attacks must be strictly limited to military objectives. These facts further indicate the commission of the grave breach of extensive destruction of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
No surprises there...To question this after over half a century of conflict is not possible.
The Mission finds that, while a great number of the Gaza policemen were recruited among Hamas supporters or members of Palestinian armed groups, the Gaza police were a civilian law-enforcement agency.
This seems to indicate that the Mission does not understand the fundementals of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. To the Israeli side of the equation, Hamas is a terrorist organization. Therefore, the Gaza police status as a civilian law-enforcement agency is moot. In fact the report later states:
The circumstances of the attacks and the Government of Israel July 2009 report on the military operations clarify that the policemen were deliberately targeted and killed on the ground that the police as an institution, or a large part of the policemen individually, are in the Government of Israel’s view part of the Palestinian
military forces in Gaza.
So Israel's own July 2009 report on the Operation states that "policemen were deliberately targeted and killed". Seems like the logical approach to a group viewed by the Israeli government (and many other nations) as a terrorist organization.
The Mission received replies from the Palestinian Authority and the Gaza authorities but not from Israel.
Again, no surprise there.
The Mission holds the view that Israel continues to be duty-bound under the Fourth Geneva Convention and to the full extent of the means available to it to ensure the supply of foodstuff, medical and hospital items and others to meet the humanitarian needs of the population of the Gaza Strip without qualification.
Israel believes it is in compliance with the Geneva Convention.
Israel deployed its navy, air force and army in the operation it codenamed “Operation Cast Lead”. The military operations in the Gaza Strip included two main phases, the air phase and the air-land phase, and lasted from 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009. The Israeli offensive began with a week-long air attack, from 27 December until 3 January 2009. The air force continued to play an important role in assisting and covering the ground forces from 3 January to 18 January 2009. The army was responsible for the ground invasion, which began on 3 January 2009 when ground troops entered Gaza from the north and from the east. The available information indicates that the Golani, Givati and Paratrooper Brigades and five Armoured Corps Brigades were involved. The navy was used in part to shell the Gaza coast during the operations.
The Israeli military - army, navy, and airforce is attacking:
Statements by Israeli Government and armed forces representatives justified the attacks arguing that political and administrative institutions in Gaza are part of the “Hamas terrorist infrastructure”. The Mission rejects this position. It finds that there is no evidence that the Legislative Council building and the Gaza main prison made an effective contribution to military action. On the information available to it, the Mission finds that the attacks on these buildings constituted deliberate attacks on civilian objects in violation of the rule of customary international humanitarian law whereby attacks must be strictly limited to military objectives.
Again - the Mission does not understand the perspective from which Israel views Hamas. They are not a legitimate government as far as Israel is concerned.
The Mission was faced with a certain reluctance by the persons it interviewed in Gaza to discuss the activities of the armed groups.
It would be interesting to know if this reluctance stems from fear or solidarity? In any case, the resulting environment supports Israel's approach of viewing civilians with suspicion.
Palestinian armed groups, where they launched attacks close to civilian or protected buildings, unnecessarily exposed the civilian population of Gaza to danger.
Nothing new there.
The Mission acknowledges the significant efforts made by Israel to issue warnings through telephone calls, leaflets and radio broadcasts and accepts that in some cases, particularly when the warnings were sufficiently
specific, they encouraged residents to leave an area and get out of harms way.Let's look at the map again, here's one in miles:
Where are these people supposed to go when they are warned of an attach by the Israeli Army, Navy and Air Force? They cannot enter Egypt. They cannot enter Israel.
On 15 January 2009, the UNRWA field office compound in Gaza City came under shelling with high explosive and white phosphorous munitions. The Mission notes that the attack was extremely dangerous, as the compound offered shelter to between 600 and 700 civilians and contained a huge fuel depot. The Israeli forces continued the attack over several hours in spite of having been fully alerted to the risks they created. The Mission concludes that Israeli armed forces violated the customary international law requirement to take
all feasible precautions in the choice of means and method of attack with a view to avoiding and in any event minimizing incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.The Mission also finds that, on the same day, the Israeli forces directly and intentionally attacked the Al Quds Hospital in Gaza City and the adjacent ambulance depot with white phosphorous shells. The attack caused fires which took a whole day to extinguish and caused panic among the sick and wounded who had to be evacuated. The Mission finds that no warning was given at any point of an imminent strike. On the basis of its investigation, the Mission rejects the allegation that fire was directed at Israeli forces from within the hospital.
1. Again, the use of phosphorous shells by Israel is no longer an issue. The international community was shown this back in the Jenin invasion and has since given it's explicit or implicit (depending on the country) acceptance.
2. Again, warnings are a non-issue considering this is all taking place in a strip of land described by the CIA's World Fact Book as "slighty twice the size of Washington DC," but with Maryland and Virginia borders closed.
That the Mission accepts or rejects allegations of attacks from within a hospital is not a basis for courts generally reserved for cases like Rwanda or Bosnia.
The Mission also examined the intense artillery attacks, again including white phosphorous munitions, on Al Wafa hospital in eastern Gaza City, a facility for patients receiving long-term care and suffering from particularly serious injuries. On the basis of the information gathered, the Mission found a violation of the prohibition of attacks on civilian hospitals in the cases of both hospitals. The Mission also highlights that the warnings given by leaflets and pre-recorded phone messages in the case of Al Wafa hospital demonstrate the complete ineffectiveness of certain kinds of routine and generic warnings.
Israeli use of phosphorous is generally accepted by the international community. Even the committee resigns itself:
Based on its investigation of incidents involving the use of certain weapons such as white phosphorous and flechette missiles, the Mission, while accepting that white phosphorous is not at this stage proscribed under international law,
They do go onto criticize Israel for its use of the weapon in "built-up areas." As for the leaflets and warnings, these are an excersize in futility considering this is a real life version of shooting fish in a barrel. It's ironically reminiscent of the Arab rallying cry of the 50s and 60s promising to "drive the Jews into the sea."
Additional munitions examined by the committee include the use of flechettes and dense inert metal explosives (DIME) which are both, according to the report, not currently banned. In fact for the latter, the committee admits it:
is not in a position to state with certainty that so-called dense inert metal explosive (DIME) munitions were used by the Israeli armed forces
But then site local and international doctors who report a high percentage of patients with injuries compatible with DIMEs. And while the committee also received allegations of depleted and non-depleted uranium weapons were used "These allegations were not further investigated"
In drawing its legal conclusions on the attack against al-Fakhura junction, the Mission recognizes that for all armies proportionality decisions, weighing the military advantage to be gained against the risk of killing civilians, will present very genuine dilemmas in certain cases. The Mission does not consider this to be such a case. The firing of at least four mortar shells to attempt to kill a small number of specified individuals in a setting where large numbers of civilians were going about their daily business and 1,368 people were sheltering nearby cannot meet the test of what a reasonable commander would have determined to be an acceptable loss of civilian life for the military advantage sought. The Mission considers thus the attack to have
been indiscriminate in violation of international law, and to have violated the right to life of the Palestinian civilians killed in these incidents.
At what point does it become not ok for an Israeli soldier to shoot a Palestinian? What would an IDF soldier have to do to get reprimanded for inappropriate actions, either by the Israeli government or international law? There have been instances of Israeli government officials avoiding certain countries (most recently the United Kingdom). And there have been instances of reprimand by the Israeli government of their own high ranking officials for misconduct (financial, political and military).
A concept known as the Dahiya doctrine emerged then, involving the application of disproportionate force and the causing of great damage and destruction to civilian property and infrastructure, and suffering to
civilian populations.
It sounds much like the German lightening strikes of WWII and the Allied attacks on German cities, both designed to target civilians in order to break the will of the population. A lot like the objectives of Operation Shock and Awe. So again, nothing new here.
No comments:
Post a Comment