Report of Human Rights Watch on suicide bombings

Jorge · 11-09-2002, 09:59 AM

The latest report of the group Human Rights Watch (HRW)

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl....htm#TopOfPage

is noteworthy not only for its subject but because it constitutes an attempt to examine critically both individual and organizational responsibilities on the subject of suicide bombings.

Kenneth Roth, executive director of HRW, when interviewed after the report's publication, stated that: "The people who carry out suicide bombings are not martyrs, they're war criminals, and so are the people who help to plan such attacks," and added, The scale and systematic nature of these attacks sets them apart from other abuses committed in times of conflict. They clearly fall under the category of crimes against humanity."

"The 170-page report is the first full-fledged examination of individual criminal responsibility for suicide bombings against civilians in Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories. The report, Erased in a Moment: Suicide Bombing Attacks against Israeli Civilians, also provides the most thorough study to date of the suicide bombing operations of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the groups that have claimed responsibility for almost all recent suicide bombings."

In my opinion, some of the most important points raised in the Report are those devoted to discuss the arguments invoked to justify those terrorist actions. In particular, attempts of justification based on the linkage between israeli armed repression in the territories and suicide bombings . These arguments have been repeatedly used not only by the terrorist organizations themselves but by a number of sectors of international public opinion. In this respect the Report states:

Palestinian armed groups have sought to justify suicide bombing attacks on civilians by pointing to Israeli military actions that have killed numerous Palestinian civilians during current clashes, as well as the continuing Israeli occupation of the West Bank and much of the Gaza Strip. Such excuses are completely without merit. International humanitarian law leaves absolutely no doubt that attacks targeting civilians constitute war crimes when committed in situations of armed conflict, and cross the threshold to become crimes against humanity when conducted systematically, whether in peace or war. As the latter term denotes, these are among the worst crimes that can be committed, crimes of universal jurisdiction that the international community as a whole has an obligation to punish and prevent.

International humanitarian law governing situations of armed conflict prohibits even attacks against civilians that are said to have been carried out in reprisal for attacks against one's own civilian population. This principle is set out in both the Fourth Geneva Convention and in Additional Protocol I. Even apart from these treaties, a strong trend has developed in international customary law over the past two decades to prohibit reprisals against civilians. This ban on reprisals is not dependent on reciprocal compliance by opposing forces. Even in the face of Israeli violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, Palestinian armed groups have a duty to refrain from reprisals against civilians.

jcsd · 11-09-2002, 12:13 PM

I completely agree with the report, neither side has the right to act like 'gangsters' just because the other side does, and I condemn both the occupation and the sucide bombings.

ibrodsky · 11-09-2002, 02:04 PM

But since terrorist attacks against Israel came first, and Israel captured the territories in self-defense, it's obvious that both the terrorist attacks and unintended civilian casualties resulting from Israeli self-defense are the responsibility of the belligerent Arab forces seeking Israel's destruction and cleansing of the Middle East of Jews.

jcsd · 11-09-2002, 03:42 PM

War Crimes by both sides go back to well before 1948, just about the time that the Geneva convention was ratified. Israel's actions go far beyond self-defence.

**Mediocrates** · 11-09-2002, 04:12 PM

But there are no barriers beyond which the PLO refuses to cross. None at all.

**NewsGuy** · 11-10-2002, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by jcsd
Israel's actions go far beyond self-defence.

Not true.

Since its establishment, the Arabs have launched 5 wars against Israel. The goal of these wars was clear: To destroy the State of Israel and to mass murder every Jew living in the Jewish homeland.

In addition to these formal wars, the Palestinians have launched a war of terorrism against Israel for the past several decades.

So, it would be difficult to say that Israel is going beyond self-defense. On the contrary, I believe that Israel is not going nearly far enough in self-defense.

The IDF has the ability to end the Palestinian war of terrorism once and for all, yet Israel is holding back for a variety of misguided reasons, fighting slowly and meticulously to avoid Palestinian civilian casualties. And the Israeli government is also avoiding the real solution of marching the Palestinian population back to its historical homeland -- out of Israel -- so both nations can finally live in peace and freedom as they both deserve.

Jorge · 11-11-2002, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by ibrodsky
But since terrorist attacks against Israel came first, and Israel captured the territories in self-defense, it's obvious that both the terrorist attacks and unintended civilian casualties resulting from Israeli self-defense are the responsibility of the belligerent Arab forces seeking Israel's destruction and cleansing of the Middle East of Jews.

I think that this thing of who started first leads nowhere. There's always something that can be invoked before that and before the before that, up to biblical times.

Even if we accept the contention that "Israel captured the territories in self-defence" which is debatable, the question remains as to why Israel didn't return the territories when the military threat was overcome.

The "unintended" civilian casualties were inflicted by Israel and hence the primary responsibility lies in the perpetrators, which could and should have taken measures to minimize them even further.

I agree it's a bit tricky, but the crux of the doctrine set up in the HRW report is that one side cannot justify its wrondoings by claiming that the other side has done worse.

ibrodsky · 11-11-2002, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by Jorge
I think that this thing of who started first leads nowhere. There's always something that can be invoked before that and before the before that, up to biblical times.

Even if we accept the contention that "Israel captured the territories in self-defence" which is debatable, the question remains as to why Israel didn't return the territories when the military threat was overcome.

The "unintended" civilian casualties were inflicted by Israel and hence the primary responsibility lies in the perpetrators, which could and should have taken measures to minimize them even further.

I agree it's a bit tricky, but the crux of the doctrine set up in the HRW report is that one side cannot justify its wrondoings by claiming that the other side has done worse.

No, "who was first" is a meaningless blame game only if both sides are equally wrong and neither side is willing to take the first step to break the alleged cycle.

But both sides are not equally wrong. Islamists believe that Allah wants them to restore the Islamic Empire. Israel is the first obstacle standing in their way.

There is nothing debateable about capturing the WB and Gaza. Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and Egypt were all lined up to destroy Israel. They had Israel far outnumbered and outgunned. Israel needed a large buffer zone to prevent being overrun in 1973.

The only good thing about the recent HRW report is that it accuses the Palestinians of crimes that Arabs have been committing against Jews for 50+ years.

takeo · 11-11-2002, 11:51 AM

"Not true.

Since its establishment, the Arabs have launched 5 wars against Israel. The goal of these wars was clear: To destroy the State of Israel and to mass murder every Jew living in the Jewish homeland.

In addition to these formal wars, the Palestinians have launched a war of terorrism against Israel for the past several decades.

So, it would be difficult to say that Israel is going beyond self-defense. On the contrary, I believe that Israel is not going nearly far enough in self-defense.

The IDF has the ability to end the Palestinian war of terrorism once and for all, yet Israel is holding back for a variety of misguided reasons, fighting slowly and meticulously to avoid Palestinian civilian casualties. And the Israeli government is also avoiding the real solution of marching the Palestinian population back to its historical homeland -- out of Israel -- so both nations can finally live in peace and freedom as they both deserve."

i see, so etnic cleansing is part of the legitimate tactics of self-defense???
How is invading egypt (not vice versa) self-defense? We have been there before, but noone could ever explain why.
The 1967 war was started by israel according to definitions of war. the 1973 and 1948 war by the Arabs, but the occupied territories were captured in 1967...
anyway, even if other nations start, it is never legitimate self-defense to keep parts of other countries occupied...

ibrodsky "But both sides are not equally wrong. Islamists believe that Allah wants them to restore the Islamic Empire. Israel is the first obstacle standing in their way. "

Palestinians fight for their own freedom and country, Christians alongside Muslims, the intifadeh is a palestinian initiative, and they are the only ones participating in it. Some under the banner of Islam, some under the banner of the pa, some leftwing, others nationalist, but all want the same goal: the liberation of the occupied territories. Some want to go further and destroy israel, but that's only a minority and not the goal of this intifadeh.

"There is nothing debateable about capturing the WB and Gaza. Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and Egypt were all lined up to destroy Israel. They had Israel far outnumbered and outgunned. Israel needed a large buffer zone to prevent being overrun in 1973."

Israel could well defend itself without Gaza and WB. 1973 was a consequence of the israeli occupation.

"The only good thing about the recent HRW report is that it accuses the Palestinians of crimes that Arabs have been committing against Jews for 50+ years."

You only accept the parts and bits of truth that fit in your narrow ideological view. But I would advise you to read the whole report!!!

**Mediocrates** · 11-11-2002, 12:36 PM

Your posts are excruciating to read it's always hit or miss whether it's a statement or a quote.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by takeo
i see, so etnic cleansing is part of the legitimate tactics of self-defense???

where is this, where where where where where where -

How is invading egypt (not vice versa) self-defense? We have been there before, but noone could ever explain why.

Sure, you just refuse to listen. It's called self defense. You will never acknowledge that Israel was ever threatened by anyone so repeating the same facts over and over is meaningless - you're trolling.

it is never legitimate self-defense to keep parts of other countries occupied...

On what planet is that true?

Palestinians fight for their own freedom and country, Christians alongside Muslims, the intifadeh is a palestinian initiative, and they are the only ones participating in it. Some under the banner of Islam, some under the banner of the pa, some leftwing, others nationalist, but all want the same goal: the liberation of the occupied territories. Some want to go further and destroy israel, but that's only a minority and not the goal of this intifadeh.

Do they wear different hats? Otherwise it's pretty hard to tell them apart. Maybe they should use other kinds bomb belts - maybe ones without the self tapping sheet metal screws that are so popular nowadays.

Israel could well defend itself without Gaza and WB.

No. That is a statement of fact. And considering you consider self defence to be war crime it's really a stretch to imagine WTF you mean anyhow.

1973 was a consequence of the israeli occupation.

A charming story to tell your kids but no. 1973 was about another mad grab to hit the Jews while they slept to wipe them from the face of the earth once and for all. The Palestinians were merely in the way of the Egyptian army and Jordanian army.

You only accept the parts and bits of truth that fit in your narrow ideological view. But I would advise you to read the whole report!!!

And what will I find? War sucks? Ok I'll buy it.

takeo · 11-11-2002, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by takeo
i see, so etnic cleansing is part of the legitimate tactics of self-defense???

[PHP]where is this, where where where where where where - [/PHP]

he was proposing the expulsion of palestinians do Jordan, isn't that etnic cleansing?

[PHP]Sure, you just refuse to listen. It's called self defense. You will never acknowledge that Israel was ever threatened by anyone so repeating the same facts over and over is meaningless - you're trolling.[/PHP]

A threat is no justified reason to attack, if not then Pearl Harbour was justified, and Hitler could invade Poland. Only invasion is an act of war, THUS israel started the war.

[PHP]On what planet is that true?[/PHP]

on the planet earth

[PHP]No. That is a statement of fact. And considering you consider self defence to be war crime it's really a stretch to imagine WTF you mean anyhow.[/PHP]

Israel does not need the WB and gaza for its conservation. In fact those territories distract military efforst from the defense of the real israeli border. and the palestinians living in the occupied territories would be more than happy to side with the invading forces.

[PHP]A charming story to tell your kids but no. 1973 was about another mad grab to hit the Jews while they slept to wipe them from the face of the earth once and for all. The Palestinians were merely in the way of the Egyptian army and Jordanian army.[/PHP]

1973 would have never happened without the 1967-war. before 1967 israel knew years of relative peace.

[PHP]And what will I find? War sucks? Ok I'll buy it. [/PHP]

yes, but as well that both sides commit warcrimes... as well the "Western democracy" Israel...

MiniMizer · 11-12-2002, 01:10 AM

In 1967, Egypt has closed the straits of Tiran, thus denying Israel essential supplies.
According to Intl. Law, this is a reason for war, just like the latest Lebanese actions of diverting the course of one of Israel's water supplies.

takeo · 11-12-2002, 06:22 AM

BS, closing a strait for trade is no reason for war, but a reason for international diplomacy.
If not countries who suffer from an embargo should have the right to invade neighbouring countries.
And about Libanon, even more BS, this is libanese water, no single international law accepts this as a reason for aggression. and the greatest share of the water still goes to israel anyway.

jcsd · 11-12-2002, 08:34 AM

About the water supply issue: Lebanon would be breaking no international law if it decided to divert the entire Litani out of Israel, however it has not done this, it has diverted a small amount from this water source which consists entirely of run-off from Lebanon. Indeed a US brokered deal which Israel ratified but Lebanon refused to, allowed Lebanon to use 27 times the amonut the are currently pumping from that source.

Israel by threatening war because Lebanon decided to pump from a small amonut from a water source inside it's own territory is completely over the top and an aggressive action.

On the embargo issue, again no international law was broken. Embargoes are a perfectly legitmate foreign policy.

minusthejihad · 11-12-2002, 08:49 AM

Takeo, JCSD,

Please put a sock in it. Anything Israel does solicits a negative reponse from eaither of you two, so much so that you've cried wolf too many times and aren't being taken seriously anymore, or worse yet, (especially for Takeo who still refuses to use the tools within this app that make it easier for the rest of us to decipher debate) people are ignoring your posts.

Other forum members,

Can anyone please provide me with information pertaining to a new mutual fund that invests strictly in Israeli companies? I had noticed a post in this forum about it, sent it along to numerous people who are ready to invest, and now I can't find any information on it, even in www.jta.org which was the source cited here. Please PM me or post any info in a new thread I'm starting. I would like to help Israel as soon as possible.