From Haaretz:
Israel's military prosecution announced Tuesday that no legal steps will be taken against those responsible for the killing of 21 members of the Samouni family during the 2009 Operation Cast Lead in Gaza.
A letter was received by the human rights group B'Tselem from Major Dorit Tuval, Deputy Military Advocate for Operational Matters. Tuval said that the case has been closed after the investigation has found that the attack on the civilians, "who did not take part in the fighting," and their killing were not done knowingly and directly, or out of haste and negligence "in a manner that would indicate criminal responsibility." . . .
Attorney Yael Stein of B'Tselem said in response, "It cannot be that in a well-managed system no person will be found guilty of the army operation that led to the killing of 21 people who were not involved in combat, and resided in a structure on the instructions of the army – even if the attack was not done purposefully," she said.
"The manner in which the army rids itself of responsibility in this case… again illustrates the need for an investigatory body outside of the army."
For background on the al Samouni case see here and here.
It should be remembered that Richard Goldstone held up the Israeli investigation of the Samouni attack as exemplary, but a March, 2011 UN followup committee thought otherwise:
The Committee does not have sufficient information to establish the current status of the on-going criminal investigations into the killings of Ateya and Ahmad Samouni, the attack on the Wa’el al-Samouni house and the shooting of Iyad Samouni. This is of considerable concern: reportedly 24 civilians were killed and 19 were injured in the related incidents on 4 and 5 January 2009. Furthermore, the events may relate both to the actions and decisions of soldiers on the ground and of senior officers located in a war room, as well as to broader issues implicating the rules of engagement and the use of drones. There are also reports indicating that the MAG’s decision to investigate was opposed by the then Head of the IDF Southern Command. Media reports further inform that a senior officer, who was questioned “under caution" and had his promotion put on hold, told investigators that he was not warned that civilians were at the location. However, some of those civilians had been ordered there by IDF soldiers from that same officer’s’ unit and air force officers reportedly informed him of the possible presence of civilians. Despite allegedly being made aware of this information, the officer apparently approved air strikes that killed 21 people and injured 19 gathered in the al-Samouni house. Media sources also report that the incident has been described as a legitimate interpretation of drone photographs portrayed on a screen and that the special command investigation, initiated ten months after the incidents, did not conclude that there had been anything out of the ordinary in the strike. As of 24 October 2010, according to media reports, no decision had been made as to whether or not the officer would stand trial. The same officer who assertedly called in the strike reportedly insisted that ambulances not enter the sector under his control, fearing attempts to kidnap soldiers.
I always found it absurd that the military would investigate itself. What is more absurd is that such a farcical system is considered by the Israeli public as an objective, credible one.
There you go. So after the next firecracker rocket from Gaza, I’m sure the zios will be satisfied with the response that any damage was “not done knowingly and directly, or out of haste and negligence ‘in a manner that would indicate criminal responsibility.’”
I could hardly click and read. The lack of justice and accountability that the Palestinians have continuously had to deal with in regard to past and ongoing crimes is enough to drive individuals into depression and violence. Or both. Will any other international body be taking this issue up?
Woody, question to you: would you have your family live under a possiblility to be “fireracked” by these “firecrackers” from Gaza? Yes/no answer wud suffice.
Woody, question to you: would you have your family live under a possiblility to be “fireracked” by these “firecrackers” from Gaza? Yes/no answer wud suffice”..asherpat
Well, the obvious answer from an Israeli would be yes.
They did and do ask for it after all, by what they do in and to Palestine.
try doing the same thing to people who actually have the wherewithall to really fight back and see what you get.
@American, I asked Woody about HIS family, not “from an Israeli”. If you be so kind as to reveal your thoughts, pls answer too, about YOUR family, yes/no pls.
”@American, I asked Woody about HIS family, not “from an Israeli”. If you be so kind as to reveal your thoughts, pls answer too, about YOUR family, yes/no pls.”
There isn’t a yes/no answer for my family because I would never allow a member of my family to commit or support acts that oppress other people to begin with. If one did he would have to answer for it and take his medicine for his own sake as well as his victims. It would be impossible for me to tolerate that from someone in my family, emotionally devastating as it would be to have to do something about it.
asherpat:
If I were Jewish, I would not live in Palestine at all, but would move to the land where I came from, wherever that was.
If I were born in Palestine, I would move to whatever country my ancestors immigrated from a generation or two ago, as I would not want to take part in the hideous den of theft and colonialism that zionism has turned the Israeli state into.
If my ancestors had been in Palestine for a number of generations, I would not choose to live in a colonial-theft enclave, like S’derot, or an ethnically cleansed land haunted by the Nakba, like Ashkelon.
And regardless of wherever I chose to live, I would always remember that the hell that the Israelis puts Palestinian men, women and especially children through every single day is thousands upon thousands of times worse than everything the Palestinians have inflicted on Israel in retaliation for Israel’s acts, and would vote accordingly.
I hope that suffices.
@Woody – “If I were born in Palestine, I would move to whatever country my ancestors immigrated from a generation or two ago”
And how wud you do that? Woody, this your comment shows that you probably live in some cosy Western democracy with open borders (Shengen, etc) and apply the same logic to your views. But outside the state of Israel, where Palestinians are second class citizens (yes), in the rest of the Middle East, Palestinians are not citizens at all, how exactly would you “move” to let’s say Syria or Lebanon, where you, as a Palestinian of course, would not be allowed to own land (outside of the “refugee camp”) and hope that you are not a doctor, a lawyer etc. cos Palestinians are not allowed these professions, except in Apartheid Israel.
asherpat,
In my answer, the assumption I made was that I was a Jew born in Palestine. (i.e., in “Israel,” the colonial entity created by Europeans in Palestine.) If I were a Jew born in Israel I would return to my real homeland (i.e., Germany, Poland, USA, Russia, whereever it was that my ancestor a generation or two came from to participate in the crimes in occupied Palestine). If I was unable to got there, I would seek someplace like the US or UK and work for the freedom of the Palestinians from their bondage and oppression.
Obviously, since Arabs were ethnically cleansed in the Nakba and later, by Jewish terrorism operations and the land around the Gaza strip was made Arabrein by the Jewish brownshirts, the idea that I could be a Palestinian living in any of the areas where the Gaza firecrackers land is preposterous. And even if your Jewish terrorists didn’t commit (and continue to commit) that massive crime against humanity and war crime, if I were Palestinian, I would not live in that area, because it is full of people who are hard-core anti-Arab bigots. No one is his right mind would want to live among those barbarians and I would fear for my life and that of my children at their hands.
The short answer is Yes. BUT, in doing so, I would do (and/or insist upon with my vote) four things:
1) That a sincere (heretofore unexplored) non-military solution be pursued vigorously. Avoid at all costs a subscription to the racist view that Arabs/Palestinians are intrinsically violent and/or want the destruction of Israel (whatever that means). Subscribe to/embrace the view, with all my/your heart that Palestinians DO “love their children” and proceed from there as a fundamental guiding principle. Take a risk, given new information.
2) (Or maybe 1a) Acknowledge that bombing (starving, depriving, demolishing, humiliating…) people into submission doesn’t work and hasn’t worked. Palestinians are never going to leave and/or move on. Your own history tells you that. Seek another path. Solve the problem.
3) Travel to the WB and/or Gaza and live like a Palestinian. For a month, not just a day trip. You would be accepted, though you would almost certainly be feared as well. Maybe the latter would be gratifying in a certain self-diminishing sense, but it would be only one miniscule part of a complex path to understanding how to solve this problem, and the net result would expand, if not blow, your mind.
4) Re-examine your damn founding mythology. Personally and publicly. Embrace the reality of the intransigency of the problem.
I’m amazed at how few Israelis do any, let alone all, of these things. If my government was pursuing a good-faith, negotiated path to solving the rocket problem, I would gladly endure, because I would see a positive outcome. The fact that there is NO good-faith effort to solve this non-militarily (like it could be solved militarily as we are learning in the US) would cause me to move on, if I had options.
asherpat: Perhaps you should go further back and ask would you have your family live in open air prison and just for the heck of it a little further back and say would you consent to be occupied and oppressed and ethnically cleansed away for a foreign ideology?
So the message is: Israelis can carry on killing with impunity. A show trial for the foreign press will be conducted, but no charges or admission of responsibility for the deaths of innocent people will ever be made. After all, Palestinians aren’t people like Israeli Jews, they are not allowed rights or any status, they are relegated to the category of nobodies, they are fit for wanton destruction and slaughter, because what Israeli could care less about the original inhabitants of their shabby state? Disgraceful doesn’t get anywhere close, callous indifference and utter lack of humanity is slightly closer to their spectacularly supremacist heartlessness.
Whitewashing the Slaughter of the al-Samouni Family
link to newsgroups.derkeiler.com
Samouni Family Responds to Goldstone Backtrack on Israeli War Crimes – April 4, 2011 – Ken O’Keefe
link to youtube.com
One Year After Israeli Assault on Gaza, Survivors from Samouni Family Remember the Tragedy that Killed 29
link to democracynow.org
Something to remember every time the Fogel familiy murder is brought up.
@Shingo,
your barbaric response about Fogel family only gives fuel to Israeli extremists.
You shud be ashamed of yourself for inciting hatred rather than promoting peace. But perhaps peace is not what you want, you cudnt care less about Palestinians in general nor Samouni family in particular. What you really after is Israel vanquished, isnt it?
your selective outrage is impressive/NOT
Ditto.
asher should worried about the hatred barbaric Israeli actions incite.
Of course, how could I have been so willing to give fuel to Israeli extremists? It’s obviously now the massacre of the Samouni family that gives fuel to Israeli extremists, it’s the fact that I am traling about them and comparing that massacre to the murder the Jews, and as we all know, it’s an outrage to even consider such an equivalence right, my racist, ethnosupremacist, apartheid lovign friend?
Richard Goldstone held up the Israeli investigation of the Samouni attack as exemplary
Very confusing writing. This could be “Goldstone Report” (September 2009) or “Goldstone Retracts” (April 2011). I had to research the links to start understanding.
/”Attorney Yael Stein of B’Tselem said in response, “It cannot be that in a well-managed system no person will be found guilty of the army operation that led to the killing of 21 people who were not involved in combat, and resided in a structure on the instructions of the army – even if the attack was not done purposefully,”/
Basically what the attorney says is that even though that attack was not done purposefully she still thinks that someone should be punished for it just for the sake
of punishment.
In this shows complete disregard to the whole nature of armed conflict.
If the attack is not purposeful then sad as it is no blame can be assigned to soldiers
who ordered or executed the attack.
War is not a game and it’s not humane and can’t be judged by the standards of civilian law.
The basic argument that you guys use is 21 people were killed–> someone should be punished.
OlegR: even
thoughif that attack was not done purposefullyJust start qouting right before concluding.
That’s even worse.
If Betzelem has evidence that the attack was done purposefully
they should present them because then the perpetrators should be punished.
What they are doing is arguing that
no matter what happened somebody should be punished.
OlegR in short: Whatever
You quoted verbatim, and then the first words you reproduce by yourself are wrong. Why should I care about the logic you build from there?
If you are not interested in my argument then why are you commenting
on it wasting precious bytes and time…
I agree. Cast Lead was a war crime from start to end. Israe’s leaders should be in the Hague.
Lies and Israeli propaganda are like dust and mould Oleg. It’s unsightly and unpleasnt, but if you don’t deal with it right away, it becomes a health hazard.
Are you proposing that the entire Al Samouni family were herded into one house and missiles then dropped on that house accidentally?!
/Are you proposing that the entire Al Samouni family were herded into one house and missiles then dropped on that house accidentally?!/
Do you have evidence that it was not the case ?
Other then your own “common sence” ?
I’ve quoted the relevant sections of the UN Fact Finding Mission to Gaza Report down below. Read it and make your own conclusions.
It does not sound like an accident to me.
Compare this case with the attack on the Al Daya House from January 6, which killed a similar number of people: 22 members of a single family including 12 children. This case is examined in the UN FF Report in paragraphs 844–866. In that case Israel at least claimed it had missiled the house in error; that it had meant to attack what the IDF believed was a house containing weapons next door.
No such claims were made in the case of the Al Samouni massacre.
And Oleg – it’s rude to answer a question with a question. I’ll ask again:
Shingo -
You’ve just rejected the fundamental principles of the laws of war. These postulate two separate issues. Jus ad Bellum deals with the justification for being at war, while Jus in Bello deals with the behavior while at war. Theoretically a country can be at war for justifiable reasons or unjustifiable ones, while behaving in what is defined as a just or unjust manner – and there’s no necessary connection between either.
The consensus at Mondoweiss is that Israel is never justifiably at war, since its very existence is regarded as unjust and unaceptable. Even so, the test of particular actions is a distinct matter, to be tested empirically. Which means, that even the Mondoweiss community must accept that the determination of the legality or illegality of a specific IDF action has nothing to do with the justness of Zionism, ad everything to do with the specific details of each particular event.
If you reject that, you’ve rejected the entire underpinning of international humanitarian law – which is not what most Mondoweiss writers seem eager to do.
To the best of my knowledge, the only entity so far which has investigated the specific details with legal tools is the IDF. One may dislike their findings, but the only way to discredit them is to follow the same path and present either contradictory facts, or legal considerations as to why the facts ned to be interpreted differently.
Sumud,
The present decision of the IDF comes after the Goldstone report, and represents precisely such a claim. You may choose to dislike it, but you can’t say no such claim was made.
Situation with Israel and palestinians can’t be called as war.
What ‘legal tools’? do you mean the veneer of legal jargon to cover their limp excuses and prevarications? Btw the ‘consensus’ is not what you claim. When is Israel ‘at war’ legally in Gaza?
Ah yes.. those precious bytes…so scarce and valuable…no sir, don’t waste the bytes my friend. And don’t get me started on ‘time’..
No, Oleg. Betzelem is not arguing that ‘no matter what happened somebody should be punished’. Can you provide the relevant quotes that indicate that to be ‘Betzelem’s’ position? Thanks….
Quote & source please.
Huh, Sumud? The UN report came out in 2010, and the IDF investigation was completed just recently, in 2012. It rejects previous findings – go read the item at the top of this thread. That’s the whole point of the discussion, isn’t it?
The fundamental principals of the laws of war all come under the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremeberg principals.
The Nuremberg Tribunal determined that wars of agression are the other fo all war crimes and unique insofar as they include all the ctimes that stem from them. Thus, whatever crimes eventuates from such wars fo agression are equally the reponsibility of the agressor. That means, the agressor cannto start a war and then make the claim that it is subsequently acting in self defense.
No it cannot, becasue once it is at war for unjustifiable reasons, it remains the guilty party, reposnsible for all the subsequent crimes that ensue.
Nice straw man, but that’s a munumental FAIL! Yes, the consensus at Mondoweiss is that Israel is never justifiably at war, becasue apart from the 1973 war, Israel has started every war and done so with the aim of territorial conquest. Seeign as conquest and exapsionistm has nothing to do with Israel’s existence, that makes you a liar.
We have done that repeatedly and exahaustively, which is why it can safely be stated that Israel started every war since and including 1948, with the exception of 1973, which in reality, was a continuation fo the 1967 war (which Israel started). The justness of Zionism has nothing to do with this argument, unless you agree with Max Blumenthall and others, that land theft and exapsionism lies in the DNA of Zionism.
PLease drop that stick and step back from the dead horse. You clealy are over your head on this topic.
Yeah, just like Al Capone doing his own tax returns.
Winnica – pls read my comment before replying next time.
I wrote specifically about the Al Daya family massacre. Israel claimed at the time (in 2010) they had killed all those people by accident because they targeted the wrong house – they meant to drop a missile on the one next door. It’s not a very convincing story but it wasn’t an explanation that took two years to concoct.
The Al Samouni family massacre was different. There was no plausible reason for herding 100 family members into one house and then launching missiles at it. There was no adequate explanation in 2010 or after. We still only have “it was an accident” but no better explanation – which is exactly what I wrote:
To which you responded and told me there was an explanation made just like that:
I see no such claim, only “it was an accident”. You tell me there was.
I’m asking what it is. “It was an accident ” is not an adequate explanation.
Pls quote the relevant text from the report and provide a link.
Especially armed conflict of choice, when Israel starts a war just for the sake of havign a war.
The attack on Gaza was entirely purposeful and the massacre of civilians (which was innevitable), therefore fully intended.
It is judged on the stardards of war crimes and international law, and starting a war of agression is the greatest war crime of all.
Whereas Israel uses the arguments that:
1. Even though our actions constitute acts of war, any retaliation to those acts of war require a response.
2. Someone fired a rocket, therefore, everyone should be punished.
“The basic argument that you guys use is 21 people were killed–> someone should be punished.”
Unless any of those 21 people were members of your family, or maybe your personal friends – maybe your wife or sister, Oleg. Or maybe your child.
In that case nobody should be punished. Agreed?
Stevieb -
The discussion is about legal proceedings, not emotions. Legal proceedings must start with empirical evidence that will plausibly convince a court, and they end once the court (or the top level court if there are appeals) rules as to whether the evidence was convincing or not. Not only are emotions such as bereavement or a relationship to the victims not acceptable, judges who have them are expected to recuse themselves.
In cases where the judges find insufficient evidence to convict, no-one will be convicted and certainly nooe will be punished, no matter how heinious the original action may have been.
Would you wish to live in any orther sort of country than one that operated by such rules?
In whuch case, the Samouni family massacre would be an open and shuit case of war crimes. The trouble is of course that the political pressure exerted by the US to prevent such cases being referred to the ICJ has prevented such an outcome.
The Palestinians live under such rules every day of their lives.
That’s not the point, Winnaca, that I was making.
I will quote the relevant sections of the UN FF Mission to Gaza Report on the killings of the Al Samouni family. Pls excuse the long quote but I think it is worth reading.
The sequential numbers interspersed through the text are footnote numbers – I’ve left them in. Some of the most chilling & grotesque facts are in the footnotes, e.g. footnote 394:
The relevant paragraphs in the report are 706–735.
They appear in the Report under the heading “XI. DELIBERATE ATTACKS AGAINST THE CIVILIAN POPULATION” and one of the prior establishing paragraphs (705) includes the following [my emphasis]:
This is what Goldstone tried to walk back.
Paragraphs 706–735:
All the findings are based on one sided witness accounts.
That is 100% false Oleg.
That statement, and the speed with which you replied to me directing you to my quote of the report, tells me that you have not read the text.
The report used a wide range of sources including witness statements, Palestine and Israel Red Cross statements, IDF spokesperson quotes, Breaking The Silence IDF soldier statements and other NGO reports.
It specifically states that the Mission members found the witnesses to be credible. Recall that the participants aren’t exactly brain dead – eg. Goldstone is a judge. I think they have some experience in collating evidence and judging the credibility of witness testimony.
In March 2009, Goldstone, Travers and Jilani signed an open letter to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the United Nations Security Council, calling for those who perpetrated “gross violations of the laws of war,” “gross violations of international humanitarian law” and “targeting of civilians” to be brought to account. The letter concluded: “The events in Gaza have shocked us to the core. Relief and reconstruction are desperately needed but, for the real wounds to heal, we must also establish the truth about crimes perpetuated against civilians on both sides.”[31] The chief rabbi of South Africa Warren Goldstein and Melanie Phillips asserted that this statement, made before the work of the mission has begun, violated provisions for impartiality of the fact-finding missions.[30][32] Mary Robinson called Goldstone “a dedicated and unimpeachable human rights lawyer and advocate” who “was able to work with the [Human Rights] Council’s president to secure an agreement that he felt confident would permit the mandate to be interpreted in such a way as to allow his team to address the actions taken by both parties to the conflict.”[33]
In January 2009, before her appointment to the mission, Christine Chinkin co-signed a letter published in the Sunday Times describing Israel’s military offensive in Gaza as “an act of aggression.” The letter also stated that the firing of rockets by Hamas into Israel and suicide bombings are “contrary to international humanitarian law and are war crimes.”[34][35] Critics, among them Howard L. Berman, said that Chinkin should have been disqualified to preserve the impartiality of the mission.[36][37][38][39] In August 2009, NGO UN Watch submitted a petition to the UN, calling for Chinkin’s disqualification.[40] In May 2009, Chinkin denied the charges, saying that her statement only addressed jus ad bellum, and not jus in bello.”[41]
The inquiry members said that the mission investigated whether Israel, Hamas or the Palestinian Authority had unnecessarily harmed innocent civilians, stating “On those issues the letter co-signed by Chinkin expressed no view at all.”[42][43] The members wrote that the fact-finding mission was not a judicial or even a quasi-judicial proceeding.[43] Hillel Neuer, director of UN Watch, said that the basic standards for international fact-finding missions had been ignored.[44] Goldstone agreed that the letter could have been the grounds for disqualification if the mission had been a judicial inquiry.[45] Two groups, a group of UK lawyers and academics, and a group of Canadian lawyers, said they supported the UN Watch request that Chinkin be disqualified and expressed disappointment that it was rejected.
Sumud -
I’ve read the entire report, all 575 pages of it, slowly and carefully. One of its many weaknesses is that it purports to know what the IDF intended, without having any access whatsoever to the decision-making process in Israel. True, Israel didn’t offer the information, but still, the fact remains that the commission didn’t have it. Lacking this information, there is no logical grounding for many of the pronouncements of the commission – and perhaps, for all we know, no factual basis, either.
Clearly you have NOT read the report Winnica, but are basing your understanding on 3rd accounts from those who have also not read it. The Goldstone Report NEVER claimed to determine what the IDF intended. In fact, when Goldstone wrote hsi op-ed retraction denouncing that the IDF had a policy of commiting war crimes, David and Lizzy observed that this was a bogus retraction because the original report never made that claim in the first place.
I love how you hasbrats step into your own traps.
Always one for civility, aren’t you Shingo.
I read it, I wrote about it, and the report consistently claimed that the evidence it had collected must demonstrate Israeli intentions. That was the lynchpin of the entire war-crimes pronouncement. Without proven intent there can be no war crimes.
I reserve civility for those not apologizing for uncivilized behavior.
If you had read it and written about it, you’d have no problem citing examples of such passages.
Alas, that seems to be a problem.
No it wasn’t. The lynchpin was what was actually done.
Rubbish, of course there is. Wars of aggression are war crimes.
Oh, and the intent was made abundantly clear. Israel declare they would apply the Dahiyeh doctrine to Gaza, which is nothing more than collective punishment and an explicitly stated willingness rot target civilians.
Winnica: it purports to know what the IDF intended
Where in the quote above, #706-735?
There is proven intent.
Because someone refused to cooperate in case solving. Wonder who it was….
Are you aware of any sovereign nation that would cooperate with such a fact finding mission.
The US perhaps or Russia ?
Yes, Lebanon re the Hariri investigation.
Irrelevant…
OlegR: “All the findings are based on one sided witness accounts.”
Also known as the pseudo argument of Holocaust deniers.
Now i got flashback from 2004. When Israel refused also take part ICJ “security” wall question and didn’t give, when asked, information why wall is necessary & evidence. Yup, instead of evidence Israel managed to pass 135 page essay why this case should’t be in ICJ at all.
And in the case of Cast Lead, they argued that the terms which determine war crimes should be changed.
WOW… OlegR read all that, then found some other evidence to the contrary, which of course he has not supplied and then replied in less than 4 minutes? AMAZING!
Idiots for a Greater Israel seem to have an incredible talent for exposing themselves for what they really are
/Especially armed conflict of choice, when Israel starts a war just for the sake of havign a war./
No evidence just your own prejudices.
/The attack on Gaza was entirely purposeful and the massacre of civilians (which was innevitable), therefore fully intended./
In this case any war no matter what sort of war will include war crimes and therefore
should be abolished.And all leaders should be brought to trial.
I am all for that actually.Begin with JWB and BO.
/It is judged on the stardards of war crimes and international law, and starting a war of agression is the greatest war crime of all./
Again proof that Cast Lead is a war of aggression and not a defensive operation please other then “It makes sence to me”.
/Whereas Israel uses the arguments that:
1. Even though our actions constitute acts of war, any retaliation to those acts of war require a response./
I am sorry can you repeat that in English so i can understand.
/2. Someone fired a rocket, therefore, everyone should be punished./
No every one just those that harbor help and support that someone.
Again. Read the Goldstone Report, instead of posting feeble, unsourced speculative ripostes. They are not one sided, but are corroborated and cross-referenced. You are, in your failure/refusal to understand some basic statements and research. We should believe your idle dismissals, with not a shred of evidence or argument, on the basis that you troll threads you don’t like?
No evidence just your own prejudices.
Wrong. Wikileaks revealed that Israel’s leaders decided a war was necessary, not becasue of rockets, but becasue the ceasefire was benefitting Hamas politically.
link to lobelog.com
Absolutely. Wars themselves are not legitimate, only acts of self defense are. Perventive wars are not legitimate. And yes, any leader who starts a war without the authority of the UNSC should indeed be brought to trial.
No, it is a documented fact. Haaretz reported that Cast Lead was in teh planning 6 months prior. Wikileaks revealed that Cast Lead was intitiated for political reasons, not security reasons.
Starting a war to incicte a response is not in itself a “response” but a continuation of that incitement.
Which for Israel means all Palestinians.
@Shingo “Perventive wars are not legitimate” – does it include wars against Israel? Or is it that fring “firecrackers” on Jewish communities is “self defence”?
@Shingo, do I understand that you agree that firing rockets into Israeli communities is not legitimate? After all, you say above that “they are clearly not self defence”. Or is it a “non-sequitur”?
Of course firing rockets is illegitimate, just as is the occupation, the settlements, the blockade of Gaza etc.
@Shingo, the blockade of Gaza, includes Israel, or just Egypt?
@ asherpat
The colonial ethno-stratocracy including Egypt. It’s based on their peace treaty and on the Crossings Agreement between the occupier and Palestinian Authority. Imports and exports are only allowed via Israel’s borders.
Import:
“… 40% of need, as measured against figures from 2005.”
link to gisha.org
Export:
“… 0.5% of the amount of trucks promised in the AMA. Israel does not allow residents of Gaza to export goods to markets in Israel, the West Bank or Jordan.”
link to gisha.org
AMA:
“3. Link between Gaza and the West Bank
Israel will allow the passage of convoys to facilitate the movements of goods and persons.”
link to mfa.gov.il
@Talkback – Import:
“… 40% of need, as measured against figures from 2005.”
So, it was better during the occupation? Perhaps you will look for a reason. Let’s do it together, let’s find a parameter that statistically explains imports and exports from Gaza? How about we fit a curve based on rocket firing and other acts of war from Gaza on Israeli civilian communities. Wow, the fit is statistically significant and probably explains the changes almost perfectly.
And what exactly is the ethno-stratocastery that you mention?
“So, it was better during the occupation?”
It was better before the blockade. And Gaza is still considererd as occupied. Not only because of the amount of control Israel exercises, but because it is an integral part of the territory Israel occcupies. If Israel was occupied you couldn’t argue that Haifa is not occupied if the occupying troops are camping outside of it’s city borders.
“Perhaps you will look for a reason.”
It is very simple. Israel doesn’t let 60% in. That’s the reason why only 40% goes through. It’s not Qassam science.
“How about we fit a curve based on rocket firing and other acts of war from Gaza on Israeli civilian communities. Wow, the fit is statistically significant and probably explains the changes almost perfectly.”
Maybe in the Hasbara nebula but not in our universe. Because even during the mull the number of trucks never exceeded 50%, although a significant release was agreed:
July: 4715,5; August: 3222,5; September: 3707; and October: 2578,5 per month compared to 10,400 trucks before the blockade.
link to ochaopt.org
It went from less than a half down to a quarter during the mull! But it didn’t provoke Hamas, so Israel had to kill some of its members. It had no other choice, right?
(“In July 2002, Israel moved quickly to avert yet another political catastrophe. With assistance from European diplomats, militant Palestinian organizations, including Hamas, reached an accord to suspend all attacks inside Israel, perhaps paving the way for a return to the negotiating table. Just 90 minutes before it was to be announced, however, Israeli leaders – fully apprised of the imminent declaration – ordered an F-16 to drop a one-ton bomb on a densely-populated civilian neighborhood in Gaza, killing, alongside a Hamas leader, 11 children and five others, and injuring 140. Predictably, the declaration was scrapped and Palestinian terrorist attacks resumed with a vengeance. “What is the wisdom here?” a Meretz party leader asked the Knesset. “At the very moment that it appeared that we were on the brink of a chance for reaching something of a cease-fire, or diplomatic activity, we always go back to this experience – just when there is a period of calm, we liquidate.” Yet, having headed off another dastardly Palestinian “peace offensive,” the murderous assault made perfect sense.” link to normanfinkelstein.com)
And even during all the years of the blockade the number of trucks never exceeded half of the numbers that were needed before the bloackade (see link). And the need then was lower than the need after Israel’s campaign of civilian massacre and destruction.
Do you find 300 killed Palestinians (every 1.01 day) and 14,000 Israeli artillery shells (every 31 minutes) ALONE IN 2006 “statistically significant”?
“And what exactly is the ethno-stratocastery that you mention?”
I wrote “ethno-stratocracy”.