Login : Register Home : Tags

Geneva Convention

Palestinian war crimes

Anglosphere

What is your first impression of Israel going to be from this headline? HUSBAND, HIS WIFE AND THEIR SEVEN CHILDREN KILLED BY ISRAELI SHELLS IN GAZA. Nasty Israel, right?

Dr. Al Saqqa identified the killed family members as Nabil Abu Salmiya, his wife Salwa, both 39, and their seven children were identified as Nasrallah, Basima, 16, Sumayya, 12, Huda, 8, Eman, 11, Aya, 7, and Yahia, 13.

Tragedy, I can't deny that.

None of the killed and injured residents is affiliated with any resistance group.

Army claimed targeting a senior leader of Hamas' armed wing, Mohammad Deif, and several leaders of the Al Qassam Brigades, several leaders of Hamas' armed wing were present at the targeted house, according to army sources.

The army added that Deif was at the house of Abu Salmiya, one of the leaders of the Hamas movement.

Meanwhile, Abu Obeida, media spokesperson of the brigades, said that Deif was unharmed in the attack.

Unharmed. Why did he not say he was not present?

Abu Obaida, spokesman of Al-Qassam brigade, said Deif and Al-Ghandour are safe and were not harmed and vowed a painful revenge.

Safe. Why even bother to mention that when they were not present, had been or were planning to?

The Israeli Air Force carried out a similar attack on a house in Gaza in June 2002, killing Hamas operative Salah Shihadeh and 17 other civilians including elders, women and children.

After bombarding the house, which was leveled to the ground, eyewitnesses said the same warplane fired a missile at a car in an attempt to kill Raed Sa'ad, another Qassam brigade operative.

Sa'ad managed to jump out of the car before it was hit by the missile, witnesses said.

Wow, these brigade operatives sure spend a lot of time in houses with elders, women and children. Not exactly recommended by the Fourth Geneva Convention:

The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids the use of any civilian as a shield: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations." (Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3516, 75 U.N.T.S. 287, art. 28)

Sure, one can put "Israel" in the headline, but wouldn't someone who actually understands the most significant facts from the article make one along the lines of "Hamas commits war crime"? Surely such meetings could take place without so many civilians? Even assuming all these leaders where buddies, it's hardly the time for a neighbourhood BBQ when you're job descriptions are "war and death to Israel". There is a defensive responsibility for preventing civilian harm as well, and it is clear Hamas does not care much about taking that responsibility.

Update: Hezbollah too uses human shields. Robert McClelland concludes Israel is terrorist, but in this case I clearly think the onus is on Hezbollah for failing to protect citizens by hiding amongst them, which is a war crime.

Arjan on Gitmo legislation

Anglosphere

It's always nice to read words I agree with: it saves me a lot of time to formulate opinions and thoughts myself. Instead I can just add a hyperlink. On his ZachtEi, Arjan is damn right about Gitmo:

My position on Guantanamo Bay is well known: since the prisoners there don't fall under the protection of the Geneva convention, and habeas corpus doesn't apply, Congress should adopt laws which classify them as - well, as something other than nothing - and which guarantee some sort of due process. They've had four years to do so and I think it's about bloody time they got on with it.

I've pointed out the absence of Geneva protection myself, even quoting the darned thing. I didn't call for legislation at the time as my particular post was a defence of Bush and not Congress, but I totally agree with Arjan's position.

Mind you, he's still quite critical of so-called "innocent bystanders":

Yeah, I like to go hiking in dangerous, remote areas of the world too, especially when Al Qaeda training camps are within walking distance and America is about to start bombing the shit out of it. Napalm reminds me of the sunny sugar cane fields of Jamaica. Puh-leeze.

I have also heard apologists say something like this: Afghanistan is poor so people can't afford distinctive uniforms as required by Geneva, while when foreigners invade your country it is normal to have a first reaction in the form of shooting at them. I'm still curious where exactly missile launchers are cheaper than clothes. Perhaps in Paris, where the poorest of the poor can afford ten thousands of molotov cocktails a year, even at today's petrol prices.

© Copyright 1995-2008 Robert John Kaper. All rights reserved.

Tom has more friends but mine are prettier! (#1/1)