NO ONE is responsible for this many attacks on innocent civilians, except the ones attacking them

[bigtree]

Last edited Wed Jul 30, 2014, 02:27 PM - Edit history (4)

It's bullshit, plain and simple to blame Hamas for Israel's direct attacks on the civilian population in Gaza. It's even more ludicrous to blame the non-combatant civilians for the attacks, as some have done. No one is responsible for those attacks, except the Israeli attackers. That's not only common sense, it's also the dictate of international laws that govern military conflict.

How can our government justify standing by, almost silent to the crimes - except to remind us that they hold Hamas responsible for Israel's actions; claiming beyond any proof offered at all, that it's Hamas putting these Palestinian victims in the way of the missile attacks? Never for a moment allowing that anyone on the Israeli side is responsible for placing civilians underneath Hamas sympathizer's rockets.

Where are the demands that Israel show any proof that the risk from their targets outweigh the risk to Palestinian civilians? There is none. Israeli citizens are protected by an 'Iron Dome' of defense; Palestinians have no such protection.

The U.S. defenders of Israel may well claim that Hamas is responsible for the violence and the killing by Israelis of men, women, and children, who are doing little more than dodging Israel's bombs and bullets. However, it's not clear at all what they expect Palestinian civilians to do to prevent combatants, on either side, from engaging in violence.

In any instance, how can anyone claim that these civilians are in any way responsible for that? Where is the risk from the children they're maiming and blowing to bits? What is the goal of Israel, outside of outright punishment for things over which they have absolutely no control?

Is it the annihilation of Palestinians that they're trying to effect, or is it some sort of punishment or coercion? Neither is within any moral boundaries that Americans assume our nation represents or stands for.

History will remember how our government stood by and allowed this violence against unarmed civilians - actively funded the Israeli military effort and even considered funding them more at the same time their 'allies' bombs were falling on homes, schools, hospitals, refuge centers where civilians huddled to escape the unending carnage. History will correctly judge our nation as criminally callous and complicit in these crimes against humanity.

History will wonder at our arrogance, and at our inability to restrain our military and its agents from pursuing ambitions far outside of the mandate of our constitution or conscience. We can scarcely hope to repair the injustice and the pain which our great and powerful nation has caused, around the world and here at home; through our greed, with our zeal, and by our neglect.


related:

Protection of civilians during armed conflict is a cornerstone of international humanitarian law

Civilians in war

UNRWA Condemns Israeli Shelling Of Its School In Gaza As Serious Violation Of International Law

[daleanime]

1. K&R....

[bigtree]

3. proof?

. . . no proof offered for such a serious charge.

You can't justify the carnage in Gaza with such a blanket statement. Nor can you justify the carnage in THIS conflict by posting an article from 2012. I'm surprised that you would presume to draw such an equivalency in THIS conflict based on an unrelated incident reported from over two years ago.

[bigtree]

6. those weren't the schools where casualties occurred from Israeli bombing

. . . in fact, many schools have been bombed, several with multiple civilian casualties; homes, hospitals, and refuge centers, as well. THOSE are the schools and civilian areas where it must be shown that there is a risk to Israel that outweighs the risk to civilians. That's the proof I'm talking about.

*edit

[U4ikLefty]

5. What about the rockets that are destrying Gaza?

I'm very disappointed. I guess compassion is in short supply when Israel does the killing.

[ReRe]

9. K&R

That's right. And we thought history would be unkind to the GWB cabal. Yeah, the USA has not been making very good history since HST needlessly dropped those atom bombs on Japan and gave birth to the National Security State some 67 & 69 years ago. And it just gets worse as time proceeds. Thank you for the dose of reality, bigtree. I hope others get a chance to see it.

[ChiciB1]

10. No Doubt... So Very Lopsided...

Will it never end???

[Enthusiast]

11. K&R! The Neo-Con war mongers are still hoping to spark that greater Middle East war.

You know, the one they wanted when they stole the 2000 presidential election and allowed (encouraged) 911.

The eyes of the zealots are growing bright as they contemplate the End Times®.

Hey, it will pay for itself and deficits don't matter.

[bigtree]

12. kick

[Bettie]

13. It's a disgrace

And our government is standing by and watching.

Disgusting.

[Igel]

14. It's not "one size fits all."

There are instances--high-ranking military targets, munitions, fighters--in buildings with civilians. The civilians get it. "Proof" is often sufficient to establish likelihood, but usually in these cases "proof" for some will be a list of each and every item or person destroyed with the list of those people who'd have been killed by them if not destroyed. In other words, the level of proof skyrockets when you don't like the most probable verdict.

In such cases, though, the ultimate responsibility is going to be upon those who were responsible for protecting the civilians during armed conflict. And that's going to be the fighters and government who put them at risk. In these cases--it seems important to reiterate that clause each and every time because otherwise it might be taken as a blanket statement--the responsibility is Hamas'. It's not blaming the victim. It's blaming the guilty, even if they're also victims. One can be both quite easily.


There are also instances where those hurling the bombs people do bad things. If you like to think that your side is composed of innocents and angels and the other side composed of devils and demons, so be it. But there will be cases where a school is hit, possibly by accident or possibly because they believed there was a legitimate target.


Or perhaps because their standard of proof for making something a viable military target is simply lower than yours. This is a common problem because all the talk of "proportionate" and "sufficient" is non-quantifiable. It's also a common problem because people in groups make very far-reaching assumptions to justify those they self-group with or those they are in solidarity with, and equally far-reaching assumptions to denigrate those that they put on the other side of the group line or feel antipathy for. In any event, we're not really important enough as judges and officers of the court to merit having all the evidence sealed for our perusal. What we get from each side is for the court of public opinion, which is a far cry from any sort of legal proceedings.


Sometimes "war crimes" requires intent; sometimes the word seems to require at least negligence, failing to avoid something that could have been avoided and which was easily predicted *in advance* (we're all very good at predicting things after the fact); sometimes it just requires an outcome that people don't like, even if it couldn't have been predicted and negligence is a hard case to prove.

[bigtree]

16. I don't see fine lines here

. . .the risk to those launching the bombs into the homes, schools, hospitals, refuge centers, must outweigh the risk to the civilians in the way of those bombings. It's not an abstract concept.

Just pointing out that bombs have been found in vacant and unoccupied schools - as the UN has done regarding two vacant schools in the past couple of days - isn't a blanket excuse or justification for other instances where occupied refuge centers, clearly notifying Israel that they are being used as such, have been bombed with multiple munitions.

Even though the UN, itself, reported and condemned the two instances this week where they found rockets stored at the vacant locations, UN authorities are still labeling the deadly attacks on refuge centers based in schools as serious and actionable violations of international law.

Retweeted by United Nations
UNRWA ?@UNRWA 1h
#UNRWA Strongly Condemns Israeli Shelling of Its School in #Gaza as a Serious Violation of International Law: http://www.unrwa.org//newsroom/official-statements/unrwa-strongly-condemns-israeli-shelling-its-school-gaza-serious#.U9jgCdJLOmo.twitter

A Palestinian reporter on Democracy Now put it plainly: he said that even if there were Hamas combatants present at these occupied locations that are being attacked, the civilians killed far exceeded any number of combatants killed in those raids. That's what I'm referring to when I speak of the need and requirement of a risk to Israel outweighing the risk to civilians in the line of fire.

[CBGLuthier]

15. Well I would also include the ones who financed it, you know, the USA

[bigtree]

17. absolutely

. . . and are contemplating financing even more, poised to approve millions more as we speak to further strengthen Israel's 'Iron Dome' of defense. What about protection for the Palestinian civilians?

[onenote]

18. Are there really DUers blaming the civilians?

That doesn't make sense.
On the other hand, absolving Hamas of any responsibility also doesn't make any sense.

[bigtree]

20. why do you consider this to be directed toward DUers?

. . . and claiming that this is 'absolving Hamas of any responsibility' isn't
accurate and a cop-out - a deflection.

I think most people could understand a defensive attack in a civilian or residential area if there was some target's risk to Israel which outweighed the risk to civilians.

However, this level of carnage can't be justified as a legitimate defense. There is no risk to Israel from the Palestinian civilians caught in the way of their bombs; no more than the civilians caught underneath the bombs lobbed at Israel pose any risk to Hamas or Palestinians.

Nor can the indiscriminate bombings be justified by declaring that one side or the other initiated the conflict.

As the International Red Cross states: The protection of civilians during armed conflict is a cornerstone of international humanitarian law.

Protocol 1
Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977

http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm

PART IV: CIVILIAN POPULATION
Section 1: General Protection Against Effects of Hostilities

Article 51: Protection of the Civilian Population

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.

2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:

a. those which are not directed at a specific military objective;

b. those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or

c. those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

a. an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as
a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and

b. an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.

7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57. (http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm#a57 )

Article 57: Precautions in Attack

1. In the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects.

2. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:

a. those who plan or decide upon an attack shall:

i. do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection but are military objectives within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 52 and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this Protocol to attack them;

ii. take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects;

iii. refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;

b. an attack shall be canceled or suspended if it becomes apparent that the objective is not a military one or is subject to special protection or that the attack may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;

c. effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not pemmit.

3. When a choice is possible between several military objectives for obtaining a similar military advantage, the objective to be selected shall be that the attack on which may be expected to cause the least danger to civilian lives and to civilian objects.

4. In the conduct of military operations at sea or in the air, each Party to the conflict shall, in conformity with its rights and duties under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, take all reasonable precautions to avoid losses of civilian lives and damage to civilian objects

5. No provision of this article may be construed as authorizing any attacks against the civilian population, civilians or civilian objects.

full list of provisions: http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm

[onenote]

21. I asked a question. I guess you've answered it.

[bigtree]

25. thank you for the opportunity

[Scootaloo]

28. Hamas is responsible for Hamas

The decisions Israel makes, are Israel's decisions, not Hamas'.

This ain't rocket surgery y'all

[LannyDeVaney]

19. Just imagine ...

if after the Boston Marathon bombing, we started shelling every subdivision where the bomber was hiding.

[oberliner]

22. Or imagine...

Indiscriminate bombing of Iraqi cities and villages on the vague notion that the government might have WMDs.

Or killing thousands upon thousands of Afghanis because folks there provided shelter for OBL.

[Scootaloo]

27. Both, well-condemned from the left

Save, of course, the John mcCain wing of the democratic party

[MisterP]

29. or if *Russia* did

[aikoaiko]

23. Its hard for me to believe history will judge this as more than ongoing skirmish in an endless war

a la first and second intifada.

[Pisces]

24. K& R !!!!!

[PAProgressive28]

26. If you believe Israel's word that they aren't targeting civilians

then they have the most incompetent army the world has ever seen.

Or they are liars.

Either one.

[bigtree]

30. .

Agence France-Presse ?@AFP 2h
Carnage in war-torn Gaza as strike hits packed market http://u.afp.com/e7p via @YahooNews @Johnny_Davo