By the way, I do owe you a big apology! Let me explain.... You've said that "Israel's actions are also often terrorism on your first comment. Then on your second comment you write, "I didn't equate them. I compared them. Those two actions are very different." It almost escaped me, but you are absolutely right! You did not equate them, you only described Israeli actions as "terrorism," never used that wsame word for Palestinian terror actions againt Israel's cafes, discos, hotels, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Oh, by the way... Richard... Why don't you adress the PA Charter which still calls for the elimination of the Zionist Entity? They actually promised to abrogate those clauses in 1993... let'[s see it's 2007... oh, yes... I realize... these things do take time...

Also, how about current PM Haniye's oft repeated statement that while her'll "respect" (whatever that means) the Oslo and subsequent agreements he'll never accept them and recognize Israel's existence...

Your spots are showing, I'm afraid, in spite of your sophistry and verbal acrobatics.

Rich M said...

Chaim : "...you only described Israeli actions as "terrorism," never used that wsame word for Palestinian terror actions..."

Don't be so rediculous. Why would I state something so obvious unless it was in dispute?

You say that you're only dissecting what I wrote, but you seem to have it in your head that I support palestinian terrorism. That is so far from true that it's actually funny.

My position is that I consider the content of this post to be one-sided. For example, the section that says "when they ruled that Israel was not allowed too build a fence to keep terrorists from blowing up Israeli citizens" distort's the court's decision in order to misrepresent them as unjust (or possibly worse). The actual ruling was that Israel should not be allowed to build the wall in palestinian territory, an entirely different result that still allows the construction of the wall.

I accept that settlers have now occupied the land in question, which makes the matter difficult, but this post doesn't accept any complexity. It represents the ruling as a black-and-white ruling that craps "on Jews", rather than as a complex border dispute in an unstable and politically critical region.

Chaim : "...but that only safeguards dem Jooz, right?"

Are you accusing me of anti-semitism? If so please say it plainly so that there is no misunderstanding.

Anonymous said...

Chaim : "...you only described Israeli actions as "terrorism," never used that wsame word for Palestinian terror actions..."

Don't be so ridiculous. Why would I state something so obvious unless it was in dispute?


I still don't get it, I must be dense, are you then saying that Palestinians do engage in terrorism? Please state it publicly! Why? Because by not using the word in relation to the Palestinians then, as you say in your second post, you are merely "comparing" what you see as Israeli "terrorism" with the victimhood of the Palestinians. If the Palestinians are, in your view engaging in terror, then by calling Israeli actions "terrorism" you obviously see a moral equivalent.

Please cease your verbal acrobatics, just answer my charges in plain English. Then I'll gladly continue explaining my view.

As for calling you an anti-semite, based merely on what you wrote, I haven't. I never used the word, nor did it cross my mind until... I read on your last post.

Rich M said...

I still don't get it, I must be dense, are you then saying that Palestinians do engage in terrorism? Please state it publicly!

I did in my last post, but if it makes you feel better I'll do it again. Palestinians (and to spell it out without ambiguity I mean "some" not "all") do engage in terrorism.

I completely disagree with your opinion on moral equivalency though. Assigning the same name to an act does not make it "morally equivalent". For example murder, committed as a crime of passion, is considered less of a crime in many countries than murder planned in advance. Why? Because although the crimes are comparable and share terminology, they are not considered morally equivalent. They are compared, not equated.

"As for calling you an anti-semite, based merely on what you wrote, I haven't. I never used the word"

No, you didn't use that word, but as far as I can see you insinuated that I cared less for Jewish lives than for others with your remark about the defense wall... "...but that only safeguards dem Jooz, right?". Apologies if I have misunderstood you, please feel free to post the correct explanation for your comment.